doc_robinson long pdf

Boise City Planning and Zoning ClearWire Applications # CUP08‐00030, CUP08‐00031, and CUP08‐00032 Meeting Date: May 5, 2008 Packet assembled and presented by neighborhood resident: Barbara Robinson, 1507 Longmont Avenue, Boise ID 83706 ‐ 343‐2327 Spanning a decade these articles and research include international wireless studies regarding microwaves, radio waves, and cell phones. The first article was conducted by an organization affiliated with the wireless industry. It has been said by industry spokespeople that there are not enough studies to determine if wireless waves are dangerous. However, thousands of studies have been conducted and provide evidence that these waves are detrimental to all living things. 1. Cell Phone Poisoning of America – Comprehensive article about the health effects, exposure risks and conditions, radiation, cell phone industry’s study, cell tower dangers, effects on children, government’s position, lessons from history, and a 1999 letter to AT&T chairman Michael Armstrong from George Carlos, Wireless Technology Research regarding wireless safety. 2. Wireless Radiation: The Hidden Hazard, Mar/Apr 2007 –Washington Free Press ‐ includes 48 references. 3. How Cell Phone Radiation Affects Your Cells – New Scientist, Feb. 2008 & BC Genomics, 2008. 4. True Dangers of Mobile Phones and Wireless Technology – MasterNewMedia.org, March 2006. 5. Growing Concern Over Safety of Cell Phones for Children – March 2008 (comments regarding incorrect content added by Susan Clarke, director of the Environmental Health Advocacy League) 6. The City Removes the Phone Mast in a School – LeProgres, Feb. 2008. 7. Why Mobile Phone Masts Can be More Dangerous Than The Phones, March 2008. 8. Mobile Phones More Dangerous Than Smoking – UK Independent, March 2008. 9. Electrical Sensitive Objectively Different to Controls – Powerwatch, 2008. 10. Low Frequency, High Tension – AlterNet, 1998. 11. Men Who Use Mobile Phones Face Increased Risk of Infertility – Daily Mail, Oct. 2006. 12. Sperm Quality Inversely Proportional to Cell Phone Usage – Oct. 2006. 13. High Mobile Use Puts Us At Risk of Brain Tumours ‐ dnaindia.com. 14. Russian Government on Children and Cell Phones – Worldcitizennet, April 2008. 15. It’s a Control Thing: Vermont vs Cell phone Towers ‐ New York Times, March, 1998. 16. Four articles from The Independent.co.uk (2007): •
Danger on the airwaves: Is the Wi‐Fi revolution a health time bomb? •
•
•
•
Wi‐Fi: Children at risk from ‘electronic smog’ The school that took on mobile phone companies Hi‐tech horrors Are mobile phones wiping out our bees? “The Cell Phone Poisoning Of America”
“Electromagnetic pollution may be the most significant form of pollution human
activity has produced this century, all the more dangerous because it is invisible and
insensible.”
That statement was made by Andrew Weil, MD, noted best-selling author of eight books,
a Harvard Medical School graduate, and internationally recognized expert on medicinal
herbs and integrative medicine. When you read the rest of this report you’ll understand
why his statement is completely on target.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Some facts behind cell phone use:
Talking on a cell phone as little as 500 minutes a month can increase the
probability of brain cancer by 300%
Cell phone radiation has been shown to damage and break living DNA
Cell phone radiation causes leakage of the blood-brain barrier allowing toxins to
damage sensitive brain tissue
Cell phones worn by men on a belt clip can reduce sperm count by 30%
After using a cell phone for six years the risk of developing an acoustic neuroma
(a tumor of the auditory nerve) increases by 50%
Cell phone radiation increases estrogen and adrenaline levels in the body
disrupting hormonal balance
A two-minute call alters a child’s brain function for an hour
Russians Knew About This A Long Time Ago
Between 1953 and 1976 the Russians directed electromagnetic radiation directly at the
US embassy in Moscow. The radiation was a continual round-the-clock bombardment.
Soon the embassy staff became ill. The US ambassador to Russia developed leukemia
and was forced to return to the United States. His replacement also developed leukemia
and he, too, had to be replaced. Staff members continually became ill and complained of
memory loss, brain fog, loss of focus and insomnia during their stay in the embassy.
“Radio Frequency Sickness Syndrome” was a condition the Russians had earlier
identified in experiments. So they knew what they were doing. They actually used
electromagnetic radiation as a weapon against the United States embassy staff. Yet, today
our government and the industries involved promote this same technology as safe and
convenient. Convenient it is but safe it is not.
How Do Cell Phones Work?
Cell phones are really just radio transmitters emitting signals through radio waves. These
waves are a form of electromagnetic radiation (EMR). When you turn your cell phone on
it locates itself by broadcasting a series of signals to your cell phone carrier’s closest cell
phone tower. The carrier then relays that information to the nearest mobile telephone
switching office, or MTSO, which then pings back a signal to tell your phone if its
roaming. When making a call the phone sends its data to the carrier’s nearest tower and
then it is sent on to the switching office. From there the call is sent to the switching office
in the area code of the number you are calling. Once the connection is made the cell
phone’s transmitter packages your voice or text data onto a second radio wave. This
second wave is called the Information Carrying Radio Wave, or ICRW. When the call is
received by the recipient’s switching office a connection is made through the nearest
tower that connects the call with your phone. Through a processor in the phone the digital
information signal is converted into an analog signal so you can hear a voice. All this
occurs in an average time of four to eight seconds.
Each cell phone contains its own transmitter. The purpose of the transmitter is to encode
information onto a radio wave. This wave radiates out from the phone’s antenna evenly
through space. The information being encoded, for example, could be the sound of your
voice or the data from your text message. The transmitter then will send the encoded
wave, with your information or voice, to the antenna and the antenna will then send the
signal. The function of the antenna is to propel these radio waves out into space so that a
receiver in a nearby cell tower will pick them up.
Where The “Cell” In Cell Phone Comes From
Cell phone towers emit signals in a “flower petal” pattern around the tower. This 360degree radius around the tower is called a “cell” and this is what the term “cell” in cell
phone means. When your phone is in a “cell” you get good reception and when it isn’t in
a “cell” you get poor reception. So, for a cell phone company to provide complete
coverage cell phone towers and antenna towers must be positioned all across the country
so that the “cells” overlap. You can begin to see what a huge infrastructure needs to be
created to provide complete cell phone coverage. That’s why cell phone towers and
antenna towers are so prevalent. Furthermore, that’s why these antennas are installed in
so many places like rooftops, firestations, schools and churches.
What Exactly Is Cell Phone Radiation?
Electromagnetic radiation is a form of energy consisting of a magnetic field and an
electrical field. Cell phone radiation is a form of electromagnetic radiation. All
electromagnetic radiation falls within a spectrum that can range from extremely low
frequency radiation, or ELFs, all the way to microwaves, X-Rays and gamma rays. For
example, electrical power lines and wiring in our homes are found at the low end of the
spectrum and operate at a 60 Hz frequency. AM radio operates at one megahertz, or 1
MHz. Cell phones operate in the range of 800 to 2200 MHz, with most operating at 1900
MHz. At the high end of the energy spectrum we find X-Rays that operate at more than
1,000,000 MHz. Radiation energy at the high end of the spectrum like X-Rays and
gamma rays is also known as “ionizing” radiation since they is so powerful that they can
break chemical bonds in the body and produce genetic damage. Radiation at the low end
of the spectrum is known as “non-ionizing” radiation. Here we find such devices as cell
phones, cell phone towers, wireless routers, etc. This form of radiation is too weak to
break chemical bonds is why many are of the belief that cell phone radiation is harmless.
When the radio wave from a cell phone is oscillating at 1900 MHz, (or one thousand nine
hundred million cycles per second) it is moving too fast for the body to detect. The body
will not recognize it. Radiation moving this fast would only be recognized if it were
driven by high power. 100 watts of power would be considered high power. Power of this
magnitude would definitely be recognized and would cause biological damage through
the heating of tissue. Since cell phones aren’t strong enough to heat biological tissue the
mechanism by which they cause harm occurs in a different manner. This mechanism will
be explained in a different section of this report.
Helpful Terms To Understand
Electricity is simply the flow of electrons. This may occur over a high power
transmission line or through wiring in our homes and offices. Whenever electricity passes
through a wire two fields of force are created. One is an electrical field and the other is a
magnetic field. In the U.S. electrical current reverses direction 60 times each second and
thus is called alternating current, or AC. The cycles of current are measured in a unit
called Hertz, or Hz, so named for the German physicist Heinrich Hertz. Hertz, (Hz) is
simply defined as the number of cycles per second. Electrical current in the U.S. operates
at 60 Hz while electricity in most other parts of the world operates at 50 Hz. Most
electric power in the U.S. is of an extremely low frequency, i.e., under 3000 Hz. As
frequencies increase, the distance between one wave and the next becomes shorter and
shorter. As a consequence, there is a greater amount of energy generated in the field.
Shorter wavelengths mean greater energy. Electrical fields can be shielded rather easily
by using metallic barriers. However, magnetic fields, such as those in the 60 Hz range,
will easily penetrate through most any barrier and they become very difficult if not
impossible to shield. So it’s important to understand the term Hertz (Hz) since it is used
commonly to express the frequencies of appliances and devices like cell phones. As we
said, cell phones operate in the frequency range of 800 to 2200 million hertz, or 800-2200
MHz. Megahertz, or MHz, is one million hertz and gigahertz, or GHz, is one billion
hertz, or one billion cycles per second. To make a comparison the human heart, being
dependent upon electrical function, beats in a frequency of 2 Hz, or two cycles per
second.
Another important term is gauss, or milligauss (mG). This unit measures the intensity of
the magnetic field. It was so named for the German astronomer and mathematician Karl
Gauss. A milligauss is one one-thousandth of one gauss. As an example, the earth has a
natural magnetic field that has been measured to be about 0.5 gauss. Since humans have
been exposed to the earth’s natural magnetic field from their beginning this natural
magnetic field is not harmful. However, power lines, electrical appliances, electrical
wiring, cell phones, etc. all give off magnetic fields that are not natural to mankind. The
intensity of these fields is expressed through the term milligauss. Cancer cells are known
to develop at a level of three milligauss. Epidemiological studies show that magnetic
fields above 3-4 milligauss have led to a doubling of risk for childhood leukemia. A
magnetic field of one milligauss has the potential to produce developmental
abnormalities in growing embryos. Most scientists believe we should be exposed to no
more than 1 mG. Small, handheld meters called gaussmeters can be purchased
inexpensively to measure the electromagnetic field in working and living areas for
“hotspots.”
Hertz measures frequency and milligauss measures intensity. Keep those terms in mind
as you read information on devices such as cell phones and common household
appliances.
Fewer Signal Bars Mean More Danger
Always pay attention to the signal bars on the display panel of your cell phone. Fewer
bars mean a weaker signal. A weaker signal means the cell phone will generate more
power to maintain the connection. More power means greater exposure to the radiation
from the phone. Ideally, always try to talk outdoors in an open space. This allows an
easier connection from your cell phone to the nearest cell phone tower. The easier the
connection the less power is needed to stay connected. Also, avoid making cell phone
calls from cars, buses, trains or planes. These enclosures make the connection more
difficult and also tend to concentrate the radiation within the enclosure.
Why Are Cell Phones Dangerous?
The cell phone generates a wireless signal that communicates with the nearest cell phone
tower. This signal is a form of radiation, often called cell phone radiation. Cell phone
radiation is one type of electromagnetic radiation, or EMR. Other types of EMR include
radio frequencies (RF), microwaves (MW) and electromagnetic frequencies or EMFs.
There are additional forms of radiation but these are the most common. It is important to
note that this is not the same radiation as nuclear radiation or radiation from X-Rays.
Those forms of radiation are referred to as ionizing radiation and they contain enough
energy to break chemical bonds in the body. The form of radiation to which we are
referring is found in the very low-frequency end of the electromagnetic spectrum and is
generated from items such as television, AM and FM radio, radar, microwave
communication devices, electrical wiring, power transmission lines and, of course, cell
phones. All electric and electronic devices produce some varying amounts of
electromagnetic radiation. That is, they create both an electric and a magnetic field. There
is overwhelming evidence of significant biological consequences from being exposed to
these forms of radiation, including that of cell phones. One of the problems is that cell
phone radiation can’t be seen. It’s invisible. And for most people, it can’t be sensed or
felt either. We can’t see, feel or hear the thousands upon thousands of EMR frequencies
that are continuously bombarding every cell in our body every minute of every day. With
the explosion of wireless technology being used in our everyday lives we are drowning in
a sea of microwaves and cell phone radiation.
This insidious and invisible toxin called electromagnetic radiation is polluting our world
and wrecking havoc on our health. We think because we can’t see it or feel it that it isn’t
there. But, frankly, there isn’t a time during any day when we are not exposed to the
damaging effect of cell phone radiation and EMR. In fact, never before in the history of
civilization has this type of environment existed. The United States, Canada, Western
Europe and China emit so much EMR that it is even detectable by satellites in outer
space.
Here’s How The Harm Happens
Damage from the cell phone comes from two sources. The first is from the near-field
plume of radiation from the cell phone’s antenna. This plume of radiation extends out a
distance of six or seven inches from the phone in all directions. This near-field plume has
been studied most extensively and contains the most intense energy. Therefore, it is able
to penetrate deeper into biological tissue. This radiation is absorbed when the cell phone
is held in close proximity to the body. This radiation is also given off by wireless laptop
computers and similar devices and the near-field plume from these devices extends out a
similar distance. Later in this report you will see a picture from a study showing the depth
of this near-field plume of radiation into the head. So you don’t want to have a cell
phone, wireless laptop or any similar electronic device too close to your body due to this
near-field plume. And never put the cell phone’s antenna in your mouth.
The second form of damage comes from something called the Information Carrying
Radio Wave, or ICRW. The cell phone signal is made up of two parts. The first part of
the signal oscillates at 1900 megahertz. This wave is moving too fast for the body to
recognize and is not causing harm as far as we can tell. However, when a person speaks
or text messages the information is “piggy-backed” or packeted onto the first wave
creating a second wave or signal. This is the information carrying radio wave, or ICRW.
It oscillates at a frequency around 2 Hz. In this range the ICRW is recognized by the
body and it is this wave that is causing the damage.
Receptors are located on the surface of each cells membrane. These receptors are both
chemical and vibrational. The vibrational receptors pick up signals which oscillate in the
hertz range. As the information from the ICRW contacts the vibrational receptor the
ICRW is recognized as a foreign invader.
Remember, we’re all exposed in this cross-fire of ICRWs from our cell phones and the
cell phones of all those people around us on a continual basis. When the body senses that
a foreign invader is present it moves to protect itself. It does this by shutting down the
active transport channels in the cell membrane. As a result, the cell membrane becomes
hard because the nutrients that are in the space between the cells can’t get inside the cell
to nourish it. This happens in all cells such as brain cells, blood cells, skin cells, etc. The
good nutrients we consume in the form of vitamins and supplements cannot get inside the
cell where they are needed for nourishment. Therefore, the cell suffers from a lack of
nutrients. Conversely, the toxins and free radicals that build up inside the cell as a part of
our body’s normal metabolic processes can’t get out. This build up of toxins and free
radicals inside the cell destroy and damage the mitochondria. The mitochondria are the
organelles inside the cell that produce energy. When no energy is made the cell cannot
detoxify nor does it have energy to communicate with surrounding cells. Consequently,
our vital cell-to-cell communication is lost. When this communication is lost a basic
physiological process is disrupted. Messages between cells can’t get sent, needed
hormones are not secreted and the immune system can’t respond appropriately.
As waste material and free radicals build up inside the cell mitochondria is damaged and
cellular dysfunction ensues. To illustrate, if a certain group of cells were functioning to
keep the blood-brain barrier closed and these cells could no longer perform that task then
leakage of the blood-brain barrier would occur. Indeed, this leakage of the blood-brain
barrier was one of the findings in the research done by Dr. Carlo’s team.
The free radicals that build up inside the cell also interfere with the repair of DNA. Many
studies have shown the formation of something inside the cell called micronuclei
following exposure to information carrying radio waves. Micronuclei are fragments of
DNA that break off but still have the ability to form a cell membrane and replicate. They
are precursors to cancer formation and present no problem as long as they remain inside
the cell. But when the damaged cells undergo their normal programmed cell death, called
apoptosis, the contents of the cell, including micronuclei, are released into the nutrientrich space between the cells. Normally, the immune system, through the release of
macrophages would rid the body of these improperly formed cells. But because the
communication system has been disrupted the message to the immune system doesn’t
arrive. So now these micronuclei sit in a nutrient-rich environment and are free to clone.
And this is the beginning of a tumor.
What Health Effects Are Being Linked To Cell Phone Radiation?
It is indeed naïve to think that all the radiation that moves invisibly through our body on a
daily basis is not harmful. Quite the contrary. If these invisible EMR waves can move
easily through the concrete walls of buildings, as we know they do, they will easily pass
invisibly through the soft tissue of your body. Think about it. You can make a cell phone
call from the basement of a building in New York City and easily connect to someone in
a building in Los Angeles, CA. That’s a powerful signal. And as this microwave signal
moves through us it wrecks havoc on our biochemistry on a continual basis as we have
just described. Consequently, our society becomes sicker and sicker as the incidence of
degenerative diseases continues to plague us. In fact, numerous studies have linked longterm EMR exposure to increased risks for such conditions as:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Alzheimer’s disease
Autism
Parkinson’s disease
Heart disease
Brain tumors
Leukemia
Fatigue
Depression
Immune system disorders
Learning disabilities
Memory loss
Sleep disorders and insomnia
Headaches and migraines
Loss of concentration
Lowered sperm counts
Increased blood pressure
DNA damage
Blood-brain barrier damage
Hormonal imbalance
The list of symptoms and conditions being linked to cell phone radiation and wireless
technology is long and this short list represents only a few of the conditions now linked to
cell phone radiation and EMR.
Cell Phone Radiation Affects Hormone Levels
Charles Graham, PhD, physiologist at the Midwest Research Institute in Kansas City,
MO., has conducted studies indicating that electromagnetic radiation alters hormone
levels. When women were exposed to elevated levels of EMR overnight in the
laboratory their levels of estrogen increased. It has long been known that elevated
estrogen levels are a risk for cancer development. In men, testosterone levels were
reduced following exposure to EMR. Reduced testosterone levels have been linked to
prostate and testicular cancers.
We read a lot today about the harmful effects of “estrogen mimickers” produced from the
multitude of many chemicals and pollutants in our environment. Indeed, these products
that mimic the effects of estrogen have a damaging effect on the body in terms of their
disruption to proper hormonal balance. Dr. Graham believes that the electromagnetic
radiation may fit the description of an endocrine disruptor better than many of the known
environmental hormone mimickers. He feels this occurs because EMR appears to cause
its effects by acting on and through hormones as opposed to acting as a hormone as
mimickers do.
For many years women all over the world have been prescribed the drug tamoxifen as a
means to prevent recurrence of breast cancer. In a study done by Harland, Lee, Levine,
and Liburdy, and published in Electricity and Magnetism in Biology and Medicine, 1998,
it was shown that tamoxifen lost its ability to halt the proliferation of cancer cells when
exposed to EMR. The amount of electromagnetic radiation used to produce this effect
was 12 milligauss. This amount of EMR is generated when commonly used appliances
like hairdryers, vacuum cleaners, can openers, computers, microwave ovens desk lamps,
and electric clocks are in use. Imagine the implications of this. Women who were taking
a drug to help prevent them from getting breast cancer again may have had the drug
rendered useless by the exposure to EMR from common household appliances! That’s a
powerful effect and certainly a serious one.
Cell Phone Radiation Inhibits Melatonin
Studies have also shown that electromagnetic radiation inhibits the production of a
hormone called melatonin. Melatonin is secreted by the pineal gland in the brain and is
produced about 90 minutes after falling asleep. Thus, melatonin levels rise at night and
remain low during the day. Melatonin has many useful effects but the most common is
that of regulating the sleep cycle. When cell phone radiation, or other EMR, inhibits this
important hormone the sleep cycle is compromised. Could this be one reason why so
many people today have insomnia? Is the multitude of sleep problems in America today a
result of all the radiation in our environment? Perhaps so.
Why is this important? If you don’t get into the deeper phases of sleep your body cannot
repair itself. Cells don’t rejuvenate. Sleep is necessary for this repair process to occur.
81% of young people 15 to 20 years of age sleep with their cell phone on. Considering
the value of melatonin to our health the implications of this statistic are frightening.
A study published in the British Medical Journal The Lancet, December 2007, found that
a woman’s risk of breast cancer was increased 60% if she worked the night shift. Men’s
risk of prostate cancer was also increased. Why does this happen? Light raises cortisol
levels. Cortisol is produced by the adrenal gland which is activated by light. Light
furthermore inhibits production of melatonin by the pineal gland in the brain. So the
combination of increased cortisol, which suppresses our immune system, and decreased
melatonin, which suppresses tumor development leads to conditions favorable for the
possible development of cancer. And, of course, melatonin regulates estrogen. So when
melatonin isn’t produced in adequate amounts estrogen suppression is removed. And as
stated earlier, estrogen is a risk factor for breast cancer development.
Another important function of melatonin is that it is a powerful antioxidant and is very
efficient in destroying free radicals. Destruction of free radicals and proper DNA
synthesis allows our cells to function properly. One of the known effects of free radicals
is premature aging. Free radicals are produced from environmental toxins including
EMR.
Melatonin also enhances the immune system. It does this is through its ability to increase
the activity of the immune system’s killer lymphocytes. Furthermore, melatonin also
strengthens the ability of Vitamin D to stop tumor growth. In fact, this tumor-fighting
ability of Vitamin D is strengthened by a whopping 20 to 100 times!
A recent study published in the Journal of Pineal Research, 2007, reported on the
therapeutic effects of melatonin in treating cognitive impairment such as that found in
Alzheimer’ disease, dementia, etc. Results showed significantly better improvement in
patients treated with melatonin. Melatonin is important for a number of reasons, not just
sleep cycle regulation. Thus, anything, like electromagnetic radiation, that would
suppress or limit the body’s ability to produce melatonin could have serious health
implications in this area.
Melatonin Inhibits Estrogen and Cancer
A 2001 study done at Japan’s National Institute for Environmental Studies revealed that
breast cancer cells treated with melatonin would resume growing when exposed to
electromagnetic radiation! Findings showed that the cells’ signaling system was
disrupted, impeding or preventing cell-to-cell communication. Thus, cells were not able
to communicate with each other effectively and this affected their ability to respond to
environmental challenges and threats.
Perhaps one of the most important functions of melatonin is that it inhibits the release of
estrogen and suppresses the development of breast cancer. 70% of breast cancers are
estrogen sensitive. When EMR inhibits the release of melatonin one of the body’s most
protective hormones is suppressed. In addition, other studies have shown that reduced
levels of melatonin from electromagnetic radiation suppression have caused a number of
other malignancies including prostate cancer, melanoma, and ovarian cancer.
A link between breast cancer and EMR continues to be reported. Dr. Patricia Coogan at
the Boston University of Public Health reported a 43 per cent increased risk for breast
cancer for women who worked in occupations where exposure to magnetic fields
occurred. Such occupations included electricians, power line workers, phone installation
workers, electrical engineers and those working near mainframe computers. This
increased risk has been directly linked to the suppression of melatonin by EMR.
What is also frightening is that this increased risk of breast cancer is not confined to
women. As much as a sixfold increase in male breast cancer has been found among men
who work in the utilities industries, telephone lineman and in switching stations.
Cell Phones Affect Men’s Fertility
In a study released by the prestigious Cleveland Clinic results show a link between poor
sperm production and the number of hours a day a man uses his cell phone. Men who use
a cell phone more than four hours a day had the worst sperm counts and poorest quality
of sperm. Doctors believe this damage may be caused by radiation emitted by the phone.
Men who used a cell phone more than four hours a day had sperm counts that were 25
percent lower than men who never used a cell phone. Sperm quality was also affected.
The swimming ability of the sperm was reduced significantly. Furthermore, a 50 percent
drop in the number of properly formed sperm was noted. Sperm count, motility, viability
and appearance all were significantly affected. Cells in testes have been shown to be
susceptible to electromagnetic radiation in previous research on animals.
For this reason it is advisable for men not to carry a cell phone on a belt clip or in a
pocket close to the body. Neither should they work on a laptop computer while it sits on
the lap.
Cell Phones Disable The Blood-Brain Barrier In Just Two Minutes!
The blood-brain barrier is a delicate membrane that separates the brain from the rest of
the body and filters the blood supply to the brain. This filtering membrane keeps toxins
and damaging proteins that might be found in the blood from coming in contact with
sensitive brain tissue. Research has shown that talking on a cell phone for as little as two
minutes will disable the blood-brain barrier. In studies done by neurologist Dr. Leif
Salford it was shown that toxins and harmful proteins can pass out of the blood and into
the brain while the cell phone is switched on. It is noteworthy that diseases such as
multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer’s are linked to proteins being found in the brain.
It’s Like Driving While Drunk
The U.S. Department of Energy found that using a cell phone while driving will severely
impair memory and reaction time. The impairment is so severe that it is similar to
driving while drunk. Additionally, University of Toronto investigators found that the
impaired effects of a cell phone call made while driving will persist up to 15 minutes
AFTER completing the call. Many countries are now moving to join England, Spain,
Israel, Switzerland, and Brazil in restricting or banning cell phone use by drivers.
Cell Phones Radiation Is A Source Of Internal Stress
We all know what a nuisance cell phones can be when one just wants to relax or work on
a project without interruption. That’s a given stressor. But did you know that cell phones
can physically cause a stress response in the body? When the body experiences a stress
event the “flight or fight” response is triggered. Certain stress hormones are released from
the adrenal glands. The first chemical that is released in this response is adrenaline. We
all know the effects of adrenaline: rapid heart rate, increased energy level, increased
blood pressure, muscle contraction, rapid breathing, etc. These effects are not harmful if
only occurring for a short period of time. But what about a continued stress response that
continually releases adrenaline such as that occurring from constant exposure to cell
phone radiation? Can that be healthy? Common sense tells us it would not. The second
chemical released in the stress response is cortisol. Cortisol is the body’s natural form of
cortisone. It’s necessary for the maintenance of life. When our systems are chronically
stressed increased amounts of cortisol are released. When high amounts of cortisol are
produced in the body the immune system is suppressed, blood sugar levels rise and
insomnia occurs. After a long-term continual stress response the adrenal glands become
tired and fatigued. The ability to respond to stress situations appropriately thereafter
becomes compromised. Irritability, fatigue, anger, road rage, high blood pressure, poor
blood sugar control, decreased thyroid function, decrease bone density, weight gain, etc.
are a few of the many symptoms that can result from this condition.
EMR Raises Blood Sugar And Blood Pressure
Electromagnetic radiation has been linked to elevated blood glucose levels. Did you
know that sitting in front of a computer monitor (another source of EMR) can increase
blood sugar levels by 50 points within 15 minutes? Blood pressure is also affected. A
German study, published in The Lancet, reported that blood pressure was elevated in a
group of volunteers when cell phones were randomly turned on and off without the
participants knowledge.
You Can’t Escape The Radiation
Researchers have shown that you don’t even have to own a cell phone to be exposed to
the radiation. There are so many people around you making calls on their cell phones plus
there are so many wireless networks everywhere that no one today escapes the exposure.
It’s worse than second-hand smoke because it’s invisible. You may not own a cell phone
or use one very often. But the woman in the car next to you is talking on her phone, the
man behind you in the restaurant is talking on a cell phone, people around you at a ball
game or concert are talking on cell phones, people shopping in grocery stores and at the
mall are all on cell phones. And their cell phones are emitting signals, or radiation, to
connect to the nearest cell phone tower. So the signals are everywhere and you’re caught
in the crossfire. There is no escaping it.
Cell Phones Were Never Safety-Tested Before Being Sold
When cell phones came onto the market in 1983 they did so without ANY pre-market
testing. In fact, cell phones are the only radiation-emitting device ever sold without any
pre-market safety testing. How did this happen? Normally, any consumer device that
emits radiation would be required to go through some type of safety testing to determine
if there would be any risk to the population. But based on information from the cell
phone industry the cell phone was exempted from such testing. The information
provided by the cell phone industry at that time stated that the only harm that could come
from this type of radiation had to do with the heating effect that could be produced on
biological tissues. Because cell phones operated at such a very low power it was not
possible for them to heat biological tissue. Therefore, the government excluded cell
phones from the requirement of doing any pre-market safety testing. The microwave
oven was used as their example. The microwave oven produces microwaves, i.e.
radiation, that oscillate at a very high frequency. These microwaves are also driven by a
very high power. When a food item is placed in a microwave oven it causes the water
molecules in the food to move faster and faster. This increased activity produces friction
that produces heat. Do this for long enough and you cook food. Pretty simple. Obviously,
placing your head in a microwave oven wouldn’t be too wise since the heating effect
would eventually fry your brain. So to make the microwave radiation used by cell phones
safe the cell phone manufacturers simply lowered the power used to drive those
frequencies. Since the power used by cell phones was so much lower the heating effect
did not take place. Therefore, the cell phone was assumed to be safe. The rationale was
that if only a small amount of power was used and it wasn’t enough to heat human tissue
then no damage occurred. No heat, no harm. And that was the assumption that was used
by the federal government to allow cell phones to be sold and manufactured. Current
standards for safe radiation exposure are based solely on this heating, or thermal effect.
No testing was ever done to evaluate whether or not the frequencies themselves might be
harmful. This was left to chance discovery. It is a giant experiment that we are all a part
of today. We now know that the mechanism causing damage is not a thermal, or heating
effect.
The Cell Phone Companies Know
In 1993, Larry King had a guest on his show named David Reynard of Tampa, FL.
During the show he unleashed a bombshell that ignited one of the biggest controversies
ever. He stated that he was filing a lawsuit against the cell phone companies and was
alleging that his wife, Susan, had died from a brain tumor caused by repeated use of a cell
phone. The allegation caused cellular stocks to immediately tumble. Congressional
inquiries were triggered and the cell phone industry scrambled to save its image. In an
effort to reassure the public and the government the cell phone industry agreed to do
long-term research studies to prove that cell phones were safe. Following public
hearings the Senate took issue with both the cell phone industry and with the Food and
Drug Administration. The FDA was the agency of responsibility for granting approval of
cell phones. The cell phone industry volunteered to conduct long-term research to
provide proof that cell phones were safe. However, they offered to do so only if the FDA
agreed not to regulate them until the research was completed. And so the process began.
As a first step, the cell phone industry hired Dr. George Carlo, a medical professor of
epidemiology, to oversee and conduct what was to become the largest study ever
conducted on cell phone safety. The cell phone industry funded this research project with
$28.5 million of its own money. Dr. Carlo then hired the most prominent scientists in the
world that he could find on the subject of electromagnetic radiation. Plans were
developed, procedures written and equipment was purchased to begin the six-year
project. Carlo also created a Peer Review Board at the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
to examine the findings of the studies that were to be done. Since all of money funding
the study was coming from the cell phone industry Carlo wanted to make sure the study
was credible in every way. Every study done was duplicated in at least two laboratories
and protocols were peer reviewed before being initiated. Furthermore, preliminary data
were peer reviewed before interpretation and final reports and data were peer reviewed at
the conclusion of the process. Every effort was made to ensure the study was above
reproach. Carlo put together the formal Interagency Working Group consisting of
representatives from the FDA, the National Institutes of Health, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Federal
Communications Commission as well as a few other representatives. This committee
participated in every step of the research process. This peer review process was to ensure
that the results of the study were credible and not biased due to industry funding.
The Deadly Facts From The Cell Phone Industry’s Own Study
In 1999, Dr. Carlo reported his research findings. Here is a summary quoted directly
from his report:
1. The rate of death from brain cancer among handheld phone users was
higher than the rate of brain cancer among those who used non-handheld
phones that were away from their head
2. The risk of acoustic neuroma, a benign tumor of the auditory nerve, was
50% higher in people who reported using cell phones for six years or
more
3. The risk of rare neuro-epithelial tumors on the outside of the brain was
more than doubled in cell phone users as compared to non-users
4. There is some correlation between tumors occurring on the right side of
the head and use of the phone on the right side of the head
5. Laboratory studies looking at the ability of radiation from a cell phone’s
antenna to cause functional genetic damage were definitely positive
In other words, the research found genetic damage, leakage of the blood-brain barrier,
cellular dysfunction and a tripling in the risk of rare neuroepithelial tumors and rare brain
tumors in people using cell phones versus those who did not. In fact, the tumors even
correlated to the side of the head where the subjects reported using the phone most often.
In all, over 56 studies were funded by the cell phone industry and over 200 scientists and
doctors from around the world participated.
Once the research results were in Dr. Carlo reported his findings to the cell phone
industry executives suggesting that the industry inform the public of these findings and
allow users to begin to take precautionary steps until more research could be done. In
fact, Carlo also wrote a letter to all the cell phone companies who had participated in the
process outlining his recommendations. A detailed account of this whole story can be
read in a book that Carlo published along with Martin Schram, syndicated columnist and
television commentator. The title of the book is Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the
Wireless Age.” A copy of Dr. Carlo’s letter written to the CEO and Chairman of AT&T
is found at the end of this report (Addendum A).
The shocking part of this whole process is that in spite of the concrete peer-reviewed
findings produced by this research the cell phone industry chose not to go public with the
information. Thus, Carlo chose to make that information public through the book.
Obviously, at that point the relationship between Carlo and the industry ended.
Soon after, Dr. Carlo set up the Safe Wireless Initiative (SWI), a non-profit organization
which serves to continue research in this area as well as to educate the consumer on the
hazards of cell phone radiation and wireless technology. The SWI also serves as a
registry for gathering data from individuals who feel they have been adversely affected in
some way by cell phone or wireless radiation.
And there’s more.
Former Motorola Research Scientist Acknowledges Radiation Problem
Robert Kane, PhD., former Motorola Senior Research Scientist and Technical Staff
Member, said this, “Recent research has demonstrated that even short-term exposure
to radiation power densities emanating from a nearby cellular telephone is sufficient
to modify brainwave patterns, affect short-term memory, and modify an
individual’s ability to perform physical tasks such as driving an automobile.” He
goes on to say, “The body of available research indicates that operation of a nearby
portable cellular telephone will expose a non-user to radiation, some of which will be
deposited into the brain of the non-user at levels higher than necessary to elicit
undesirable biological effects even though the phone may be more than ten feet
away from the non-user.”
Translation: Cell phone radiation bombards you whether you are making calls yourself or
not. You can be driving in your car, eating in a restaurant, watching a game or at a
concert and you’re getting irradiated from someone else’s cell phone calls whether you
like it or not. There is no escape. It’s not just the caller’s brain that gets irradiated; it’s
everyone around the caller, too. That comes straight from one of Motorola’s top former
research scientists.
What Are SARs? Are They A Reliable Guide To Cell Phone Safety?
SAR stands for Specific Absorption Rate. It is a complex measurement of how much
radiation passes through tissue during a specified time period. In other words, it measures
the level of absorption of EMR by the body. When biological tissues absorb EMR it can
lead to the distortion of cellular function. Up until 1993 no one had ever observed that
there were any heating effects occurring at SAR levels below 40 watts per kilogram. Cell
phones operate at a power of about 0.6 watts and yield a SAR value of less than 2 watts
per kilogram. This was the rationale used when the government exempted cell phones
from any pre-market testing and any form of regulation. As long as SARs were this low
and no heating effect took place it was surmised that no harm could be done to biological
tissue from cell phone radiation.
All phones today have a published SAR value. It varies slightly from phone model to
phone model. However, knowing the SAR number of your phone is of minimal value
since all phones manufactured today must meet the FCC established standard of 1.6 W/kg
or below. That said, it’s still a good idea to purchase a cell phone with a SAR value as
low as possible to minimize the absorption of radiation when the cell phone is near the
head. SAR only measures the intensity of the electromagnetic field. Keep in mind that
SAR does not measure the pulsating or oscillatory action of the wave. For example, the
wave frequency or pulse could be low enough to mimic the electrical activity of the brain
itself and thereby cause damage but the cell phone could have a low SAR value.
Knowing the SAR would be of little value in this instance. SARs may have a useful
application for microwave ovens but not for cell phones, as the heating effect doesn’t
occur until SARs reach 20 to 25 watts per kilogram. The SAR value for your specific
phone can be found by visiting the FCC website or by visiting www.sarvalues.com.
What About Cell Phone Towers? Are They Dangerous, Too?
There are an estimated 1.3 million base station antennas installed on towers and rooftops
worldwide. As more and more of these are installed to increase coverage and to power
new applications the sea of electropollution to which we are exposed will only continue
to thicken. Cell towers and antennas are popping up everywhere. In the United States
there are now more than 1,942,000 towers and antennas currently online. Towers are the
structures on which antennas are placed and multiple antennas may be attached to a
single tower. The antenna is the actual emitter of the radio signal. Antennas are placed
not only on towers but also on firestations, churches, schools, cemeteries, and even in our
national parks. Did you know there’s a cell tower near Old Faithful in Yellowstone Park?
And to make them esthetically pleasing to the environment antenna towers are often
disguised. It’s not uncommon to see cell phone towers in the southwest that look like
palm trees, for example. These towers and antennas are often hidden, too, in places like
church steeples or placed on rooftops where they can’t be seen. Can’t sleep well in a
hotel? It might be that there’s an antenna tower hidden on the roof.
As explained earlier, each cell phone tower emits its signal in a circular pattern that
would look much like a flower petal if it were visible. In other words, the pattern spreads
itself 360 degrees around the tower in a circle. This “circle” around the tower is called a
“cell” and this is where the term “cell” in cell phone gets its name. When under the
umbrella of the “cell” you will get good reception with your cell phone. When you’re out
of this cell area you won’t. Cell phone towers, then, are positioned throughout the
countryside in such a way that these “cells” overlap one another so that, ideally, you’ll
never be out of coverage anywhere you go.
Studies Show Adverse Health Effects From Cell Phone Towers
Below are listed six studies that have shown significant adverse health effects on people
living near cell phone towers.
1. Santini et al. found significant health problems in people living within 300 meters
of a cell phone base station or tower. The recommendation was made from the
study that cell phone base stations should not be placed closer than 300 meters to
populated areas. Pathol Biol (Paris) 2002; 50: 369-373.
2. A Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research study entitled,
“Effects of Global Communications System Radio-Frequency Fields On Well
Being and Cognitive Function of Human Subjects With and Without Subjective
Complaints” found significant effects on well being including headaches, muscle
fatigue, pain, and dizziness from tower emissions well below the “safety” level.
3. Gerd, Enrique, Manuel, Ceferino and Claludio conducted a Spanish study called
“The Microwave Syndrome” and found adverse health effects from those living
near two cell phone base stations. The health effects included fatigue, a tendency
toward depression, sleeping disorders, difficulty in concentration and
cardiovascular problems.
4. From an Israeli study published in the International Journal of Cancer Prevention,
Vol. 1, No. 2, April 2004, Wolf and Wolf reported a fourfold increase in the
incidence of cancer in people living within 350 meters of a cell phone tower as
compared to the Israeli general population. They also reported a tenfold increase
specifically among women.
5. In the Naila Study from Germany, November 2004, five medical doctors
collaborated to assess the risk to people living near a cell phone tower. The
retrospective study was taken from patient case histories between 1994 and 2004
from those who had lived during the past ten years at a distance up to 400 meters
from the tower site. The results showed that the proportion of newly developed
cancer cases was significantly higher in those patients living within the 400 meter
distance and that the patients became ill on average eight years earlier. In the
years 1999 to 2004, after five years of operation of the transmitting tower, the
relative risk of getting cancer had trebled for residents of the area in the proximity
of the installation compared to the inhabitants of Naila outside the area.
6. An Austrian Study released in May, 2005, showed that radiation from a cell
phone tower at a distance of 80 meters causes significant changes of the electrical
currents in the brains of test subjects. All test subjects indicated they felt unwell
during the radiation and some reported being seriously ill. According to the
scientists doing the study, this is the first worldwide proof of significant changes
of the electrical currents in the brain, as measured by EEG, by a cell phone base
station at a distance of 80 meters. Subjects reported symptoms such as buzzing in
the head, tinnitus, palpitations of the heart, lightheadedness, anxiety, shortness of
breath, nervousness, agitation, headache, heat sensation and depression.
Cell Phone Towers Placed On Schools, Fire Stations, And On Church
Steeples
Just why would a cell phone tower be placed on a church, school or fire station? Money.
It’s that simple. Cell phone companies pay these organizations handsomely to install their
equipment on these properties. This eliminates the need for the cell phone company to
lease or purchase land or buildings to erect their towers. They can simply rent existing
structures from someone else. This “rent money” can range from a few hundred dollars a
month to several thousand dollars a month. And what school district or church couldn’t
use a few extra dollars to benefit a tight budget? But does the income outweigh the
potential risk? The studies say no.
Two-time Nobel Prize nominee, Dr. Gerald Hyland, a physicist, had this to say about cell
phone towers. “Existing safety guidelines for cell phone towers are completely
inadequate. Quite justifiably, the public remains skeptical of attempts by
government and industry to reassure them that all is well, particularly given the
unethical way in which they often operate symbiotically so as to promote their own
vested interests.”
Children Have Higher Rates Of Leukemia Near Broadcast Towers
Dr. Bruce Hocking did a study in Sydney, Australia, of children living near TV and FM
broadcast towers that are very similar to cell phone towers. He found that these children
had more than twice the rate of leukemia as children living more than seven miles away
from these same towers.
Living Near Cell Phone Towers Increases Neurological Symptoms
Another study conducted on inhabitants living near or under a cell phone base station
antenna produced the following prevalence of complaints: headache (23.5%), memory
changes (28.2%), dizziness (18.8%), tremors (9.4%), symptoms of depression (21.7%),
and sleep disturbances (23.5%). [Reference: “Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants
around mobile phone base stations, Neurotoxicology, 2006, Aug. 1, Abdel-Rassoul,
et.al.]
According to Mariana Alves-Pereira, a biomedical engineer, exposure to a cell phone
tower can also lead to vibroacoustic disease. This may include symptoms like mood
swings, indigestion, ulcers and joint pain.
Cell Phone Towers Affect Animals
Cell phone towers affect animals, too. A veterinary school in Hanover, Germany, reports
that dairy cows kept in close proximity to a cell phone tower for two years had a
reduction in milk production in addition to other health problems including abnormal
behavior patterns.
So if cell phone companies install antennas on the rooftops of our schools do we really
want our children sitting at their desk right beneath the source of this radiation? Do we
fully know the potential effects on the developing brains of our children? How many
children in school today already suffer from inability to focus, learning disorders and
attention deficit problems? Might there a connection? Many studies say there is.
Your Community Can’t Stop Cell Phone Tower Construction
What can communities do about the installation of cell phone towers? Unfortunately,
very little. The Federal Communications Act of 1996 was a landmark bill that mandated
rapid development of wireless infrastructure across the country. Section 704 of this act
made it virtually impossible for communities to stop the construction of cell phone
towers in their areas in spite of threats to public health and the environment. This law
forbids local governments from stepping in and stopping the construction of cell phone
towers based on health concerns or environmental concerns. It is unfortunate that our
leaders have been pressured by cell phone lobbyists to pass legislation where
communities and local governments no longer have control over what is best for their
community. We have relegated complete control of this matter over to the cell phone
companies.
Here’s the quote from the Federal Communications Act of 1996 that prohibits states,
neighborhoods and communities from installing cell phone towers: "No State or local
government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction,
and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the
environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities
comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions."
Firefighters Vote To Suspend Cell Tower Construction On Fire Stations
In 2004, the International Association of Fire Fighters voiced its opinion on cell phone
towers and antennas by opposing the installation of cell phone antennas on or near
firestations until a credible study can be done to establish their safety. Hats off to our
firefighters. Our emergency personnel are already exposed to enough risk without
sleeping under another one right over their head.
Find Out How Many Towers And Antennas Are Near Your Home
The average person lives within one-half mile of a cell phone tower.
Have you ever wondered if any cell phone towers or antennas are near your home or
business? Would it bother you if you knew you lived near a cell phone tower or antenna
tower? How many do you think there are? You can find out by visiting the website
www.antennasearch.com. Type in your address and you’ll get a listing and a map of all
the towers and antennas within a short radius of your address. You’ll be surprised to learn
how prevalent these towers and antennas are and how many are sitting right in your back
yard.
In one square mile of downtown Manhattan there are about 2500 antennas.
And let’s don’t forget the more than 2000 communications satellites floating around in
outer space. They shower the planet all day long with radiation. Got a new GPS device?
How do you think it works? It gets its information from a satellite that knows where you
are and where you want to go. It then beams the instructions down to you and off you go
without a second thought that you are being continually irradiated by this convenience.
And, of course, there are all the military projects, too. You get the picture. The amount
of electropollution we’re subjected to on a daily basis is staggering and is only getting
worse. At what point will our biological systems no longer be able to handle this burden?
What happens then? Are the rising rates of cancer and disease indicators that we’re
reaching a point where we can’t tolerate more?
Effects Of Cell Phone Radiation On Children Are Worse Than Adults
Doe cell phone radiation affect children differently that it does adults? To answer this
question we must first understand the body of a child. A child’s head contains more fluid
than that of an adult. This increased amount of water acts as conductor of the radiation.
Furthermore, the skull bones in the head of a child don’t fully harden until about 22 years
of age. So the skull bones of a child’s head are softer and thinner. Softer bones mean
greater penetration of radiation into the head. Greater penetration means more damage.
Radiation Penetrates The Head Of Children
In 1997, Dr. Om Ghandi from the University of Utah conducted studies showing how
radiation penetrates the head of a child much deeper than that of an adult. As seen from
her pictures below the results are alarming.
Radiation
Penetration
in head of adult
Radiation Penetration in
head of 10 year old child
Radiation
Penetration in
head of 5 year old
child
Children also have smaller body masses, obviously. When exposed to the same amount
of radiation as an adult the harmful effects of the radiation will be greater. So children
have a smaller body mass, softer skull bones and more fluid in the head. All allow more
damage to occur.
Studies at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, found that children who were
exposed to radiation as low as one milligauss (1mG) over long periods of time have twice
the normal risk of developing leukemia.
Dr. George Carlo, noted scientist and researcher in the field of cell phone radiation,
makes the following comment, “The skulls of young children are the most vulnerable
to the risks of radiation. The radiation plume that emanates from a cell phone
antenna penetrates much deeper into the heads of children than adults, and these
children are more susceptible to genetic damage.” What is his advice? He says
children under the age of ten should not use any type of wireless device.
Furthermore, the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) issued a report in May
of 2000 that “children might be more vulnerable to any effects arising from the use of
mobile phones because of their developing nervous system, the greater absorption of
energy in the tissues of the head and the longer lifetime of exposure.”
Heavy Absorption Of Cell Phone Radiation Into The Head
According to a University of Washington scientist 70 to 80 percent of the radiation
emitted from a cell phone antenna is absorbed in the head. This is especially concerning
as we see our children and teenagers using cell phones on a continual basis today.
Children today will be exposed to this type of radiation for a much longer period in their
lifetime than their parents. Thus, the exposure risk is much greater.
British Board Recommends Against Cell Phone Use By Kids
The National Radiological Protection Board, based in Britian, has suggested that children
younger than age 8 should not be given cell phones at all. Other scientists from around
the world agree and many believe children under age 12 should not have access to a cell
phone except in cases of emergency.
Disney and Sprint Market Cell Phones To Children
What is truly disturbing is that in light of the many published studies now available some
of the major cell phone corporations are targeting and marketing to children. They see
children as the next big cell phone “market.” For example, Disney and Sprint recently
joined in a $2 billion deal to market cell phones to kids between eight and 12 years of
age. Other companies have followed suit promoting similar programs. Teddyfone Ltd. in
the United Kingdom has launched a cell phone that looks like a teddy bear. Their target
market is children six to eight years old. The American counterpart to this phone is called
the Firefly. Of course, there’s a Barbie phone available, too.
Our Children Will Be Affected Most
“If there are risks, and we think that maybe there are, then the people most likely to
be affected are children, and the younger the children, the greater the danger.” Sir
William Stewart, Chairman of the UK Health Protection Agency, issued this statement at
a press conference in 2005. He went on to say that no child under the age of nine should
have a cell phone at all, and anyone under sixteen should use one only for emergency
calls.
We don’t know what the long-term effects of cell phone radiation are to children. Tumors
can take 15 to 20 years to develop. By then, it’s often too late to treat. We must ask
ourselves if we want our children to participate in this giant experiment. Certainly,
protection, prevention and limiting exposure is a must until science can confirm the
danger or safety involved in the use of these products of convenience.
Evidence in medical science continues to mount that radiation from devices such as cell
phones, cordless phones, and WiFi produces dangerous and damaging health effects. The
time for action is now. The lives of our kids could depend on it.
Legal Action Against Cell Phone Companies
Currently, there are seven class action lawsuits that have been filed and are active against
the cell phone manufacturers. In the fall of 2005, five of those cases were reviewed by the
Supreme Court as the cell phone industry attempted to get the cases dismissed. The
Supreme Court however ruled that there was enough evidence presented and that the
cases should move forward. Those cases are currently in the active process of working
their way through the legal system. In addition, there are numerous active individual
cases that have been filed where brain cancer development has allegedly occurred due to
cell phone use.
One workman’s compensation case in California has already been ruled in favor of the
plaintiff. The court ruled that there was substantial evidence that the plaintiff’s brain
tumor had been caused by excessive use of the cell phone in her line of work. She won
her case. This will set an important precedent in cases to follow.
The Cell Phone Industry Has No Insurance
It is also interesting that the insurance industry now excludes health-risk claims in the
product liability coverage of cell phone industry products. This has forced the cell phone
industry to become self-insured. The implication here is that the cell phone industry does
not have any insurance to cover losses incurred in any litigation processes. Once their
money runs out no more money would be available to pay a judgment. When Lloyds of
London refuses to insure they don’t turn these hefty premiums down for no reason.
Obviously, they felt the risk was too great.
Verizon’s New Contracts
In Verizon’s new contracts, buried in the fine print, the customer, by signing the contract,
agrees not to sue the cell phone manufacturer for any bodily damages or harm. The
customer also agrees not to participate in any class action lawsuit. Suggestion: take the
time to read the fine print of your carrier’s contract. Think twice before signing it.
Cell Phone Industry Is In A Predicament
The cell phone industry finds itself in a difficult situation. It has vehemently denied there
are health problems created by cell phone radiation. Scientific studies continue to be
published that say otherwise. So why doesn’t the cell phone industry just purchase some
available technology that would make the cell phone safe to use? If that happened it
would be an admission of guilt, or an admission that there may be a problem. Otherwise,
why would they be placing such safeguard technology in the phone? The addition of such
technology would underscore their guilt and they would immediately lose all lawsuits,
past and present. So they have no choice right now but to deny any problems exist.
The Government’s Position
You can visit the FDA website and read the government’s position on this whole issue.
However, it can be best summed up with this quote taken directly from the FDA website:
“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.” How’s that for confidence? Does that statement make you
feel absolutely safe?
Here is why the government won’t say much about cell phone safety. First of all, cell
phones are big business. Telecommunication technology stocks comprise a huge
percentage of our financial markets. Any mention of a safety problem would cause a
catastrophic plunge in the stock market. Secondly, cell phone minutes are the second
largest consumer product revenue producer for the federal government, only outdone by
gasoline. Imagine what would happen if the FDA or FCC issued a statement that there
just might be a safety issue with cell phones. The sell-off of these stocks would be huge.
The stock market would tumble. The government would lose an important source of
revenue and our economy would be crippled. Such an announcement would be
disastrous. So the government will be very reluctant to issue any statement of warning or
suggestion that cell phones may pose a hazard.
Lessons From History
Remember that it took decades for the government to respond to the early warnings about
tobacco, asbestos, and X-Rays. Cell phones haven’t been around for very long so the
technology is rather new. However, it may behoove us to take a quick look back at
history and learn a lesson.
The tobacco time line:
•
•
•
•
The health effects of tobacco were first debated in 1856 in the medical journal
The Lancet
Dr. Isaac Adler suggested lung cancer was related to smoking in 1912
A British medical journal publishes a study in 1950 that found that smokers were
50 times more likely to get lung cancer
It wasn’t until 1997 that tobacco companies agree to fund healthcare costs from
smoking
The X-Ray time line:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Thomas Edison notes injuries from X-Rays in 1896
Edison’s assistant dies from X-Ray exposure in 1904
Fluoroscopes used in shoe stores to see through shoes to aid proper fitting in 1930
Reports published in 1934 on the death of over 200 radiologists from radiationinduced cancer
Radiation levels of fluoroscopes questioned in 1949
1990-Risk of cancer from radiation found to be five times greater than previously
thought
The Asbestos time line:
•
•
•
•
•
British factory inspector warns of asbestos harm in 1898
Rat studies raise questions about harmful effects of asbestos dust in 1911
U.S. insurers refuse to cover asbestos worker’s claims in 1918
1935-1949 lung cancer reported in asbestos workers
2000-01 World Trade Organization upholds asbestos ban
There is no question that EMR and cell phone radiation is a potential carcinogen. The
evidence to support the toxicity and carcinogenicity of cell phone radiation is
overwhelming. Current safety standards are archaic and don’t address the issues with
current technology in use today. As seen from the timelines above it took many years and
many casualties before those carcinogens were ever properly addressed. Cell phone
radiation is a much bigger toxin due to the sheer numbers of people that use cell phones
and wireless technology. Consequently, the numbers of people potentially affected could
be enormous. We don’t have time to wait for government or industry to come to the
realization that a problem exists. We must take reasonable precautions now. The evidence
is there. The studies tell us there is a potential problem. We can’t wait for definitive proof
or until the industry and government are forced to admit it. That course was taken with
tobacco, X-Rays and asbestos.
The question is this. Are you willing to see this problem for what it is? If so, are you
willing to take appropriate measures to do everything possible to protect yourself and
your family?
Guidelines For Protection And Prevention
According to the Safe Wireless Initiative the approach should be two-pronged. First, take
measures to maximize your body’s resistance to damage from EMR. Second, minimize
your exposure to EMR to decrease the risk.
Here are some things you can do right now.
Strengthen Your System To Increase Resistance To EMR Damage:
1. Good nutrition is essential to building a strong immune system that can resist
the effects of electropollution. Eat a healthy diet. This includes eating fresh
organic fruits and vegetables whenever possible. Five to nine servings daily
of fresh fruits and vegetables are recommended.
2. Eat free-range hormone-free meat whenever possible. Avoid farm-fed fish.
Free-range meat such as beef, chicken and turkey is best.
3. Hydrate yourself adequately. Drink good quality bottled or filtered water. Use
glass and ceramic containers whenever possible. Good quality water is
essential for energy and for proper detoxification. As a rule of thumb divide
body weight by two. This is the number of ounces of water per day a normal
healthy individual should consume.
4. Take a high-quality multi-vitamin and multi-mineral product daily.
5. Take extra antioxidants daily to neutralize free radicals.
6. Take adequate amounts of Omega-3 oils such as Fish Oil.
7. Do some type of exercise 5 days a week for at least 20 minutes.
8. Minimize your exposure to synthetic chemicals, solvents, cleaners and
cosmetics. These products are loaded with harmful chemicals that are
damaging to your system. Avoid the use of pesticides and insecticides
whenever possible.
By eating healthy and exercising you will strengthen your immune system thus
minimizing the damaging effects of EMR and cell phone radiation exposure. Healthy
eating and proper hydration will also allow for quicker repair of damage already done.
Minimize Exposure To Reduce Your Risks
1. Whenever possible avoid using any type of wireless communication devices
such as cell phones, cordless phones, and WiFi connections.
2. When purchasing a cell phone purchase one that has the ‘speakerphone’
feature. Use the speakerphone whenever talking and keep the cell phone away
from your head and body.
3. Use an “air tube” hands-free headset if your cell phone does not have a
speakerphone function. Not just any hands-free headset will work. It must be
an “air tube” headset.
4. Turn your cell phones off when not in use and do not sleep with your cell
phone on. The cell phone emits a signal when on, or stand-by mode, even
though you aren’t talking.
5. Keep the cell phone at least 6-7 inches away from your body. Don’t carry the
cell phone next to your body such as in a pocket or on a belt clip.
6. Don’t talk on a cell phone or cordless phone when pregnant or while carrying
a baby or small child.
7. Avoid digital enhanced cordless telecommunications, or DECT, technology
that is often the strongest source of radiation in the home. DECT phones emit
radiation continuously, not just while the phone is in use.
8. Don’t talk on a cell phone while in a vehicle, on a train, plane, or subway.
These enclosed metals areas trap radiation and consequently exposure
becomes higher in these enclosed metal vehicles.
9. Use wired and corded telephones and eliminate cordless phones and WiFi
equipment.
10. Use wired Internet connections instead of wireless routers.
11. Don’t talk when the signal is weak. The weaker the signal the more power
required to maintain that connection. Preferably, use the phone in open areas
whenever possible and pay attention to the signal bars on your phone’s
display.
12. Keep laptops away from your body and don’t operate a laptop while it is
sitting on your lap. Sit back from computer monitors and screens as much as
possible.
13. Keep all electronic devices like alarm clocks and cordless phones at least six
feet away from your head during sleep.
14. Avoid waterbeds and electric blankets.
15. Encourage use of fiberoptic cable in place of wireless networks in your local
municipalities.
16. Wear a personal protection device to strengthen your biofield and increase
your resistance to all the radiation around you
17. Install EMR filters, intervention technologies and preventive technologies on
all electrical and electronic devices, electrical circuits, appliances, cell phones
and cordless phones in your home, office and business areas.
Your questions and comments are welcomed. Please feel free to contact me.
Passionate about health,
Lynn Quiring, RPh, CCN, NMD
Logical Health LLC
1163 E. Geronimo Place
Chandler, AZ. 85225
480-275-5915
[email protected]
Visit my blog at http://cellphoneradiationusa.blogspot.com.
Addendum A
Dr. George Carlo's Letter to AT&T Chairman & CEO
“7 October 1999
Mr. C. Michael Armstrong
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
AT & T Corporation
32 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 100313-2412
Dear Mr Armstrong:
After much thought, I am writing this letter to you, personally, to ask your assistance in solving
what I believe is an emerging and serious problem concerning wireless phones. I write this letter
in the interest of the more than 80 million wireless phone users in the United States and the more
than 200 million worldwide. But I also write this letter in the interest of your industry, a critical part
of our social and economic infrastructure.
Since 1993, I have headed the WTR surveillance and research program funded by the wireless
industry. The goal of WTR has always been to identify and solve any problems concerning
consumers' health that could arise from the use of these phones. This past February, at the
annual convention of the CTIA, I met with the full board of that organization to brief them on some
surprising findings from our work. I do not recall if you were there personally, but my
understanding is that all segments of the industry were represented.
At that briefing, I explained that the well-conducted scientific studies that WTR was overseeing
indicated that the question of wireless phone safety had become confused.
Specifically, I reported to you that:
•
•
•
•
•
The rate of death from brain cancer among handheld phone users was higher than the
rate of brain cancer death among those who used non-handheld phones that were away
from their head;
The risk of acoustic neuroma, a benign tumour of the auditory nerve that is well in range
of the radiation coming from a phone's antenna, was fifty percent higher in people who
reported using cell phones for six years or more, moreover, that relationship between the
amount of cell phone use and this tumour appeared to follow a dose-response curve:
The risk of rare neuro epithelial tumours on the outside of the brain was more than
doubled, a statistically significant risk increase, in cell phone users as compared to
people who did not use cell phones;
There appeared to be some correlation between brain tumours occurring on the right side
of the head and the use of the phone on the right side of the head;
Laboratory studies looking at the ability of radiation from a phone's antenna to cause
functional genetic damage were definitively positive, and were following a dose-response
relationship.
I also indicated that while our overall study of brain cancer occurrence did not show a correlation
with cell phone use, the vast majority of the tumours that were studied, were well out of range of
the radiation that one would expect from a cell phone's antenna. Because of that distance, the
finding of no effect was questionable. Such mis-classification of radiation exposure would tend to
dilute any real effect that may have been present. In addition, I reported to you that the genetic
damage studies we conducted to look at the ability of radiation from the phones to break DNA
were negative, but that the positive finding of functional DNA damage could be more important,
perhaps indicating a problem that is not dependent on DNA breakage, and that these
inconsistencies needed to be clarified. I reported that while none of these findings alone were
evidence of a definitive health hazard from wireless phones, the pattern of potential health effects
evidenced by different types of studies, from different laboratories, and by different investigators
raised serious questions.
Following my presentation, I heard by voice vote of those present, a pledge to "do the right thing
in following up these findings" and a commitment of the necessary funds.
When I took on the responsibility of doing this work for you, I pledged five years. I was asked to
continue on through the end of a sixth year, and agreed. My tenure is now completed. My
presentation to you and the CTIA board in February was not an effort to lengthen my tenure at
WTR, nor to lengthen the tenure of WTR itself. I was simply doing my job of letting you know what
we found and what needed to be done following from our findings. I made this expressly clear
during my presentation to you and in many subsequent conversation with members of your
industry and the media.
Today, I sit here extremely frustrated and concerned that appropriate steps have not been taken
by the wireless industry to protect consumers during this time of uncertainty about safety. The
steps I am referring to specifically followed from the WTR program and have been recommended
repeatedly in public and private for and by me and other experts from around the world. As I
prepare to move away from the wireless phone issue and into a different public health direction. I
am concerned that the wireless industry is missing a valuable opportunity by dealing with these
public health concerns through politics, creating illusions that more research over the next several
years helps consumers today, and false claims that regulatory compliance means safety. The
better choice by the wireless industry would be to implement measured steps aimed at true
consumer protection.
Alarmingly, indications are that some segments of the industry have ignored the scientific findings
suggesting potential health effects, have repeatedly and falsely claimed that wireless phones are
safe for all consumers including children, and have created an illusion of responsible follow up by
calling for and supporting more research. The most important measures of consumer protection
are missing: complete and honest factual information to allow informed judgement by consumers
about assumption of risk; the direct tracking and monitoring of what happens to consumers who
use wireless phones; and, the monitoring of changes in the technology that could impact health.
I am especially concerned about what appear to be actions by a segment of the industry to
conscript the FCC, the FDA and The World Health Organization with them in following a noneffectual course that will likely result in a regulatory and consumer backlash.
As an industry, you will have to deal with the fallout from all of your choices, good and bad, in the
long term. But short term, I would like your help in effectuating an important public health
intervention today.
The question of wireless phone safety is unclear. Therefore, from a public health perspective, it is
critical for consumers to have the information they need to make an informed judgement about
how much of this unknown risk they wish to assume in their use of wireless phones. Informing
consumers openly and honestly about what is known and not-known about health risks is not
liability laden - it is evidence that your industry is being responsible, and doing all it can to assure
safe use of its products. The current popular backlash we are witnessing in the United States
today against the tobacco industry is derived in large part from perceived dishonesty on the part
of that industry in not being forthright about health effects. I urge you to help your industry not
repeat that mistake.
As we close out the business of the WTR, I would like to openly ask for your help in distributing
the summary findings we have complied of our work. This last action is what always has been
anticipated and forecast in the WTR's research agenda. I have asked another organization with
which I am affiliated, The Health Risk Management Group (HRMG) , to help us with this public
health intervention step, and to put together a consumer information package for widespread
distribution. Because neither WTR nor HRMG have the means to effectuate this intervention, I am
asking you to help us do the right thing.
I would be happy to talk to you personally about this.
Sincerely yours
George L. Carlo Ph.D, M.S., J.D
Chairman
Wireless Technology Research LLC
1711 N. Street, NW, Suite 400, Washington DC 20036-2811”
Wireless Radiation: The Hidden Hazard by Evelyn Savarin (Washington Free Press Mar/Apr 2007) Editorʹs note: It would be easy to reject the following information, not because it is unreasonable, but because it is very disturbing. Many environmentalists are quite aware of the importance of the Precautionary Principle with regard to toxic pollution in soil, water, food, and air, but the same environmentalists are often hesitant to see that there may be parallel pollution problems related to our increasing everyday exposure to electromagnetic radiation from cellphones, power lines, microwave ovens, TV, and now wireless internet. I urge readers to consider the following. ‐‐Doug Collins (48 numbered references appear at the end of this article.) As we revel in the marvels of our hi‐tech, wireless world, are we muffling the growing voices warning us of health and environmental dangers lurking behind these technological wonders. What scientists are finding should make us take pause before we continue to march headlong into a wireless future. Wireless radiation is one of the most underrated and misunderstood health hazards on the planet today, in part because of its invisibility, in part its complexity, in part the indifference of medicine to its powerful effect, but also because media, our source of news, is now a wireless industry. Humans have always been surrounded by an electromagnetic world, but this has been manipulated and intensified to almost ʺa trillion times greater than experienced by our ancestors 150 years ago.ʺ (1) The electromagnetic (EM) spectrum is made up of millions of frequencies and frequency bands. RF(radio frequency) and MW(microwave) frequencies is only one part of them, however, they comprise the most important band in our wireless communication network. Wireless products also employ the ELF band (extremely low frequency) of the EM spectrum to generate their signal. This is important because many studies demonstrate how utilizing this band of frequencies can disturb various mind/body connections. (2) Products that utilize the electromagnetic RF/MW frequency bands are those that make up the presumed technological necessities of our modern world; everything from radio, TV transmitters, radar, cellular technologies such cell phones and towers, cordless phones, wi‐fi, and now wi‐max and smart meters. In only a short span of ten years we have become dependent on the conveniences these products bring. However, these conveniences may have a downside risk, an issue rarely discussed in media and public circles. We are covering our planet in a haze of electrosmog from a host of wireless radiation devices, that is increasingly showing its effect not only on human populations, but plants, animals and even the climate. We are emerging into a world where of biology and physics are codependent‐‐a world to which our institutions, scientists and the public agencies have too long turned a blind eye. Disturbing the Earthʹs Natural ElectroMagnetic Blanket Although EM waves of different frequencies and magnitude exist in our planetary environment, most manmade EM waves are significantly stronger than those encountered in nature. The earth 1
has evolved in the virtual absence of natural RF/microwave radiation, and ʺit is possible that its environmental absence has been exploited by nature to ensure that regulation of our bodyʹs natural processes are protected from external deleterious electromagnetic interference.ʺ That may be why the regulation of our muscular activity and cellular division processes actually naturally oscillate at the RF/MW bandwidth frequencies, because natural background radiation has, in the past, been too small to interfere. (3) Besides the body using microwave frequencies to support various biological functions, the brain is tuned into another set of natural background frequencies. These are Schumann Resonance (SR) frequenicies from 0 to 50 hertz. Instead of being in the RF/MW frequency band, they reside in the ELF frequency band. SR frequencies reside between the earthʹs surface and the ionsphere. The daily cycles and emotional functions of our lives are guided by SR frequencies. Everything from our sleep/ wake cycles to creative and cognitive tasks, relaxation to states of anxiety are activated by this band of frequencies. (4) Recently a few scientists have observed we may be altering this band of frequencies. Where once the strongest or base frequency was about 7.8 hertz, inside the ʺalphaʺ band, it is now rising to about 11 hertz, close to the ʺbetaʺ band. This is important because 7.8 hertz is the center of the brainʹs alpha wave (7 to 12 hertz) activity where the mind generates its greatest capacity for creativity, mental coordination, calmness, inner awareness, and learning. If the base SR wave continues to rise, it will cross the threshold into beta activity, which is‐‐at some levels is associated with alertness and anxiousness, but at other levels with a lack of focussed attention. (5) Scientist critical of the wireless industryʹs indiscriminate growth have long known how man‐
made RF/MW frequency signals can interfere with the body. The process is called ʺfrequency couplingʺ or resonance. The theory concludes, ʺWhen a material (the body) is activated by interaction with another source of energy (RF/MW signal) at the same resonant frequency, a more powerful and intensive response occurs. If energy is pulse‐modulated... a significant change can be created in the codes of the human body.ʺ (6) Such changes can possibly result in a cascade of other biological changes. It is for these reasons when wireless industry makes claims that wireless installations will be ʺlow powered,ʺ hence the electromagnetic radiation emitted will be too weak to cause harm, the public needs to wary of such conclusions. A French satellite mission recently examined whether the vast array of high‐voltage electromagnetic transmission facitlities on earth may actually be having an effect on our climate. What they have discovered so far should make all global warming theorist take notice. The satellite data has revealed much higher electrical disturbances and increased temperatures high above, and directly in line with the areas of the earth where many high powered transmission facilities are located. The scientists speculate that these high electrical disturbances and higher temperatures in the vicinity of the transmitters may be contributing to rising lightning activity and great tropical storms on earth, all important indicators of a warming earth. (7, 8, 9) What the Health Studies Tell Us The RF/MW health studies are revealing the price we are paying in good health and well being by our massive manipulation of the global electromagnetic spectrum.. 2
Scientist have long observed how manmade EM‐RF radiation alters biological processes. Scientific studies have shown that wireless radiation affects everything from cellular functions, to general well being, to more critical end‐point diseases. Many studies have shown how populations within a certain vicinity to various RF/MW transmitters have experienced an increase in illness symptoms and direct loss of general health. Symptoms reported and observed showed greater sleep disturbances, increased fatigue, more depression, greater blood pressure problems, hearing impairment, greater nervousness, dizziness, decline in concentration, ringing of the ears, reduced learning abilities, attention deficits, and reduced motor skills. (10,11,12,13) Two studies examining solely the influence of cell tower exposures showed illness symptoms were more prevalent 100 meters or less from the tower, and found women experienced more of these symptoms than men. (14) Two animal studies of cattle residing near high‐powered wireless transmission facilities showed higher micronuclei counts and reduced melatonin levels. Micronuclei are indicators of compromised immune factors and precursors to cancer. (15,16) Several plant studies have shown abnormalities in plant growth, from incremental reduction in tree ring growth to shorter life spans. (17) Three large overseas population studies examining the effects of TV tower RF radiaiton on certain types of leukemia incidence found an increased risk for those residing within 3.5 kilometers from the transmitters. (18,19,20) A multitude of laboratory studies have revealed how cell phone RF radiation impacts and penetrates cellular growth and division processes, which could ultimately be linked with more acute and chronic diseases. The studies have shown DNA damage, increased micronuclei formation, activation of stress proteins, and disruption in calcium exchange processes. EM ‐RF frequencies has also revealed breaks in the blood/brain barrier, a barrier which keeps toxins from entering the brain. Breaking the blood/brain barrier could contribute to an increase in the development of Alzheimer and other neurological diseases. Cell phone usuage has also been observed to increase blood pressure. (21,22, 23, 24,25) Three large human studies in Europe over the last five years reported increases of 20% to 80% in brain tumors for those people using cell and cordless phones longer than ten years, and almost four times greater for those using wireless phones over 15 years. Two studies showed an increase in a particular deadly form of brain cancer, glioma. (26,27,28) Several live controlled studies discovered how RF cell phone frequencies damage male sperm in mice and humans, cause cardiac changes, and increase allergic reactions to common air pollens. One of the sperm studies revealed damage to the mitochondrial genome. (29‐32) Studies assessing the health of workers in occupations with high electromagnetic fields, such as radio broadcast workers, radar workers, and electrical workers, revealed a distinct higher incidence of certain illnesses. Observed were greater risk for Parkinson, Alzheimers, MS among those workers, as well reduced sperm counts and significant higher blood pressure incidence. (33,34,35,36,37,38) 3
Although the public is not exposed to such high fields on a daily bases, it is plausible that sensitive and more vulnerable sectors of our population could become afflicted by the same illnesses and symptoms at lower but still potent intensities of electromagnetic fields. Why Are We Not Being Protected? We are not immune to the tampering of the earthʹs electromagnetic spectrum without a corresponding effect on our health. One may ask with all this evidence of harm, why wireless products and transmitters have been allowed to flourish with so little oversight and warning. What we have witnessed in the last ten years is a total accretion of power by the telecommunicatons giants and the military over the federal regulatory and RF research programs of this country. Through death by a thousand cuts, a once robust federally funded, peer reviewed EM radiation health research program has been almost totally dismantled.(39‐41) In its place is a team of Telecom/military heavyweights ready to unleash a force of PR professionals and scientific experts in order to silence, discredit and prove to the contrary any independent research reporting the harmful effects of wireless technology. (42,43) The situation has become so egregious that it prompted an independent researcher from UW to examine the funding sources of over 200 RF/MW studies. His findings revealed a 50/50 split between RF/MW studies indicating harm and no harm. However closer scrutiny indicated that 75% showing no harm were funded and influenced by industry and military. The near reverse held true for the 50% which were independent or publicly financed. Over 75% of those indicated harmful effects from RF/MW radiation. (44) With the wireless telecom companies controIling media and news sources, is it any wonder the consumer/citizen is in the dark and confused as to the truth of this technologyʹs powerful effect on health? The situation becomes increasingly deleterious in the wake of all the new wireless products flooding the market. Although health hazards of cell phone frequencies have been extensively investigated, a lot of unanswered questions still remain on a host of older and newer wireless frequencies & technologies, such as wifi, wi‐max; various transmitting facilities, cell antennas and towers, and new TV digital broadcast frequencies. The need for research free of industry/military influence has become increasingly imperative. While Europe and other overseas nations have fared better against the influence of these giants, they too are beginning to feel the effects these forces on their health regulatory and research programs. The rising concern has prompted a team of Swiss preventive medicine physicians to issue the following statement in a recently published paper reviewing findings from 59 studies on the health effects of cell phone use based on funding sources. The finding was that ʺstudies exclusively funded by industry were indeed substantially less likely to report statistically significant effects on a range of end points that may be relevant to health.... The interpretation of results from studies of health effects of radio frequency radiation should take sponsorship into accountʺ (45) What Can we as Citizens Do to Protect Ourselves? 4
Industry influence is one of the main concerns that scientists signing the Benevento Resolution want to address. Drafted in Italy in 2006 by 31 prominent scientists, the resolution advocates practicing precaution in the absence of certainty. Specific recommendations include ʺpromoting alternatives to wireless technologies, limiting cellphone use by young children, and designating wireless‐free zones in cities and public buildings.ʺ (46) The Resolution also recommends the ʺuse of computer mapping technologies to inform public of possible wireless exposures,ʺ and proposes that any ʺnew wireless access system [e.g. Wi‐Fi, WIMAX, broadband over cable or power‐line or equivalent technologies] should require public review of potential EMF health effects.ʺ (47) Additional public action should take into account the gaps in our present knowledge and inequities of federal law. Important priorities should redress the industry bias present in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and resume a strong publicly funded, peer reviewed RF health research program. On the same line local bodies should strongly consider initiating a regional RF health research program of their own, and implementing a major source‐monitoring program of RF/MW emissions, rather than leaving that privilege to the wireless industry. ʺWe donʹt have to wait on governments to protect us. We can take steps now to minimize our exposure to EMFs and RF radiation At the same time, we can begin to ask ourselves as individuals and societies whether new technological innovations truly make life better in meaningful ways.... Thoughtful choices... can help us find our way through the electronic smog to a future in which technology serves us well without compromising our health. And public concern is a powerful force for change.ʺ (48) 1 Cindy Sage (Ecological Options Network < [email protected] 2 Schumannʹs Resonances & Human Psychobiology. Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 10, Number 3 (April‐May 2003) Website ref: http://p211.ezboard.com/fchemtrailschemtrails.showMessage?topicID=7269.topic [Link expired] 3ʺThe inadequacy of the ICNIRP Guidelines governing human exposure to the microwave emissions of GSM/TETRA Base‐stationsʺ G J Hyland ,December 2003, Associate Fellow Executive Member Department of Physics International Institute of Biophysics* University of Warwick*, UK Neuss‐H olzheim, Germany 4&5 Ibid 2 6 ʺControlling the Human Mind, the Technologies of Political Control or Tools for Peak Performanceʺ, Dr. Nicholos John Begich, Copyright 2006, pp13 ‐ 20, http://www.earthpulse.com 7 ʺTHE MICRO‐SATELLITE DEMETERʺ, Michel Parrot, LPCE/CNRS, 3A Which occurred of Research, 45071 Orleans Cedex 2, France http://www.lpce.cnrs‐
orleans.fr/www_experim/experim_espace_demeter_details_eng.php 8 Power line harmonic radiation (PLHR) observed bythe DEMETER spacecraft, F. Ne!mec,1,2 O. Santol ʹk,3,4 M. Parrot,1 and J. J. Berthelier5; Received 18 October 2005; revised 21 December 2005; accepted 4 January 2006; published 22 April 2006.;JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 111, A04308, doi:10.1029/2005JA011480, 2006 9 ʺFirst in‐situ observations of strong ionospheric perturbations generated by a powerful VLF ground‐
based transmitterʺ; Parrot (1), J.A. Sauvaud (2) , J.J. Berthelier (3), J.P. Lebreton (4); (1) LPCE/CNRS, 3A Avenue de la Recherche Scientifique, 45071 Orleans cedex 2, France 7 ; (2) CESR/CNRS, 9 avenue du 5
Colonel Roche, 31028 Toulouse cedex 4, France 8; (3) CETP, Observatoire de Saint Maur, 4 Avenue de Neptune, 94107 Saint Maur des Fosses 9 cedex, France 10; (4) Research and Scientific Support Department, ESA/ESTEC, Noordwijk, The Netherlands. 11 10 ʺThe Microwave Syndrome further aspects of a Spanish studyʺ; Oberfeld Gerd, Navarro A. Enrique, Portoles Manuel, Maestu Ceferino, Gomez‐Perretta Claudio; Public Health Department Salzburg, Austria; University Hospital La Fe, Valencia, Spain; Department of Applied Physics, University Valencia, Spain; Foundation European Bioelectromagnetism (FEB) Madrid, Spain; Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology; 2004 11 Theodor Abelin, is a medical doctor, head of the Department of Social and Preventive Medicine at the University of Berne,.ʺShortwave Transmitter in Switzerland to Be Shut Down After Government Admits Health Effectsʺ, Journal: ʹNo Place to Hideʹ, US, December 1997 ; Microwave News, US, September/October 1996 12 ʺStudy of the health of people living in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations. I. Influences of distance and gender ʺ; Santini R, Santini P, Danze JM, Le Ruz P, Seigne M.; Institut national des sciences appliquees, laboratoire de biochimie‐pharmacologie, batiment Louis‐Pasteur, 69621 cedex, Villeurbanne, France; Jrnl ‐Pathol Biol (Paris). 2003 Sep;51(7):412‐5. 13 Kolodynski AA, Kolodynska VV, Motor and psychological functions of school children living in the area of the Skrunda Radio Location Station in Latvia. Sci Total Environ 180(1):87‐93, 1996 ‐ Henry Lai abstract compilations 14 Ibid 10 & 12 15 Balode, Z, Assessment of radio‐frequency electromagnetic radiation by the micronucleus test in bovine peripheral erythrocytes. Sci Total Environ 180(1):81‐85, 1996. ‐ Henry Lai compilation of Abstracts 16 Stark KD, Krebs T, Altpeter E, Manz B, Griot C, Abelin T, Chronic effect of exposure to short‐wave radio broadcast signal on salivary melatonin concentrations in dairy cattle. J Pineal Res 22(4):171‐176, 1997 ‐ Henry Lai compilation of Abstracts 17 ʺActual or Potential effectsof ELF and RF/MW radiation on Accelerating aging of human, animal or plant cells, Dr Neil Cherry, Lincoln University, New Zealand p. 64 18 Dolk H, Shaddick G, Walls P, Grundy C, Thakrar B, Kleinschmidt I, Elliott P, Cancer incidence near radio and television transmitters in Great Britain. I. Sutton Coldfield transmitter. Am J Epidemiol 145(1):1‐
9, 1997 19 Hocking B, Gordon IR, Grain HL, Hatfield GE, Cancer incidence and mortality and proximity to TV towers. Med J Aust 165(11‐12):601‐605, 1996. 20 Michelozzi P, Ancona C, Fusco D, Forastiere F, Perucci CA, Risk of leukemia and residence near a radio transmitter in Italy. Epidemiology 9 (Suppl) 354 p, 1998 21 Cell Phone Chronicles, Part 1; by John MacArthur; April 29, 2000; http://www.energyfields.org/science/chronicles.html 22 ʺStudies reporting biological effects of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) at low intensitiesʺ; Henry Lai; Bioelectromagnetics Research Laboratory, Department of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA 23 Ibid 3 24 REFLEX report< European Union, 12_04, http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20041222_reflex.asp 6
25 ʺChronic electromagnetic field exposure decreases HSP70 levels and lowers cytoprotection.ʺ; Di Carlo A, White N, Guo F, Garrett P, Litovitz T., Feb 2002; Vitreous State Laboratory, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC 20064, USA. 26 ʺMobile phone use and risk of acoustic neuroma: results of the Interphone case‐control study in five North European countriesʺ http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v93/n7/abs/6602764a.html Summary at http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20050901_neuroma.asp 27 The INTERPHONE Study http://www.iarc.fr/ENG/Units/RCAd.html 28 Karolinska Institute, Sweden http://www.imm.ki.se/divisions/epidemiology/index.html Link cannot be found 29 Effects of electromagnetic radiation from a cellular phone on human sperm motility: an in vitro study; Erogul O, Oztas E, Yildirim I, Kir T, Aydur E, Komesli G, Irkilata HC, Irmak MK, Peker AF.; Biomedical and Clinical Engineering Centre, Gulhane Military Medical Academy, Etlik, Ankara, Turkey; Arch Med Res. 2006 Oct;37(7):840‐3: 30 Impact of radio frequency electromagnetic radiation on DNA integrity in the male germlineʺ. Int J Androl. 2005 Jun 28(3):171‐9 Aitken RJ, Bennetts LE, Sawyer D, Wiklendt AM, King BV. : ARC Centre of Excellence in Biotechnology and Development, Discipline of Biological Sciences, and Hunter Medical Research Institute, Newcastle, NSW, Australia 31 Radio frequency electromagnetic field exposure in humans: Estimation of SAR distribution in the brain, effects on sleep and heart rateʺ; Huber R, Schuderer J, Graf T, Jutz K, Borbely AA, Kuster N, Achermann P.; Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.; Jrnl ‐ Bioelectromagnetics. 2003 May;24(4):262‐76 32 Researchers Find Mobile Phones Can ʹExciteʹ Antigensʺ; Kimata, Hajime ; Unitika Hospital, Kyoto, Japan; 1_04 33 ʺNeurodegenerative diseases in welders and other workers exposed to high levels of magnetic fields.ʺ Hakansson N, Gustavsson P, Johansen C, Floderus B. Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Epidemiology. 2003 Jul;14(4):420‐6; discussion 427‐8.: 34 ʺOccupational exposure to magnetic fields in case‐referent studies of neurodegenerative diseasesʺ Noonan CW, Reif JS, Yost M, Touchstone J.; Department of Environmental Health, Colorado State University, United States; Scand J Work Environ Health. 2002 Feb;28(1):42‐8, 35 ʺPotential occupational risks for neurodegenerative diseasesʺ; Park RM, Schulte PA, Bowman JD, Walker JT, Bondy SC, Yost MG, Touchstone JA, Dosemeci M.; Education and Information Division, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, MS C‐15, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, OH 45226, USA.; Am J Ind Med. 2005 Jul;48(1):63‐77 36 ʺEvaluation of selected functional circulation parameters of workers from various occupational groups exposed to electromagnetic fields of high frequency. III. 24‐h monitoring of arterial blood pressure.ʺ; Gadzicka E, Bortkiewicz A, Zmyslony M, Palczynski C.; Zakladu Fizjologii Pracy i Ergonomii, Instytutu Medycyny Pracy, Lodzi, Poland; Jrnl ‐ Med Pr. 1997;48(1):15‐24. 37 Hjollund NH, Bonde JP, Skotte J, Semen analysis of personnel operating military radar equipment. Reprod Toxicol 11(6):897, 1997 ‐ Henry Lai compilation of abstracts 38 ʺOccupational safety: effects of workplace radiofrequencies on hearing function.ʺ;Oktay MF, Dasdag S, Akdere M, Cureoglu S, Cebe M, Yazicioglu M, Topcu I, Meric F.; Department of Otolaryngology, School of Medicine, Dicle University, Diyarbakir, Turkey.; Jrnl ‐ Arch Med Res. 2004 Nov‐Dec;35(6):517‐21. 39 Cell Phones, Invisible Hazard of Wireless Age, Dr. George Carlo and Martin Schram, Carroll & Graff Publishers, 2002 7
40 Dr. Carlo radio interview: http://www.Emf‐health.com/Dr‐george‐carlo.htm Not found 41 Ibid 40 42 ʺWake‐up Call: Can Radiation from Cell Phones Damage DNA in Our Brains? When One UW Researcher Found Disturbing Data, Funding Became Tight and One Industry Leader Threatened Legal ActionʺFrom the University of Washington Alumni Association Magazine ʺColumnsʺ ‐ March 2005; http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/march05/wakeupcall01.html 43 Cindy Sage ‐ Letter on Bioelectromagnetic Journal Supplement 6, http://www.healthandenvironment.org/wg_emf_news/251 Supplement 6 editorial 44 Ibid 42 45 &46, Ibid 1 47 ʺThe Benevento Resolutionʺ Elizabeth Kelley, Managing Secretariat, International Commission For Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS), Montepulciano, Italy. Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.icems.eu 48 Ibid 1 8
HOW CELL PHONE RADIATION AFFECTS YOUR CELLS
Radiation from cell phones is too weak to
heat biological tissue or break chemical
bonds in cells, but the radio waves they
emit may still change cell behavior.
Scientists exposed 10 female volunteers
to radiation at 900 megahertz from GSM
phones to simulate an hour-long phone
call.
They screened 580 different proteins in their skin cells and found that the
numbers of two proteins were altered in all of the volunteers: one protein
increased by 89 percent, the other decreased by 32 percent.
This study shows that even without heating, molecular level changes take
place in response to exposure to cell phone frequency electromagnetic
radiation.
Sources: New Scientist February 23, 2008, BMC Genomics 2008, 9:77
Mobile phone radiation might alter protein
expression in human skin
The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/9/77
Abstract
Background
Earlier we have shown that the mobile phone radiation (radiofrequency modulated
electromagnetic fields; RF-EMF) alters protein expression in human endothelial cell line. This
does not mean that similar response will take place in human body exposed to this radiation.
Therefore, in this pilot human volunteer study, using proteomics approach, we have examined
whether a local exposure of human skin to RF-EMF will cause changes in protein expression in
living people.
Results
Small area of forearm's skin in 10 female volunteers was exposed to RF-EMF (specific
absorption rate SAR = 1.3 W/kg) and punch biopsies were collected from exposed and nonexposed areas of skin. Proteins extracted from biopsies were separated using 2-DE and
protein expression changes were analyzed using PDQuest software. Analysis has identified 8
Page 1 proteins that were statistically significantly affected (Anova and Wilcoxon tests). Two of the
proteins were present in all 10 volunteers. This suggests that protein expression in human
skin might be affected by the exposure to RF-EMF. The number of affected proteins was
similar to the number of affected proteins observed in our earlier in vitro studies.
Conclusion
This is the first study showing that molecular level changes might take place in human
volunteers in response to exposure to RF-EMF. Our study confirms that proteomics screening
approach can identify protein targets of RF-EMF in human volunteers.
Background
Physiological functions of human body are regulated by electric currents. Therefore, is not
surprising that placing human body within electromagnetic field, of sufficient strength, may
affect physiological processes. The possibility of induction of biological and health effects by
low energy radiation emitted by mobile phones (radiofrequency-modulated electromagnetic
fields: RF-EMF) remains a controversial issue. In spite of years of research, there is still
ongoing discussion whether RF-EMF could induce any physiologically relevant effects [1]. The
vast majority of the so far conducted research has focused on cancer. However, RF-EMF is also
suspected as potential cause of such ailments as sleep disorders, headaches or allergy-like
symptoms [2].
We have proposed that proteomics screening may be used to reveal molecular targets of RFEMF and help to understand the possible biochemical mechanism of the RF-EMF-induced
effects [3]. Our earlier proteomics studies have shown that changes in protein expression and
activity (phosphorylation) were induced in human endothelial cell line EA.hy926 that was
exposed to RF-EMF [4-7]. These in vitro observed effects, however, do not automatically mean
that similar changes would happen in the cells of mobile phone users. Therefore, the present
pilot study was undertaken to determine whether a local exposure of human skin to RF-EMF
will induce any changes in protein expression and whether it will be possible to find common
protein(s) that respond to RF-EMF in all volunteers.
Results
Ethical permit to perform this study was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Department of
Surgery of Hospital District of Helsinki and Uusimaa, Finland. A small skin area of a forearm of
10 of same sex (female) volunteers (age 27 – 65 years; mean 51 years) were irradiated for 1
hour with 900 MHz GSM signal at specific absorption rate (SAR) of 1.3 W/kg, using specially
designed exposure setup [8]. The mobile phone safety limit SAR is 2.0 W/kg, as
recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
(ICNIRP).
Immediately after the exposure, a punch biopsy of the exposed area of skin (experimental
sample) was taken by a physician. Another punch biopsy was taken from the other, nonexposed, forearm (sham sample). In this experimental set-up each volunteer acted as its own
sham control. Both exposed and non-exposed skin samples of all volunteers were immediately
snap-frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored before extraction of proteins.
Page 2 Proteins from all samples were extracted using TRIzol Reagent (Invitrogen) and separated
using 2-dimensional gel electrophoresis (2-DE) with pH gradient range of 4–7 in the first
dimension and 9% SDS-PAGE gel in the second dimension (GE Healthcare). Proteins were
detected by silver staining and spot distribution pattern was analyzed using PDQuest 7.2
software (Bio-Rad).
We have analyzed a fragment of proteome: proteins with the isoelectric point (pI) 4–7 and the
molecular weight <40 kDa, because the protein spot separation in 2-DE in this area was
clearly distinguishable (Figure 1). Firstly, using PDQuest software, for each volunteer was
generated an artificial gel, by combining protein expression profiles from sham and exposed
samples. Thereafter, all 10 artificial gels were combined into single artificial master gel and
the differentially expressed protein spots, which were detected in at least 4 volunteers, were
statistically analyzed.
Figure 1. Artificial master gel for all sham and exposed skin samples of all 10
volunteers. Statistically significantly affected protein spots are marked in red color (declined
expression) and in green color (increased expression).
The ratio of exposed and sham sample expression was analyzed spot by spot, after logarithm
transformation, with variance analysis (anova). Due to small numbers and potential violations
of model assumptions, the ratios were also studied with the Wilcoxon test. The statistical
analysis has identified 8 differentially expressed proteins where the change in expression was
statistically significant among the 579 identified proteins spots (Table 1). Two of the protein
spots (#3701, #4801) were present in all 10 volunteers thus showing that it is possible to find
common, responding proteins among the all volunteers. The p-values are not adjusted for
multiple comparisons.
Table 1. List of proteins that were present in at least 4 volunteers and which expression has been
changed in statistically significant manner (<0.05) as determined by the variance analysis and the
Wilcoxon test. Ratio = exposed sample expression/sham sample expression.
Discussion
Proteomics approach to study effects of mobile phone radiation on cells has been used so far
only by two research groups, ours in Helsinki and group the Zhejiang University, Hangzhou,
China. Our studies, using human endothelial cell lines have shown that mobile phone radiation
induces statistically significant changes in the expression of several tens of proteins [6] and
that the response of cell might be proteome-dependent [7]. In one study, the group in China
has not found statistically significant differences in protein expression in MCF-7 cells [9]. The
reason for it might be too low number of experiments in MCF-7 study [9]. In our studies
statistical analysis was based on 10 different experiments whereas Zeng et al. [9] based their
analysis on only three replicates. Another reason for the difference might be different
sensitivity of MCF-7 cells as compared with ours endothelial cell lines EA.hy926 and
EA.hy926v1. In the other study from Zhejiang University [10] were found 4 differentially
expressed proteins in lens epithelial cells, among them the stress response protein Hsp70.
Page 3 The obtained results, suggesting effect of mobile phone radiation on protein expression in
human cell lines, do not automatically mean that this exposure will have any effect on protein
expression in humans. The so far conducted human volunteer studies have focused on
cognitive responses to RF-EMF [2] and there is no information available about the proteome,
as well as transcriptome, response to mobile phone radiation in humans. This study is, to our
knowledge, the first one where human response to RF-EMF was examined on molecular level.
Our results suggest that human skin might respond to RF-EMF and change protein expression
profile. Interestingly, when adjusting results of our previous cellular study [6] using the size of
proteome analyzed in the present study (pI 4–7; <40 kDa) the number of the statistically
significantly affected proteins appears to be similar in this and in earlier [6] study, 8 spots and
9 spots, respectively. The number of differentially expressed protein spots in both studies is
below the number of expected false positives. However, as we have demonstrated
experimentally [6] and discussed previously [11] it is likely that some of the proteins will be
indeed, real positives. However, without further testing, it is not possible to predict whether
these changes will have impact on skin physiology.
Finally, our study confirms that the proposed by us proteomics approach [3] can identify
protein targets of RF-EMF. This approach to EMF research has been subsequently accepted by
the EMF scientists [12,13] and has been included into the 2006 World Health Organization
Research Agenda [14]. However, new and larger study is urgently needed to strengthen our
pilot observations and to determine what impact mobile phone exposure might have on human
tissues.
Conclusion
▪ Mobile phone radiation might alter protein expression in human skin.
▪ Physiological significance of this change is not known and requires further study.
▪ Larger human volunteer study will be needed to confirm results of this pilot study.
▪ Proteomics screening is valid method for search for molecular targets of mobile phone
radiation. Without this approach the identification of the proteins responding to mobile phone
radiation would not be reasonably possible.
Methods
Ethical issues
Ethical permit to perform this study was obtained, in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration,
from the Ethics Committee of the Department of Surgery of the Hospital District of Helsinki
and Uusimaa, Finland (decision #127/2005 issued on November 23, 2005). Each volunteer
was informed in detail about all experimental procedures and each of them has signed the
informed consent form (in Finnish language).
Exposure of volunteers to mobile phone radiation
Volunteers were exposed to 900 MHz GSM mobile phone radiation in an experimental setup
described in detail elsewhere [8]. The source of irradiation was a half-wave dipole fed with a
computer controlled GSM phone. The specific absorption rate (SAR) induced in the skin was
1.3 W/kg what is below the ICNIRP safety guidelines (2.0 W/kg). During the exposure small
Page 4 area of the right forearms was irradiated for one hour. The other, non-irradiated forearm was
used as sham control. Immediately after exposure skin punch-biopsies were taken from the
exposed and non-exposed skin for protein analysis.
Protein extraction from skin biopsies
Skin punch biopsies, consisting of both dermis and epidermis but without the underlying fat
tissue, were frozen immediately after harvesting in liquid nitrogen and stored at -80°C.
Isolation and separation of proteins were performed in the blinded manner. Proteins were
isolated from frozen skin using TRIzol® reagent protocol as described by the manufacturer
(Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) with a few modifications. Briefly, the chopped skin punchbiopsies were immersed in 0.5 ml of ice-cold TRIzol reagent and homogenized on ice with 70
strokes of the pestle in DUALL 1 ml tissue grinder (Kimble Chase Life Science and Research
Products, Vineland, NJ, USA). After the phase separation of TRIzol reagent, the organic phase
containing DNA and proteins was collected. DNA was then precipitated with ethanol and
proteins were isolated from the phenol-ethanol supernatant. The proteins were then
precipitated by isopropyl alcohol and pelleted at 12000 × g for 10 min at +4°C. The protein
pellet was washed 3 times with 0.3 M guanidine hydrochloride solution in 95% ethanol and
once with 99.5% ethanol. During the extraction pellets were grinded with pellet pestle in order
to improve the solubility of the proteins. After each wash step, proteins were centrifuged 7500
× g for 5 min at +4°C. The air-dried protein pellet was dissolved in 2-DE rehydration buffer
containing 9 M urea, 2% (w/v) CHAPS, 0.5% (v/v) IPG buffer pH 4–7 and 5 mg/ml DTT
(added as fresh). The protein concentration of sample was measured using the Bradford
method. The samples were stored at -80°C.
Protein separation with 2-DE
Proteins were separated by standard 2-DE. Briefly, the first dimension was performed in
IPGphor™ (GE Healthcare, UK) isoelectric focusing (IEF) apparatus. Linear, 24 cm long, pH 4–
7 Immobiline™ DryStrip gels (IPG-strips, GE Healthcare, UK) were rehydrated in the strip
holders for 4 hours in 0.45 ml rehydration buffer containing 9 M urea, 2% (w/v) CHAPS, 0.5%
(v/v) IPG-buffer pH 4–7, 1.2% (v/v) DeStreak™ reagent, a trace of bromophenol blue and
150 μg of total amount of protein. IEF was carried out at +20°C using following step-and-hold
settings: 50 V, 8 h; 100 V, 1 h; 500 V, 1 h; 1000 V, 1 h; 2000 V, 1 h; 8000 V, until 95000 Vh
was achieved. Then, the IPG-strips were incubated at room temperature in equilibration buffer
(50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.8, 6 M urea, 30% (v/v) glycerol, 2% (w/v) SDS, a trace of
bromophenol blue, and 10 mg/ml DTT) for 15 min and for another 15 min in the same buffer
that contained 25 mg/ml of iodoacetamide instead of DTT. The second-dimension separation
was performed using 9%SDS-PAGE gels. Electrophoresis was carried out at +10°C using an
Ettan™ DALTsix electrophoresis unit (GE Healtcare) at a constant power of 3.5 W/gel for 0.5 h
and then 13 W/gel until the dye front reached the bottom of the gel (about 4 h). The ready
gels were silver stained to visualize protein spots. Stained gels were scanned into computer
using GS-710 Calibrated Imaging Densitometer (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA, USA).
The gels were analyzed using PDQuest 7.2 software (Bio-Rad).
Abbreviations
CHAPS, 3-[(3-Cholamidopropyl)dimethylammonio]-1-propanesulfonate; 2-DE, 2-dimensional
electrophoresis; DTT, dithiothreitol; EA.hy926, human endothelial cell line; ICNIRP,
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection; IEF, isoelectric focusing; IPG,
Page 5 immobilized pH gradient; MCF-7, human breast adenocarcinoma cell line; pI, isoelectric point;
RF-EMF, radiofrequency modulated electromagnetic field; SAR, specific absorption rate; SDS,
sodium dodecyl sulfate; SDS-PAGE, sodium dodecyl sulfate polyacrylamide gel
electrophoresis; Tris-HCl, Tris(hydroxymethyl)aminomethane hydrochloride;
Authors' contributions
AK executed the proteomics experiments and performed analysis of the proteomics data. RN
assisted in designing of the study, participated in writing the grant funding the study, assisted
in analysis of proteomics data. SH performed statistical analysis of the data. DL conceived and
designed the study, obtained grant funding the study, coordinated execution and analysis of
the results and wrote the draft manuscript. All authors participated in the writing of the final
version of the manuscript, read it and approved it.
Acknowledgements
We thank Dr. J. Halttunen (Central Hospital of the University of Helsinki) for taking skin
biopsies. Funding was provided by Tekes – Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and
Innovation (HERMO project) and by STUK- Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority.
References
1. Krewski D, Glickman BW, Habash RW, Habbick B, Lotz WG, Mandeville R, Prato FS,
Salem T, Weaver DF: Recent advances in research on radiofrequency fields
and health: 2001–2003.
J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev 2007, 10:287-318. PubMed Abstract | Publisher
Full Text
Return to text
2. Seitz H, Stinner D, Eikmann T, Herr C, Röösli M: Electromagnetic hypersensitivity
(EHS) and subjective health complaints associated with electromagnetic
fields of mobile phone communication – a literature review published
between 2000 and 2004.
Science of Total Environment 2005, 349:45-55. Publisher Full Text
Return to text
3. Leszczynski D, Joenväärä S: Proteomics: new way to determine possible
biological effects of mobile phone radiation.
Nature Genetics 2001, (Suppl 27):67. Publisher Full Text
Return to text
4. Leszczynski D, Joenväärä S, Reivinen J, Kuokka R: Non-thermal activation of the
hsp27/p38MAPK stress pathway by mobile phone radiation in human
endothelial cells: molecular mechanism for cancer- and blood-brain barrierrelated effects.
Differentiation 2002, 70:120-129. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Return to text
5. Leszczynski D, Nylund R, Joenväärä S, Reivinen J: Applicability of discovery
science approach to determine biological effects of mobile phone radiation.
Proteomics 2004, 4:426-431. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Return to text
Page 6 6. Nylund R, Leszczynski D: Proteomics analysis of human endothelial cell line
EA.hy926 after exposure to GSM 900 radiation.
Proteomics 2004, 4:1359-1365. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Return to text
7. Nylund R, Leszczynski D: Mobile phone radiation causes changes in gene and
protein expression in human endothelial cell lines and the response seems
to be genome- and proteome-dependent.
Proteomics 2006, 6:4769-4780. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Return to text
8. Toivonen T, Toivo T, Puranen L, Jokela K: Setup and dosimetry for exposure of
human skin in vivo to RF-EMF at 900 MHz.
Bioelectromagnetics 2007, in press. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
DOI 10.1002/bem.20383
Return to text
9. Zeng Q, Chen G, Weng Y, Wang L, Chiang H, Lu D, Xu Z: Effects of global system
for mobile communications 1800 MHz radiofrequency electromagnetic fields
on gene and protein expression in MCF-7 cells.
Proteomics 2006, 6:4732-4738. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Return to text
10. Li HW, Yao K, Jin HY, Sun LK, Lu DQ, Yu YB: Proteomic analysis of human lens
epithelial cells exposed to microwaves.
Jpn J Ophtalmol 2007, 51:412-416. Publisher Full Text
Return to text
11. Leszczynski D: Mobile phone radiation and gene expression.
Radiation Res 2007, 167:121. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Return to text
12. Leszczynski D: The need for a new approach in studies of the biological
effects of electromagnetic fields.
Proteomics 2006, 6:4671-4673. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Return to text
13. Leszczynski D, Meltz ML: Questions and answers concerning applicability of
proteomics and transcriptomics in EMF research.
Proteomics 2006, 6:4674-7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Return to text
14. World Health Organization: [http://www.who.int/pehemf/research/rf_research_agenda_2006.pdf] webcite
WHO Research Agenda for Radio Frequency Fields. 2006.
Return to text
Page 7 True Dangers Of Mobile Phones And Wireless Technologies
(http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/04/24/true_dangers_of_mobile_phones.htm)
Our society has become both socially and economically dependent, in just one short decade,
upon a technology that is doing tremendous damage to the fabric of our world.
The more entrenched we let ourselves become in it, the more difficult it will become to change our
course. The time to extricate ourselves, both individually and collectively — difficult though it is
already is — is now.
It is getting quite difficult to imagine a world without mobile
communications. Wireless internet access is set to blanket the planet,
just like cell phone networks already do. There has been an explosive
development - practically all during the last three decades - that
brought mobile to the farthest corners of the earth. But the technology
is not without danger. The microwaves that carry bits and packets of
data also carry a germ of destruction.
Some people - as many as 120,000 Californians - and by implication 1 million Americans - are
actually unable to work as they suffer from the incapacitating influence that this cacophony in the
ether has on them.
We might say they are the unlucky ones who have to suffer for progress to continue - but have you
ever heard of canaries in the mines? They were the first ones to die when a potentially deadly but
otherwise undetectable accumulation of "mine gas" threatened the lives of the miners working
underground. What if those 120.000 Californians and the one million Americans and by extension
tens of millions of people world wide are in a very real sense our equivalent of deep-mine canaries?
Are we not ignoring their plight at our own very imminent peril?
Arthur Firstenberg, himself a sufferer of what the Russians call "microwave sickness" has put
together the salient facts about the largest biological experiment ever, in a very readable article
published in the Eldorado Sun.
We cannot call ourselves informed in the wireless debate unless we start looking at its dark side
as well as all the positive aspects. Firstenberg's article is as good as any to get us going in this
direction ...
The Largest Biological Experiment Ever by Arthur Firstenberg
In 2002, Gro Harlem Brundtland, then head of the World Health Organization, told a Norwegian
journalist that cell phones were banned from her office in Geneva because she personally became ill
each time a cell phone was brought within about four meters (13 feet) of her. Mrs. Brundtland is a
medical doctor and former Prime Minister of Norway.
This sensational news, published March 9, 2002 in Dagbladet, was ignored by every other
newspaper in the world. The following week Michael Repacholi, her subordinate in charge of the
International EMF (electromagnetic field) Project, responded with a public statement belittling his
boss’s concerns.
True Dangers of Mobile Phones and Wireless Technologies Page 1 Five months later, for reasons that many suspect were related to these circumstances, Mrs.
Brundtland announced she would step down from her leadership post at the WHO after just one
term.
Nothing could better illustrate our collective schizophrenia when it comes to thinking about
electromagnetic radiation. We respond to those who are worried about its dangers — hence the
International EMF Project — but we ignore and marginalize those, like Mrs. Brundtland, who have
already succumbed to its effects.
As a consultant on the health effects of wireless technology, I receive calls that can be broadly
divided into two main groups: those from people who are merely worried, whom I will call A, and
those from people who are already sick, whom I will call B.
I sometimes wish I could arrange a large conference call and have the two groups talk to each
other — there needs to be more mutual understanding so that we are all trying to solve the same
problems. Caller A, worried, commonly asks what kind of shield to buy for his cell phone or what
kind of headset to wear with it. Sometimes he wants to know what is a safe distance to live from a
cell tower. Caller B, sick, wants to know what kind of shielding to put on her house, what kind of
medical treatment to get, or, increasingly often, what part of the country she could move to to
escape the radiation to save her life.
The following is designed as a sort of a primer: first, to help everybody get more or less on the
same page, and second, to clear up some of the confusions so that we can make rational decisions
toward a healthier world.
Fundamentals
The most basic fact about cell phones and cell towers is that they emit microwave radiation; so do
Wi-Fi (wireless Internet) antennas, wireless computers, cordless (portable) phones and their base
units, and all other wireless devices. If it’s a communication device and it’s not attached to the wall
by a wire, it’s emitting radiation.
Most Wi-Fi systems and some cordless phones operate at the exact same frequency as a
microwave oven, while other devices use a different frequency. Wi-Fi is always on and always
radiating. The base units of most cordless phones are always radiating, even when no one is using
the phone. A cell phone that is on but not in use is also radiating. And, needless to say, cell towers
are always radiating.
Why is this a problem, you might ask? Scientists usually divide the electromagnetic spectrum into
“ionizing” and “non-ionizing.” Ionizing radiation, which includes x-rays and atomic radiation,
causes cancer. Non-ionizing radiation, which includes microwave radiation, is supposed to be safe.
This distinction always reminded me of the propaganda in George Orwell’s Animal Farm: “Four
legs good, two legs bad.” “Non-ionizing good, ionizing bad” is as little to be trusted.
An astronomer once quipped that if Neil Armstrong had taken a cell phone to the Moon in 1969, it
would have appeared to be the third most powerful source of microwave radiation in the universe,
next only to the Sun and the Milky Way. He was right. Life evolved with negligible levels of
microwave radiation.
True Dangers of Mobile Phones and Wireless Technologies Page 2 An increasing number of scientists speculate that our own cells, in fact, use the microwave spectrum
to communicate with one another, like children whispering in the dark, and that cell phones, like
jackhammers, interfere with their signaling. In any case, it is a fact that we are all being bombarded,
day in and day out, whether we use a cell phone or not, by an amount of microwave radiation that is
some ten million times as strong as the average natural background. And it is also a fact that most of
this radiation is due to technology that has been developed since the 1970s.
As far as cell phones themselves are concerned, if you put one up to your head you are damaging
your brain in a number of different ways. First, think of a microwave oven. A cell phone, like a
microwave oven and unlike a hot shower, heats you from the inside out, not from the outside in.
And there are no sensory nerve endings in the brain to warn you of a rise in temperature
because we did not evolve with microwave radiation, and this never happens in nature.
Worse, the structure of the head and brain is so complex and non-uniform that “hot spots” are
produced, where heating can be tens or hundreds of times what it is nearby. Hot spots can occur
both close to the surface of the skull and deep within the brain, and also on a molecular level.
Cell phones are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission, and you can find, in the
packaging of most new phones, a number called the Specific Absorption Rate, or SAR, which is
supposed to indicate the rate at which energy is absorbed by the brain from that particular model.
One problem, however, is the arbitrary assumption, upon which the FCC’s regulations are based,
that the brain can safely dissipate added heat at a rate of up to 1 degree C per hour.
Compounding this is the scandalous procedure used to demonstrate compliance with these
limits and give each cell phone its SAR rating. The standard way to measure SAR is on a
“phantom” consisting, incredibly, of a homogenous fluid encased in Plexiglas in the shape of a
head. Presto, no hot spots!
But in reality, people who use cell phones for hours per day are chronically heating places in their
brain.
The FCC’s safety standard, by the way, was developed by electrical engineers, not doctors.
Mobile phone repeater antenna on a remote island in the mid Atlantic - Photo credit: Sepp
Hasslberger
The Blood-Brain Barrier
The second effect that I want to focus on, which has been proven in the
laboratory, should by itself have been enough to shut down this industry
and should be enough to scare away anyone from ever using a cell
phone again. I call it the “smoking gun” of cell phone experiments. Like
most biological effects of microwave radiation, this has nothing to do
with heating.
True Dangers of Mobile Phones and Wireless Technologies Page 3 The brain is protected by tight junctions between adjacent cells of capillary walls, the so-called
blood-brain barrier, which, like a border patrol, lets nutrients pass through from the blood to the
brain, but keeps toxic substances out.
Since 1988, researchers in the laboratory of a Swedish neurosurgeon, Leif Salford, have been
running variations on this simple experiment: they expose young laboratory rats to either a cell
phone or other source of microwave radiation, and later they sacrifice the animals and look for
albumin in their brain tissue.
Albumin is a protein that is a normal component of blood but that does not normally cross the
blood-brain barrier. The presence of albumin in brain tissue is always a sign that blood vessels have
been damaged and that the brain has lost some of its protection.
Here is what these researchers have found, consistently for 18 years: Microwave radiation, at
doses equal to a cell phone’s emissions, causes albumin to be found in brain tissue.
A one-time exposure to an ordinary cell phone for just two minutes causes albumin to leak into
the brain.
In one set of experiments, reducing the exposure level by a factor of 1,000 actually increased the
damage to the blood-brain barrier, showing that this is not a dose-response effect and that
reducing the power will not make wireless technology safer.
And finally, in research published in June 2003, a single two-hour exposure to a cell phone, just
once during its lifetime, permanently damaged the blood-brain barrier and, on autopsy 50 days later,
was found to have damaged or destroyed up to 2 percent of an animal’s brain cells, including cells
in areas of the brain concerned with learning, memory and movement.
Reducing the exposure level by a factor of 10 or 100, thereby duplicating the effect of wearing a
headset, moving a cell phone further from your body, or standing next to somebody else’s phone,
did not appreciably change the results! Even at the lowest exposure, half the animals had a
moderate to high number of damaged neurons.
The implications for us?
Two minutes on a cell phone disrupts the blood-brain barrier, two hours on a cell phone causes
permanent brain damage, and secondhand radiation may be almost as bad. The blood-brain barrier
is the same in a rat and a human being.
These results caused enough of a commotion in Europe that in November 2003 a conference was
held, sponsored by the European Union, titled “The Blood-Brain Barrier — Can It Be Influenced by
RF [radio frequency]-Field Interactions?” as if to reassure the public: “See, we are doing something
about this.” But, predictably, nothing was done about it, as nothing has been done about it for 30
years.
America’s Allan Frey, during the 1970s, was the first of many to demonstrate that low-level
microwave radiation damages the blood-brain barrier. Similar mechanisms protect the eye (the
blood-vitreous barrier) and the fetus (the placental barrier), and the work of Frey and others
indicates that microwave radiation damages those barriers also.
True Dangers of Mobile Phones and Wireless Technologies Page 4 The implication: No pregnant woman should ever be using a cell phone.
Dr. Salford is quite outspoken about his work. He has called the use of handheld
cell phones “the largest human biological experiment ever.” and he has publicly warned that a
whole generation of cell-phone-using teenagers may suffer from mental deficits or Alzheimer’s
disease by the time they reach middle age.
Radio-Wave Sickness
Unfortunately, cell phone users are not the only ones being injured, nor should we be worried only
about the brain. The following brief summary is distilled from a vast scientific literature on the
effects of radio waves (a larger spectrum which includes microwaves), together with the
experiences of scientists and doctors all over the world with whom I am in contact.
Organs that have been shown to be especially susceptible to radio waves include the lungs,
nervous system, heart, eyes, testes and thyroid gland.
Diseases that have increased remarkably in the last couple of decades, and that there is good
reason to connect with the massive increase in radiation in our environment, include asthma, sleep
disorders, anxiety disorders, attention deficit disorder, autism, multiple sclerosis, ALS, Alzheimer’s
disease, epilepsy, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, cataracts, hypothyroidism, diabetes,
malignant melanoma, testicular cancer, and heart attacks and strokes in young people.
Radiation from microwave towers has also been associated with forest die-off, reproductive
failure and population decline in many species of birds, and ill health and birth deformities in farm
animals.
The literature showing biological effects of microwave radiation is truly enormous, running to tens
of thousands of documents, and I am amazed that industry spokespersons are getting away with
saying that wireless technology has been proved safe or — just as ridiculous — that there is no
evidence of harm.
I have omitted one disease from the above list: the illness that Caller B has, and that I have.
A short history is in order here. In the 1950s and 1960s workers who built, tested and repaired radar
equipment came down with this disease in large numbers. So did operators of industrial microwave
heaters and sealers. The Soviets named it, appropriately, radio wave sickness, and studied it
extensively. In the West its existence was denied totally, but workers came down with it anyway.
Witness congressional hearings held in 1981, chaired by then Representative Al Gore, on the health
effects of radio-frequency heaters and sealers, another episode in “See, we are doing something
about this,” while nothing is done.
Today, with the mass proliferation of radio towers and personal transmitters, the disease has spread
like a plague into the general population. Estimates of its prevalence range up to one-third of the
population, but it is rarely recognized for what it is until it has so disabled a person that he or she
can no longer participate in society. You may recognize some of its common symptoms: insomnia,
dizziness, nausea, headaches, fatigue, memory loss, inability to concentrate, depression, chest
discomfort, ringing in the ears. Patients may also develop medical problems such as chronic
True Dangers of Mobile Phones and Wireless Technologies Page 5 respiratory infections, heart arrhythmias, sudden fluctuations in blood pressure, uncontrolled blood
sugar, dehydration, and even seizures and internal bleeding.
What makes this disease so difficult to accept, and even more difficult to cope with, is that no
treatment is likely to succeed unless one can also avoid exposure to its cause — and its cause is
now everywhere.
A 1998 survey by the California Department of Health Services indicated that at that time 120,000
Californians — and by implication 1 million Americans — were unable to work due to
electromagnetic pollution.
The ranks of these so-called electrically sensitive are swelling in almost every country in the world,
marginalized, stigmatized and ignored. With the level of radiation everywhere today, they almost
never recover and sometimes take their own lives.
“They are acting as a warning for all of us,” says Dr. Olle Johansson of people with this illness. “It
could be a major mistake to subject the entire world’s population to whole-body irradiation, 24
hours a day.” A neuroscientist at the famous Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Dr. Johansson heads
a research team that is documenting a significant and permanent worsening of the public health that
began precisely when the second-generation, 1800 MHz cell phones were introduced into Sweden
in late l997.
After a decade-long decline, the number of Swedish workers on sick leave began to rise in late 1997
and more than doubled during the next five years. During the same period of time, sales of
antidepressant drugs also doubled. The number of traffic accidents, after declining for years, began
to climb again in 1997. The number of deaths from Alzheimer’s disease, after declining for several
years, rose sharply in 1999 and had nearly doubled by 2001. This two-year delay is understandable
when one considers that Alzheimer’s disease requires some time to develop.
Uncontrolled Proliferation
If cell phones and cell towers are really deadly, have the radio and TV towers that we have been
living with for a century been safe? In 2002 Örjan Hallberg and Olle Johansson coauthored a paper
titled “Cancer Trends During the 20th Century,” which examined one aspect of that question. They
found, in the United States, Sweden and dozens of other countries, that mortality rates for
skin melanoma and for bladder, prostate, colon, breast and lung cancers closely paralleled the
degree of public exposure to radio waves during the past hundred years. When radio
broadcasting increased in a given location, so did those forms of cancer; when it decreased, so did
those forms of cancer. And, a sensational finding: country by country — and county by county in
Sweden — they found, statistically, that exposure to radio waves appears to be as big a factor in
causing lung cancer as cigarette smoking!
Which brings me to address a widespread misconception. The biggest difference between the
cell towers of today and the radio towers of the past is not their safety, but their numbers.
The number of ordinary radio stations in the United States today is still less than 14,000. But cell
towers and Wi-Fi towers number in the hundreds of thousands, and cell phones, wireless computers,
cordless telephones and two-way radios number in the hundreds of millions.
True Dangers of Mobile Phones and Wireless Technologies Page 6 Radar facilities and emergency communication networks are also proliferating out of control. Since
1978, when the Environmental Protection Agency last surveyed the radio frequency environment in
the United States, the average urban dweller’s exposure to radio waves has increased 1,000-fold,
most of this increase occurring in just the last nine years. In the same period of time, radio pollution
has spread from the cities to rest like a ubiquitous fog over the entire planet.
The vast human consequences of all this are being ignored. Since the late 1990s a whole new
class of environmental refugees has been created right here in the United States. We have more and
more people, sick, dying, seeking relief from our suffering, leaving our homes and our livelihoods,
living in cars, trailers and tents in remote places. Unlike victims of hurricanes and earthquakes, we
are not the subject of any relief efforts. No one is donating money to help us, to buy us a protected
refuge; no one is volunteering to forego their cell phones, their wireless computers and their
cordless phones so that we can once more be their neighbors and live among them.
The worried and the sick have not yet opened their hearts to each other, but they are asking
questions.
To answer caller A: No shield or headset will protect you from your cell or portable phone.
There is no safe distance from a cell tower. If your cell phone or your wireless computer works
where you live, you are being irradiated 24 hours a day.
To caller B: To effectively shield a house is difficult and rarely successful. There are only a few
doctors in the United States attempting to treat radio wave sickness, and their success rate is poor —
because there are few places left on Earth where one can go to escape this radiation and recover.
Yes, radiation comes down from satellites, too; they are part of the problem, not the solution. There
is simply no way to make wireless technology safe.
True Dangers of Mobile Phones and Wireless Technologies Page 7 Sent to me on April 1, 2008 Please note this article is misleading at points I address in BOLD RED below...Susan Clark. GROWING CONCERN OVER SAFETY OF CELL PHONES FOR CHILDREN BY DOREEN CARVAJAL PUBLISHED: MARCH 7, 2008 www.iht. com/articles/ 2008/03/07/ business/ mobile08. php PARIS: The MO1 beginner mobile phone is not as cuddly as a teddy bear, but manufacturers of the curvy, crimson and blue cellphone for 6‐year‐olds promise a similarly warm and fuzzy relationship. They boast about socialization, emotional health and the comforts of ʺpeace of mind.ʺ But the shiny child‐size phones are stirring some parental and government unease, particularly at a time when the mobile telephone industry is reaching deeper into saturated markets to tap customers with chubby hands capable of cradling both dolls and phones. Already, the demographic of young mobile customers ‐ tweens and teens ‐ is driving subscriber growth in the United States, according to International Data Corp., a technology research firm in Massachusetts, which projects that 31 million new young users will join the market from 2005 to 2010. The year 2006 marked the turning point when the industry started focusing not just on teenagers and adults but also on tweens ‐ those aged 8 to 12 ‐ and even children as young as five. And with that attention, bright new ʺkiddyʺ telephones began appearing on the market that can speed dial grandma and grandpa with a click of a button. The MO1 ‐ developed by Imaginarium, a toy company, and Telefónica in Spain ‐ prompted some parent groups in Europe to demand a government ban on marketing to children. Here in France, the health minister recently issued a warning against excessive mobile phone use by young children. The objections are driven in part by a lack of knowledge about the long‐term health effects of mobile phone use. NOTE: THERE APPEARS NO SOURCE FOR THE ABOVE STATEMENT. >20,000 BIOEFFECTS STUDIES EXISTED BY 1990 ,ACCORDING TO TESTIMONY OF JOHN OSEPCHUK PHD, CHAIR OF THE COMMITTE WHO COLLECTED STUDIES TO SET THE STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC AND OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE. THESE SHOWED NOT ONLY LONGTERM BUT ALSO SHORTTERM AND IMMEDIATE EFFECTS. SUCH STUDIES WOULD HAVE MORE APPROPRIATELY BEEN CITED IN LIEU OF A SOURCELESS, NEGATIVE ASSERTION. But they also appear to reflect an instinctive worry about whether parents should be giving young children cellphones at all. Jóvenes Verdes, an environmental advocacy group for young people in Spain, says that ʺthe mobile telephone industry is acting like the tobacco industry by designing products that addict the very young.ʺ THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH, AGAIN COMPLETELY UNSOURCED, DENIES THE VOLUMINOUS EVIDENCE THAT DOES EXIST SHOWING THAT MOBILE PHONE RADIATION IS HAZARDOUS. While there is no specific evidence that mobile telephones pose a health threat to young users, researchers worry that there is still only scant scientific information about the long‐term impact of the radio‐frequency electromagnetic fields emitted by mobile telephones on the developing brains and tissues of children. THIS IS NO MERE MATTER OF ʺCONCERNʺ, WHERE SO MANY CHILDREN HAVE DIED FROM MOBILE‐PHONE TUMORS AND SUFFERED FROM THE RADIATION OF LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURAL ANTENNAS. The French health minister, Roselyne Bachelot, has taken such concerns public, issuing an alert in January urging parents to limit use, and reduce childrenʹs telephone calls to no more than six minutes. Her announcement followed a similar warning by the Health and Radio Frequencies Foundation, a research group backed by the French government that was created two years ago to study the impact of radio frequency fields on humans. ʺI believe in the principle of precaution,ʺ Bachelot said during an interview. ʺIf there is a risk, then children with developing nervous systems would be affected. Iʹve alerted parents about the use of mobile telephones because itʹs absurd for young children to have them.ʺ The French foundation is moving now to organize a broad international research projects to study the potential risks for children. More studies are developing in other countries. The Mobile Telecommunication and Health Research Program in Britain, which is financed by the state and local telecommunications industry, is in the early stage of organizing a childrenʹs study. Another project, called Cefalo, is under way in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland to explore whether mobile telephone use increases the risk of brain tumors for children. In January, the National Research Council in the United States also delivered a report ‐ commissioned by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ‐ that reviewed existing scientific studies around the world and urged further research on the impact of mobile phone use on children and pregnant women. ʺThis clearly is a population that is going to grow up with a great deal of larger exposure than anybody else because the kids use the phones all the time,ʺ said Frank Barnes, a professor of engineering at the University of Colorado in Boulder, who led the study. ʺAnd youʹve got growing bodies and brains, so if there is going to be an impact, thatʹs likely to be a more sensitive population.ʺ Every year, the average age of novice mobile phone users is dropping, reaching the age of 10 last year, according to Scott Ellison, an analyst at International Data Corp. He forecasts that the 9‐and‐under market will increase to nine million users in the United States and $1.6 billion in revenue by 2010. Telephone use is also getting more precocious in Europe, according to a Eurobarometer survey of almost 1,000 children in 29 countries, most of whom had telephones after age 9. http://www.iht. com/articles/ 2008/03/07/ business/ mobile08. php As it turns out, she does not indulge in a lot of talking on the phone, but she does send and receive up to 7,000 text messages a month. Pozgar ‐ who has been coaching football for 17 years ‐ has noticed lately that more of his players, aged 8 to 9, have mobile telephones. ʺI donʹt necessarily think thatʹs a bad thing,ʺ he said. ʺBut how does a kid that old seem responsible enough with not losing or breaking it. My gosh, they can barely remember to tie their shoes.ʺ www.next-up.org Translation
http://www.leprogres.fr/infosdujour/lyonvilleurbanne/981472.html
Saturday February 2, 2008
The City removes the phone mast in a school
The phone mast in the elementary school Victor-Hugo (LYON) has been dismantled
and phone masts in three other schools are to be stopped during school periods:
the City agreed yesterday to take a step in favour of the precautionary principle.
"You keep talking about measures, but have you measured the concerns of parents who
bring their children here every day ? "
There was some level of turmoil last night in a Victor Hugo school where concern had not
diminished ever since a second case of serious illness * was revealed in early January
(*Next-up Editor's note: Leukemia [cancer of the blood] and lymphoma [cancer of the lymphatic system
end december 2007] on children about 10 years old in a classroom on the 2nd Floor located a few
meters away from a base station and from an electrical cabinet on a roof terrace).
A determined reception committee was awaiting Yves Fournel Deputy Assistant to Education.
Announced as the emissary of the Mayor of Lyon Gerard Collomb, the official was accompanied
by Sylvie Guillaume (Health), Gilles Buna (City planning) and Nathalie Perrin-Gilbert mayor
of the 1st arrondissement. Dr. Ritter Director of Urban Ecology was there as an observer.
But the real representative of Gerard Collomb was Jean-François Lanneluc.
Faced with the determination of parents and because the rumour of the dismantling of the SFR
base station SFR had run, the chief of staff felt it was time to announce it would be the case for
the elementary school Victor Hugo. The turning off of the base station last Wednesday was
indeed deemed insufficient by parents that have been mobilized for years.
"We demand the withdrawal of base stations. We also ask that the City makes the same thing in
other schools in Lyon that are faced with the problem. And that it opens discussions with
operators to lower the threshold to 0.6 volt / meter. We also wish that independent
measurements be implemented and that continuous control terminals be purchased”, summed
up spokesperson of the parents.
Included among the commitments made last night were the interruption of
operation of phone masts during school periods,
the launch of independent measurements of electromagnetic fields in the concerned schools
(Albert-Camus, Lamartine and Gerson) and the organisation of a major conference.
Parents however said they were "moderately" reassured after the appointment. The "dead
school” operation scheduled Tuesday, February 5 is not lifted. They expect the mail confirming
the dismantling.
"We regret not having been invited to this meeting reports Licour Benedict, director External
Relations of SFR Central East. Nathalie Perrin-Gilbert committed to arrange a meeting with the
parents. We are still waiting."
Appraised last night by the parents for his constancy, the Mayor of the 1st arrondissement
(LYON) had already taken action more than a year ago, in favour of the precautionary principle.
Dominique Menvielle
[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________________
Next-up associated document:
- France 3, intro Next-up Video report Grenoble HD Phone masts
"Seeing the invisible" -
WHY MOBILE PHONE MASTS CAN BE MORE DANGEROUS THAN THE PHONES http://www.hese‐ project.org/ hese‐uk/en/niemr/cellfeedba ck.php March 2008 ‐ Andrew Goldsworthy, BSc PhD is an Honorary Lecturer in Biology at Imperial College London. Abstract Living cells have a range of negative feedback mechanisms that sense non‐thermal radiation damage and use it to trigger various defense systems. These systems are expensive in energy and resources and also reduce metabolic efficiency. The object therefore has to be to keep this damage within ʹtolerableʹ limits rather than to eliminate it. They do this by cutting in only when they approach the limits of toleration. The effect is to keep the damage at or close to these ‘trigger pointsʹ over a wide range of radiation levels, ranging from that due to a mobile phone handset held close to the head, to that from a mast, which may be hundreds of metres away. The radiation from a handset may actually be less damaging since it is used only intermittently and the body has a chance to recover in between times. However, continuous irradiation from mobile phone base stations, DECT phone base stations and Wifi routers may not allow adequate recovery time, so chronic irradiation from these sources could be far more damaging and more likely to result in cancer, allergy‐related conditions and electromagnetic hypersensitivity. There is an urgent need for further research in this area, since the assumption that the only biological effects of non‐
ionizing radiation are due to heating, and fall off rapidly with distance, no longer fits the facts. Introduction ‐ People living close to mobile phone masts (base stations) frequently report symptoms of electromagnetic hypersensitivity such as dizziness, headaches, skin conditions, allergies and many others, the mechanisms for which are only just beginning to be understood (see The Dangers of Electromagnetic Smog). There is also growing anecdotal evidence for cancer clusters forming around them. However, we are regularly told by the mobile phone industry that these base stations are safe because their microwave radiation falls off rapidly with distance and is far too low to generate significant heat. Sadly, this is not true. It is based on the false assumption that it is only their heating effect that can cause damage and a serious misunderstanding of the ways in which living organisms use negative feedback to respond to changes in their environment, including the metabolic insults from mobile phones. There are hundreds of scientific papers in peer‐reviewed scientific journals showing biological effects from non‐ionizing radiation that may be hundreds or Page 1 thousands of times below the levels that cause significant heating (see Bioinitiative). Furthermore, these non‐thermal effects include many independent and well‐
replicated studies showing that the radiation from mobile phone handsets can cause serious damage to the DNA of living cells in less than 24 hours, so we cannot regard these handsets as being safe for anything other than short‐term use. Because of the extreme sensitivity of at least some cells to mobile phone radiation, it is likely that the much weaker radiation reaching people living or working close to base stations will also suffer adverse effects. Claims by the mobile phone industry that the base stations are safe because the radiation falls off rapidly with distance are flawed. Although the radiation level does indeed fall off as they say, the biological response will remain more or less constant over a wide range of signal strengths due to the ways in which living cells routinely use ʹnegative feedbackʹ to compensate for changes in their environment. Negative feedback ‐ The concept of negative feedback is extremely simple. For example, if your house is too hot you turn the heating down. This not only makes you feel more comfortable, it also saves fuel. You may regulate the heating manually or you might have a thermostat that does it for you by cutting off the heat when the temperature reaches a predetermined value. In either case, the effect is the same; whenever the temperature isnʹt right, the thermostat tries to correct it by making the heating system respond in the opposite direction; this is termed negative feedback. Negative feedback is also very familiar to engineers in the electronics industries where it has countless applications. A simple example is the automatic gain control in some radios. This feeds some of the signal going to the loudspeaker back to the amplifier section so that if it is too loud it turns down the gain to keep the sound volume more or less constant over a wide range of signal strengths. As you will soon see, this is very relevant to the way in which the different signal strengths from mobile phones and their base stations can give very similar biological responses. Negative feedback in living organisms ‐ Living organisms are full of negative feedback systems, where they are essential to their normal function and ability to respond to an ever‐changing environment. For example, if your body finds that it has too much of a particular biochemical, it may turndown or turn off the activity of the enzyme system that makes it. This not only keeps other systems that depend on this chemical running smoothly, it also stops the body wasting resources by making a substance that it doesnʹt need. Biological feedback and non‐thermal radiation ‐ So how does this form of biological feedback relate to mobile phones and their masts? Put very simply, Page 2 because of the extreme sensitivity of at least some living cells to weak non‐
ionizing radiation (see Bioinitiative), the question is not why the weak radiation from a distant mast does so much damage, it is why a handset next to the ear doesnʹt do very much more. The answer lies in our own negative feedback systems. The body is well able to detect the radiation and the resulting damage. It then puts into action a range of negative feedback measures to mitigate the effects. One of the most damaging effects of this form of radiation is the loss of some of the calcium that normally strengthens cell membranes (see Non‐thermal bioelectromagnetic effects explained: Why calcium and potassium effects in the research are so important, for a simple explanation) . This results in an increased leakage of materials through cell membranes that can affect many aspects of metabolism. These include damage to DNA, from digestive enzymes leaking from lysosomes (tiny membrane‐bound structures in living cells that normally recycle waste), apoptosis(cell death), the generation of false nerve impulses from calcium leakage in brain cells (causing hyperactivity, impairing normal mental function and generating many of the known symptoms of electromagnetic hypersensitivity) (see The Biological Effects of Weak Electromagnetic Fields). Defense mechanisms (Use our site search for more on these terms.) Calcium expulsion ‐ The entry of free calcium ions into living cells is normally carefully regulated and small changes in their concentration play a vital role in controlling many aspects of metabolism. These can be disrupted if electromagnetically ‐
induced membrane leakage lets extra and unscheduled amounts of calcium into the cell, either from the outside or from calcium stores inside. To compensate for this, there is a negative feedback mechanism that pumps surplus calcium out again, but this must be limited since, if the pumping were too effective, it would interfere with the small changes in calcium that normally control metabolism. Ornithine decarboxylase (ODC)‐The activation of the enzyme ornithine decarboxylase is triggered by calcium leaking into cells and by nitric oxide produced by damaged mitochondria(membrane‐bound particles that provide most of a cellʹs energy) (The role of Nitric Oxide). This enzyme leads to the production of chemicals called polyamines that help protect DNA, and the other nucleic acids needed for protein synthesis from damage, including that from digestive enzymes leaking from lysosomes. Heat‐shock proteins (HSP) ‐ These are perhaps wrongly named because they can also be produced directly in response to electromagnetic radiation at levels thousands of times lower than that which can generate significant heat. Their job is to combine with vital enzymes, putting them into a sort of cocoon that protects them from damage, but this also stops them working properly. Page 3 Limitations of the feedback Short‐term limitations ‐ All of these negative feedback mechanisms are triggered by radiation‐damage or directly by the radiation itself, and there may also be others that we still donʹt know about. Their collective role is to try to limit the damage, but they cannot completely eliminate it without disrupting the cellʹs normal functions. Consequently, they will be programmed not to cut in until the damage approaches intolerable levels. This effect will maintain the damage and observable symptoms close to the levels at which they cut in over a wide range of radiation intensities. Consequently, any adverse effects and observable symptoms, such as headaches and dizziness, from distant masts and local handsets may be approximately the same, at least in the short term. Long‐term limitations ‐ Defense mechanisms against non‐ionising radiation almost certainly evolved over countless millions of years to protect living organism from weak natural radiation such as the wide‐band radiation from thunderstorms that we now perceive as ʹstaticʹ on our radio sets. However, they are ʹdesignedʹ only for intermittent use because they disrupt normal metabolism and are expensive in bodily resources and energy. These resources have to come from somewhere. Some may be drawn from our physical energy, making us feel tired. Some may come from our immune system, making us less resistant to disease and cancer. There is no hidden reserve. As it is, our bodies are constantly juggling resources to put them to best use. For example, during the day, they are directed towards physical activity but during the night, they are diverted to repair processes and to the immune system. Day and night irradiation from mobile phone masts (which run continuously) is likely to affect both, with little or no chance to recover. In the long term, this is likely to cause chronic fatigue, serious immune dysfunction leading to an increased risk of cancer, and many of the other symptoms frequently reported by people living close to mobile phone base stations. There are also a growing number of anecdotal reports that the continuous radiation from DECT phone base stations and Wifi routers can have similar effects, so that these too should be considered as being potentially unsafe. We should perhaps add to these the growing use of DECT cordless baby alarms. Although to date there is no firm evidence of adverse effects, these devices irradiate the baby continuously from nearby, but the child is probably too young to report the symptoms. In this case, a delay in the onset of sleep due to brain hyperactivity could be an early warning of potential longer‐term damage that may not become apparent until later life. Even a mobile phone left switched on nearby has been shown to disrupt normal sleep rhythms in adults. Why we are not all affected ‐ This is due to natural biological variability and is quite normal. For example, not everyone who smokes dies of cancer; it just Page 4 increases the risk. Similarly, not everyone will be equally affected by non‐
ionizing radiation. There could be many reasons for this; some people may have higher levels of calcium in their blood, which will help stabilize their cell membranes. Others may have more effective natural defense mechanisms or mechanisms that cut in at different levels. Other people may have had their defense systems impaired, by either illness or prolonged electromagnetic exposure. Many more may be affected but have just put it down to the general stress of modern living and have not yet made the link between their symptoms and their now almost universal electromagnetic exposure. However, even if you are one of the lucky ones who suffer no obvious short‐term adverse effects from electromagnetic radiation, there is no cause for complacency. There is no guarantee that you will not suffer long‐term effects or that the apparent lack of effect will continue as the general levels of electromagnetic exposure rise and our steadily aging bodies become less and less able to cope. What can we do about it? Very few people would want to give up their mobile phones, but if you have one, for your own personal safety, it is best to keep your calls on it short and relatively infrequent so that your body has a chance to recover in between times. Use text (which takes seconds to transmit) rather than voice calls and avoid making unnecessary downloads from the Internet. The choice is yours, but spare a thought for the people living near the base stations. Some of them may be more badly affected by their continuous irradiation but they have no choice. Your mobile calls will contribute to their problems, so your restraint may help them too. Postscript At present, legislation by many governments (presumably at the request of the mobile phone operators) prevents anyone objecting to the location of base stations on health grounds, and they have been advised not to recognize the problem. I hope that this article may go some way to achieving this much‐
needed recognition. The problem is far more serious than anyone has previously imagined. I have little doubt that the mobile phone industry will seek to dismiss this article as being mere theory. Yes, it is theoretical, but I have based it on known and well‐established facts, and it fits these facts far more closely than their own assertions that the only possible biological effects of this sort of radiation are due to heating and that the radiation from base stations is therefore safe. In the light of these observations, I believe that the time may now have come for an urgent and independent reassessment of the situation based on new and thorough epidemiological, biochemical and medical research on the effects on humans of chronic irradiation. In the meantime, it would be advisable to call for a moratorium on the further expansion of these wireless ʹservicesʹ until the Page 5 outcomes of this research become available, and safer means of mobile wireless communication devised. Page 6 MOBILE PHONES ʹMORE DANGEROUS THAN SMOKING ‐ By Geoffrey Lean Sunday, 30 March 2008 UK Independent Brain expert warns of huge rise in tumours and calls on industry to take immediate steps to reduce radiation Mobile phones could kill far more people than smoking or asbestos, a study by an award‐
winning cancer expert has concluded. He says people should avoid using them wherever possible and that governments and the mobile phone industry must take ʺimmediate stepsʺ to reduce exposure to their radiation. The study, by Dr Vini Khurana, is the most devastating indictment yet published of the health risks. It draws on growing evidence exclusively reported in the IoS in October that using handsets for 10 years or more can double the risk of brain cancer. Cancers take at least a decade to develop, invalidating official safety assurances based on earlier studies which included few, if any, people who had used the phones for that long. Earlier this year, the French government warned against the use of mobile phones, especially by children. Germany also advises its people to minimize handset use, and the European Environment Agency has called for exposures to be reduced. Professor Khurana a top neurosurgeon who has received 14 awards over the past 16 years, has published more than three dozen scientific papers reviewed more than 100 studies on the effects of mobile phones. He has put the results on a brain surgery website, and a paper based on the research is currently being peer‐reviewed for publication in a scientific journal. He admits that mobiles can save lives in emergencies, but concludes that ʺthere is a significant and increasing body of evidence for a link between mobile phone usage and certain brain tumoursʺ. He believes this will be ʺdefinitively provenʺ in the next decade. Noting that malignant brain tumours represent ʺa life‐ending diagnosisʺ, he adds: ʺWe are currently experiencing a reactively unchecked and dangerous situation.ʺ He fears that ʺunless the industry and governments take immediate and decisive stepsʺ, the incidence of malignant brain tumours and associated death rate will be observed to rise globally within a decade from now, by which time it may be far too late to intervene medically. ʺIt is anticipated that this danger has far broader public health ramifications than asbestos and smoking,ʺ says Professor Khurana, who told the IoS his assessment is partly based on the fact that three billion people now use the phones worldwide, three times as many as smoke. Smoking kills some five million worldwide each year, and exposure to asbestos is responsible for as many deaths in Britain as road accidents. Late last week, the Mobile Operators Association dismissed Khuranaʹs study as ʺa selective discussion of scientific literature by one individualʺ. It believes he ʺdoes not present a balanced analysisʺ of the published science, and ʺreaches opposite conclusions to the WHO and more than 30 other independent expert scientific reviewsʺ. http://www.independ ent.co.uk/ life‐style/ health‐and‐ wellbeing/ health‐news/mobile‐ phones‐
more‐ dangerous‐ than‐smoking‐ 802602.html? ELECTRICAL SENSITIVE OBJECTIVELY DIFFERENT TO CONTROLS http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20080416_electrosensitivity_evidence.asp A team of researchers from Germany have just published a study showing statistically significant evidence that ʺelectrically sensitiveʺ participants demonstrate cognitive and neurobiological alterations pointing to a higher genuine individual vulnerability than their matched controls. Three new papers have come out in the last few months looking at electrical sensitivity, of which two have concluded that there are definite signs of a difference between ʺsensitiveʺ and ʺnon‐sensitiveʺ participants. The main study featured in this story [1] looked at 89 EHS and 107 age‐gender matched controls. Perception thresholds following single transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) pulses to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex were determined using a standardized blinded measurement protocol. Cortical excitability parameters were measured by TMS. According to the study abstract, both discrimination ability and typical EMF‐
related symptoms were significantly different in the EHS participants (when compared to their controls), with the authors concluding that ʺthese results demonstrate significant cognitive and neurobiological alterations pointing to a higher genuine individual vulnerability of electromagnetic hypersensitive patientsʺ. This is a very useful study, backing up their pilot study of the previous year[2], and giving an objective way of analysing enhanced sensitivity in EHS sufferers. It also supports work done the previous month in Finland[3] which found that radiofrequency electromagnetic fields at typical phone SAR levels can significantly affect certain proteins that may highlight a specific difference between sensitive and control participants: ʺThis is the first study showing that molecular level changes might take place in human volunteers in response to exposure to RF‐EMF. Our study confirms that proteomics screening approach can identify protein targets of RF‐EMF in human volunteers.ʺ Interestingly, more recent work from Essex University (of which we believe their last work was well carried out but very poorly analysed, has again been published failing to find any consistent support for subjective EHS responses in another double blind study[4]. References [1] Landgrebe M et al, (March 2008) Cognitive and neurobiological alterations in electromagnetic hypersensitive patients: results of a case‐control study, Psychol Med. 2008 Mar 26;:1‐11 [Epub ahead of print] [View Abstract] [2] Landgrebe M et al, (March 2007) Altered cortical excitability in subjectively electrosensitive patients: results of a pilot study, J Psychosom Res. 2007 Mar;62(3):283‐8 [View Abstract] [3] Karinen A et al, (February 2008) Mobile phone radiation might alter protein expression in human skin, BMC Genomics. 2008 Feb 11;9:77 [View Abstract] [4] Cinel C et al, (April 2008) Exposure to mobile phone electromagnetic fields and subjective symptoms: a double‐blind study, Psychosom Med. 2008 Apr;70(3):345‐8. Epub 2008 Mar 31 [View Abstract] ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Also in the news France National Library gives up WiFi [Post Comment] [View Comments (0)] The French National Library has placed a moratorium on the installation of a local WiFi hotspot, citing both reliability and security issues (preferring instead to have wired Ethernet) and precautionary concern for the staff of the library. We go in depth into both of these issues on our WiFi page. It is good to see this decision being made with support from the science, with both references to the BioInitiative report and also appropriate individual papers. Bridlewood Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) Information Service Low Frequency, High Tension By Marjean Curtis Article courtesy of AlterNet November 1998 On Christmas Eve of 1996, Larry Stankavich and his wife, Susan, looked out the dining room window of their Duanesburg, New York home. Rising in the southwest, just barely visible above the 50‐foot pines that border their property, was a large network of crisscrossing steel beams. The emerging monolith looked dreadfully out of place in the rural hills of Duanesburg. It would take Larry and Susan close to a month to discover that this unexpected gift had come from Cellular One of Albany, New York. Even the town supervisor claimed to know nothing about it. On December 31st, before it was even completed, the tower was fitted with a microwave dish and activated to carry analog cellular phone signals. This enormous steeple of sorts would then rise another 75 feet until it reached its full stature of 250 feet in February of 1997. And it was later that month that the 15 households within 1400 feet of the tower began to suspect that Cellular One had done more than run roughshod over the aesthetics of their bucolic neighborhood. First Larry noticed pressure in his head. Not prone to headaches, he suddenly began experiencing a regular and intense pain that started at the base of his skull and spread from ear to ear. He noticed a grittiness in his eyes every time he washed his face. At first he didnʹt suspect that the radiation beaming toward his home might have something to do with his sudden and unusual complaints. When Susan started having the same strange headaches, they didnʹt know what to think. Then one evening Susan, who was well past menopause, had a hot flash to beat all hot flashes. Her face flushed red, started tingling, and felt like it was on fire. Susan ran to Larry who was in the kitchen. They looked at each other dumbfounded and horrified. Larryʹs face too was crimson and so hot that it hurt. Something was very wrong. Initial doctorʹs visits turned up nothing out of the ordinary. However, Larry began noticing that he felt better whenever he left the house to manage the fencing business that he started in 1972. Susan, however, who did clerical work for the business from home, was experiencing no relief. New complaints began to surface. They both started having trouble sleeping, and Susanʹs usually normal blood pressure began to soar. At 3 a.m. on February 16, her blood pressure rose to 190/110 and was accompanied by frightening heart palpitations. Larry drove Susan far from the tower until her blood pressure returned to normal around 6 in the morning. Susan and Larry felt awful, and by this time they suspected that the Cellular One installation might be to blame. A Page 1 meeting with neighbors living within the shadow of the giant tower substantiated their suspicion ‐‐ many of them were suffering with the same symptoms. Twenty‐one months later, itʹs even worse. The Stankaviches and their neighbors complain of hearing high‐pitched sounds that are always followed by waves of extreme nausea. Fatigue and dizziness have become a matter of course, and now, hearing loss and joint pain, especially in the knees, are plaguing many residents. The Stankaviches can no longer use the top story of their home where their symptoms become more pronounced. Some neighbors have actually moved into their cellars. Two homes have already been sold at a loss, and one more is on the market. The Stankaviches, however, are determined not to be driven out. Larry built their home 27 years ago and says they can never replace it. Theyʹre going to fight. But so far, it looks like a losing battle ‐‐ one in which theyʹre losing their health, peace of mind, and their entire savings of $20,000. While stories like the Stankavichesʹ seem extreme now, they could become more and more common as the number of towers and antennae increase. And increase they will. The industry estimates that there are 75,000 towers currently in place and by the year 2000, there will need to be 100,000 for a full build‐out. Thatʹs a conservative estimate, since PCS (personal communication systems) towers need to be placed much closer than the old analog towers. A full build‐out of the PCS system, with six carriers each, would put 100,000 new towers in California alone. This massive buildup may give the population at large the freedom of wireless devices and eye‐popping digital TV, but there will be more of us at ground zero who will pay the price of the swift and, some say, careless deployment of towers and antennae. To put the brakes on this rampant proliferation, citizen groups are forming across the country to fight or redirect installations as they affect their neighborhoods. Two of the loudest battles are raging in Golden, Colorado and San Francisco, California where citizens are fighting the addition of digital TV antennae to existing structures. While health effects drive the discontent of the vast majority of these coalitions, many are mute about health issues when going into public hearings. In Golden, Colorado, unrestricted development of three antenna farms on Lookout Mountain has created what activists call ʺthe most intense and complex electromagnetic environment in a residential area in the nation.ʺ The onus was on citizens to have electromagnetic readings taken that would prove there were indeed many hot spots that exceeded the FCCʹs safety limit. The FCC is now investigating. In San Francisco, activists are calling for not just a static, but a dynamic analysis of Sutro Tower before digital TV tower is added to the structure. The 1,000 foot tower, which sits right in the middle of a residential area, might endanger 270 homes in the event of an earthquake. Page 2 The Stankaviches and their neighbors are having their physicians carefully document their myriad medical problems, but their lawsuits, first against the town of Duanesburg, and now against Cellular One have been on zoning violations. Why? Because the towerʹs emissions were still lower than the FCCʹs permissible limit and therefore deemed safe. Libby Kelley, a former analyst with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in Washington D.C., now executive director of the Ad Hoc Association of Parties Concerned about the Federal Communications Commissionʹs Radio Frequency Health and Safety Rules (AHA), says that the agencyʹs radio frequency rules stipulate that objections to placement of telecommunication facilities can be based only on certain planning and zoning rules, including aesthetics. What they donʹt permit is opposition based on health and safety concerns. ʺThe provision in the rules stating that wireless facilities are ʹdeemed individually and cumulatively to have no significant impact on the quality of the human environment,ʹ is just not based on fact,ʺ says Kelley. ʺHow could the FCC know this; they never conducted an environmental assesment in accordance with the Environmental Policy Act.ʺ While acting as an information clearinghouse for groups fighting local battles, the AHA is involved in an even bigger battle of their own. Theyʹre going head‐to‐head with the FCC itself. The AHA joined with the Communication Workers of America and the Cellular Phone Task force, a group representing electro‐sensitive persons, in filing an appeal this year. They charge that the FCC has failed to adequately protect public health and the safety of citizens. The appeals were consolidated in the 2nd Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals and oral arguments will be heard in New York City on the week of January 4, 1999, subject to the courtʹs discretion. Kelley says that their court case is unique in that they are challenging the FCC rules in federal court. Therefore, the court decision may affect national policy and, by implication, international policy. ʺOther cases being pursued in civil court, district federal court and supreme court are local battles which have been appealed in higher court levels,ʺ says Kelley. ʺOur appeal directly challenges them (the federal regulations).ʺ A win for the AHA could bring a repeal or remand of the radio frequency standard. And what this would mean to the industry depends on who you ask. Joel Marcus, an attorney in the FCCʹs Office of General Counsel, says, ʺif there were a remand because the FCC had not considered some minor piece of data, the agency would be required to go back and consider that data, after which it may come to the same conclusion as before and the practical impact on industry would be very little.ʺ Others, such as the Cellular Page 3 Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA), ATT Wireless and the National Association of Broadcasters believe it could seriously stymie the wireless telecom industryʹs deployment of mobile phones, paging and wireless local loops. However, Tim Ayers, CTIAʹs VP of Communications, is confident that the AHA challenge will fail. ʺThe bulk of scientific thinking on standards says they are safe, stringent and fully protective of population,ʺ says Ayers. ʺWe assume the courts will rely on the best science, and science is the best thing going for the industry.ʺ Dr. John Goldsmith, a noted epidemiologist and former director of air‐quality research for the State of California Health Department is one of many scientists who disagree that FCC standards are safe and based on the best science. Goldsmith, who is evaluating the potential health effects of radio frequency radiation from cell phones, cell‐phone towers and television transmitting towers, has been collaborating with the AHA to raise public awareness about the potential dangers of these sources of radio‐frequency radiation. In the 1950s, Goldsmith claims, the U.S. government decided that it was safe to chronically or repeatedly expose humans to radiation that didnʹt generate heat ‐‐ such as low‐level microwaves and radio waves and extremely low frequency (ELF) radiation from powerlines. Goldsmith contends that most of the conclusions about the safety of radiation were reached right after WWII, when winning wars, not determining the safety of new technology designed to help win those wars, was the priority. As a result, similar technology has moved into the mainstream before the effects of use have been thoroughly studied. The AHA, Goldsmith and others are convinced that the FCC is operating on this outdated information and cavalierly perpetuating that information to a gullible public. The FCCʹs Marcus contends that the radio‐frequency (RF) regulations are based on a large body of scientific literature and that ʺthe RF limit imposed by the Commission for general population exposure is 50 times lower than the level at which studies indicated that RF energy has potentially harmful effects.ʺ According to Kelley, the FCC based its guidelines on conclusions drawn by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the National Commission on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP). What the FCC, which doesnʹt claim expertise in health matters, didnʹt take into account was the advice of health agencies. For example, they adopted an exposure threshold for workers that is five times higher than the exposure threshold for the general public ‐‐ in spite of concerns expressed by OSHA , the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH) and the FDA. They also failed to take the advice of NIOSH and the EPA to exert greater caution around modulated RF signals. Page 4 A Cellular One spokesperson, commenting on the Duanesburg case, says the industry needs ʺproof positiveʺ research that there are health effects associated with RF radiation. She says that Cellular One is ʺa responsible corporate partner with the community,ʺ and would make changes if it was deemed necessary. Susan Clarke, director of the Environmental Health Advocacy League, feels that this attitude puts the burden of proof on innocent communities to prove harm. ʺIt should be the industryʹs responsibility to prove safety in advance of deployment of this technology,ʺ she says. And while the Cellular One spokesperson says, ʺours is an evolving technology, always responding to the needs of consumers,ʺ many, including the AHA, donʹt feel they have the luxury of sitting and waiting for the evolution. To help shift the power back into the hands of the people, the AHA fought hard alongside the National Association of Counties and the National League of Cities to defeat HR 3488, The Wireless Communication and Public Safety Act of 1998. The bill would have mandated the rapid deployment of cell phone towers and antennas on federal property on demand. And for participating states to receive certain grant funds deployment would be mandated on state and municipal property as well. Although the bill looked certain to be rushed through Congress ‐‐ ostensibly for public‐safety reasons, as it would have facilitated wireless 911 ‐‐ it was soundly defeated along with S2519, a companion bill in the senate. This was an important, but temporary, victory for the AHA. The bill will reemerge next year possibly under an even less sympathetic Congress. The AHA doesnʹt expect government and industry to err on the side of caution. As they gear up to battle next yearʹs version of HR 3488 and take on the Telecommunications Act itself, it doesnʹt hurt that the most recent research seems to be falling on their side. A 1998 Italian study, reported at the Tenth International Conference of the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology, demonstrated a link between RF emissions from a digital transmission facility and the onset of adult male leukemia for those residing up to 5 km, about 2 1/2 miles, from the tower. And in Schartzenburg, Switzerland, home to a shortwave transmitter tower, the Swiss government conducted a controlled experiment (Altpeter, 1995) to assess widespread complaints about sleep disorders. The study found statistically significant insomnia and, in school children, a slow school promotion rate. In addition, a radar station in Latvia (Kolodynski, 1996) was found to be associated with attention and memory problems in school children. In both the Swiss and Latvian cases, the transmitters were shut down this year. A 1994 study by Drs. Henry Lai and N.P. Singh of the University of Washington showed learning disruption in rats exposed to pulsed microwaves. Further studies (1995, 1996, 1997) revealed both single‐ and double‐strand DNA breaks in the brains of animals Page 5 exposed to microwave radiation. In 1997, a study (Repacholi) funded by Australian telecom giant Telstra demonstrated a significant increase in B‐cell lymphomas in mice exposed to ʺfar fieldʺ pulsating radiation like that of digital cell phones. The 100 exposed transgenic mice developed tumors at twice the rate of 100 unexposed transgenic mice. The results were played down by the industry, and some believe that damage control was in full force before the study was finally published in Radiation Research. Research promised by the industry itself, research that could be used to assuage an anxious public, has not been forthcoming. The scientists of Wireless Technology Research (WTR), which is administering a $25 million research program underwritten by cellular carriers, went on strike in 1997 until the scientistsʹ research was indemnified. Levitt notes that even the scientists who wrote FCC safety standards 15 years ago also insisted on indemnification. She sees striking parallels between tobacco scientists of 30 years ago and todayʹs radiation research scientists. Levitt and others suspect that many of the bio‐electrics researchers ʺknow what theyʹre dealing with.ʺ After five years, the WTR has not produced any biological test results. The opponents of RF radiation and the mainstream press are both asking why. The Duanesburg drama is, fortunately, still the exception ‐‐ a tower in your backyard today doesnʹt necessarily mean health problems tomorrow. Blake Levitt, an award‐
winning medical and science journalist formerly with The New York Times, and author of ʺElectromagnetic Fields, A Consumerʹs Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselvesʺ (1995 Harcourt Brace), explains why biological response to a towerʹs radiation is not a one‐size‐fits‐all proposition. ʺTransmitters donʹt always do what the engineers intended.ʺ ʺAnd,” she says, ʺpeople in Duanesburg might be experiencing cross exposure from airport towers. They may have large metal objects like water towers in the area... in the presence of metal you get hot spots.ʺ She says that even an unusual plumbing grid, significant concentrations of iron in the soil, or a high water table can augment radiationʹs effect. While the research that will bring all parties into agreement may be long in coming, and U.S. policy may always be industry‐driven, the AHA thinks there is plenty that industry and government could be doing now to protect consumers from the possible ill‐effects of radiation. Goldsmith says that all cell phones should be provided with a radiation shield, lower‐powered devices should be manufactured, and limited use encouraged. Towers should be kept at a safe range, and dead zones established. And the FCC, which has been charged with protecting the public interest, could implement a policy that has been promulgated by a group of Swedish environmental agencies ‐‐ ʺprudent avoidance.ʺ Page 6 Does this mean we all need to become luddites to prudently avoid radiation exposure? Both Goldsmith and Kelley say no. ʺItʹs inevitable that we all adapt to new technologies,ʺ says Kelley, ʺbut the epidemiological and clinical studies indicate that there are risks that need to be evaluated before people accommodate these technologies in everyday life, or we could face a health crisis and major societal catastrophe.ʺ Kelley fears that the research is coming after the fact. For people like the Stankaviches, and their Duanesburg neighbors, who feel like theyʹre already part of the after‐the‐fact research, Kelley says an AHA victory will benefit them, though not right away. That ʺvictoryʺ could come in any number of forms, from a possible return of policy decision‐making to local government, to new radio frequency guidelines. Perhaps most important is that it will set off a series of actions to remedy the problem. In the meantime, Kelley recommends that they avoid as many sources of electromagnetic radiation as possible, stay involved, organize, write letters to politicians, vote and try not to let this overwhelm them. She adds that itʹs important to remain calm and not operate from fear. At last report, the Stankaviches were considering a temporary move to an apartment in Duanesburg ‐‐ as far from the tower as possible. Theyʹre finding itʹs hard to remain calm and wage a strategic battle when theyʹre in the middle of a hot flash. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ REVISED NOVEMBER 1998 EMF‐INFO MAIN PAGE Page 7 MEN WHO USE MOBILE PHONES FACE INCREASED RISK OF INFERTILITY by JENNY HOPE – Dailey Mail ‐ Last updated at 21:01pm on 23rd October 2006 Phone the doctor: Men who use mobile phones could face increased risk of infertility Men who use mobile phones could be risking their fertility, warn researchers. A new study shows a worrying link between poor sperm and the number of hours a day that a man uses his mobile phone. Those who made calls on a mobile phone for more than four hours a day had the worst sperm counts and the poorest quality sperm, according to results released yesterday at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine annual meeting in New Orleans. Doctors believe the damage could be caused by the electromagnetic radiation emitted by handsets or the heat they generate. The findings suggest millions of men may encounter difficulties in fathering a child due to the widespread use of mobile phones and offers another possible explanation for plummeting fertility levels among British males. Sperm counts among British men have fallen by 29 per cent over the past decade, a drop which has also been blamed on increasing obesity, smoking, stress, pollution and ʹgender‐
bendingʹ chemicals which disrupt the hormone system. The latest study backs up previous research which indicated a link between mobile phone use and sperm quality, but it is the biggest and best designed to date. US researchers in Cleveland and New Orleans, and doctors in Mumbai, India, looked at more than 360 men undergoing checks at a fertility clinic who were classified into three groups according to their sperm count. Men who used a mobile for more than four hours a day had a 25 per cent lower sperm count than men who never used a mobile. The men with highest usage also had greater problems with sperm quality, with the swimming ability of sperm ‐ a crucial factor in conception ‐ down by a third. They had a 50 per cent drop in the number of properly formed sperm, with just one‐fifth looking normal under a microscope. Professor Ashok Agarwal, director of the Reproductive Research Centre at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, who led the study, said ʺAlmost a billion people are using cell phones around the world and the number is growing in many countries at 20 to 30 per cent a year. ʺIn another five years the number is going to double. People use mobile phones without thinking twice what the consequences may be. ʺIt is just like using a toothbrush but mobiles could be having a devastating effect on fertility. It still has to be proved but it could have a huge impact because mobiles are so much part of our lives.ʺ Altogether 361 men in the study were divided into four groups, with 40 never using a mobile, 107 men using them for less than two hours a day, 100 men using them for two‐
four hours daily and 114 making calls for four or more hours a day. The main finding was that on four measures of sperm potency ‐ count, motility, viability and morphology, or appearance ‐ there were significant differences between the groups. The greater the use of mobile phones, the greater the reduction in each measure. Prof Agarwal said ʺThis was very clear and very significant. Many in the lowest group for sperm count would be below normal as defined by the World Health Organisation.ʺ The WHO says a normal sperm count is above 20 million per millilitre of seminal fluid. ʺThere was a significant decrease in the most important measures of sperm health with cell phone use and that should definitely be reflected in a decrease in fertilityʺ he said. Motility measures the swimming ability of sperm, viability measures whether non‐
swimming sperm are still alive while morphology is the appearance compared to the norm. Although the men were seeking fertility treatment at a clinic in Mumbai, not all would have had a problem ‐ it could be their partners, he added. Prof Agarwal said the most likely mechanism was damage to sperm‐making cells in the testes caused by electromagnetic radiation or heat, although a fall in hormone production could also affect sperm motility and sperm DNA. He said: ʺThese cells in the testes have been shown to be susceptible to electromagnetic waves in previous research in animals. ʺSomehow electromagnetic waves may be causing direct damage to these cells and that perhaps causes a decrease in sperm production.ʺ Mobiles may also increase temperature in the groin, if a man was wearing it on a belt or carrying it around in a pocket. Prof Agarwal said it was too early to advise men trying to start a family about whether they should limit their mobile phone use. He said ʺWe still have a long way to go to prove this but we have just had another study approved.ʺ More than 40 million people in Britain are thought to use mobile phones. Alasdair Philips, director of the consumer pressure group Powerwatch said ʺItʹs a plausible link between the amount of time spent using a mobile phone and a possible effect on male fertility. ʺThe eyes, breasts and testicles are the areas of the body most likely to absorb the energy and many men carry their mobiles attached to their belt.ʺ Sending text messages uses less power than talking but it can be a more intense emission of radiation, especially on trains, he said. ʺIʹve seen men on trains spending two or three hours continually texting with their mobile phones held in their laps, and they press Send in the same position when it starts to seek a signal. ʺThis needs a considerable amount of power within what is effectively a metal box. We advise people to send a text with their arm outstretched next to the window when travelling on a trainʺ he added. He said local heating of the groin triggered by a mobile phone might also be involved in affecting sperm quality. ʺSperm is very temperature sensitive as shown by many studies, and a short‐term rise in temperature could be responsibleʺ he added. However, Dr Allan Pacey, senior lecturer in andrology at the University of Sheffield, said ʺThis is a good quality study but I don’t think it tackles the issue. ʺIf you’re using your phone for four hours a day, presumably it is out of your pocket for longer. That raises a big question: how is it that testicular damage is supposed to occur?ʺ He said mobile phone use may be a marker for other lifestyle factors known to affect sperm quality. ʺMaybe people who use a phone for four hours a day spend more time sitting in cars, which could mean there’s a heat issue. It could be they are more stressed, or more sedentary and sit about eating junk food getting fat. Those seem to be better explanations than a phone causing the damage at such a great distanceʺ he added. Research: Sperm quality inversely proportional to cell phone usage ‐ October 30th, 2006 ‐ Posted by David Berlind (http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=3858) Yikes. According to a researcher at the prestigious Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, there appears to be a relationship between cell phone usage in men and their sperm quality. Wrote eWeekʹs Wayne Rash of the research and the study: According to [the Cleveland Clinicʹs Dr. Ashok] Agarwal, men who used their cell phones for four hours a day or more showed the greatest damage to their sperm…..He said that he can only speculate on the reason for the damage, but he said itʹs likely to be the effects of the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the cell phones when they transmit, as they do in use….Those who use it for long periods of time had a much more profound decrease, he said. Wayne Rash, who I have a great deal of respect for, does an excellent job reporting on the situation and drawing attention to the fact that there is so much that isnʹt known and so much more testing that has to be done before anything can be ruled in or out. For example, he talks about the testing that must be done with different phones using different frequencies and types of transmission and testing with women as opposed to men. Rash quotes him as saying ʺThere are hundreds of questions that need to be addressed if these findings turn out to be true.ʺ This has long been my point about the cell phone industry arguing that cell phone usage is safe. While itʹs definitely possible to show correlations (but be non‐
deterministic about cause and effect) between things like cell phone usage and sperm quality, itʹs idiotic and an insult to our intelligence to be presented with (and asked to accept) at face value any conclusions about how cell phones are safe. How can any reasonably intelligent person reach that conclusion given the body of evidence suggesting that the opposite is possible and given number of questions that remain unanswered? The bottom line is that the jury is still out and anybody who conclusively suggests otherwise is totally full of it (and undoubtedly connected to some agenda). This is why, in my past coverage of this issue (hereʹs my last post.. it points to the others), Iʹve routinely said to keep your eyes open rather than shut when it comes to cell phones. Since us men donʹt keep our cell phones in our crotches, this study drives that point home even more. Without any additional information to go on, at the very least, it turns the spotlight to the two SAR ratings that every cell phone on the US market gets: one for the body, and one for the head. How meaningful is that if usage (meaning, when the transmitter is in use) which normally happens around the head is having an impact on sperm? If you were to adopt a better safe than sorry approach to cell phone usage, what would you do? Hereʹs what I do: •
Minimize ʺat headʺ usage •
Use speakerphone when possible •
Use hands‐free gear when not using speakerphone. Although no definitive tests are available for it either, Bluetooth involves radios that are way less powerful than the typical transmitters found in cell phones for making contact with towers that could be miles away •
Minimize on‐body contact. To the extent that you can avoid it, donʹt hang your cell phone on your belt or keep it in your pocket. Bear in mind that some cell phones, particularly smart phones capable of messaging, are transmitting even when youʹre not on a call and that thereʹs plenty more research to do to understand where some types of traffic (voice vs. data) could be more dangerous than others. •
Shop based on SAR ratings ‐ Sure, the stronger the radio in the phone, the fewer times it might drop a call. But, again, if you realize how precious life is and you adopt a better safe‐than‐sorry mentality (which I think you should), you should also realize that the higher power the radio is, the higher the SAR rating it has and phones with higher SAR ratings could potentially be more harmful than phones with lower ratings. Donʹt make the mistake I made when I recently was paid by Verizon Wireless to take a cell phone (a deal that I found on Amazon). It turned out to be tied with another phone for the highest SAR rating of any phone on the US market. •
Think twice about giving your kids a cell phone. Iʹve heard the argument that, if there is a risk of cancer due to cell phones, that the benefits outweigh those risks. That argument is somewhat bolstered by the story of a 14‐year old who, after being kidnapped, used the text messaging feature on her captorʹs phone to effect her rescue. But, I still remain unconvinced. There are some best practices that make more sense. For example, in a playground near my house, I routinely see young children playing alone that Iʹd never leave alone. I often see young teenage girls walking by themselves in the dark. Here, in Massachusetts, itʹs pretty dark by the time some after school activities get out. On one hand, I want to stop and ask them if I can offer them a safer way home. On the other, I know someone will lock me up and throw away the key for asking that question. But I think about my two‐year old daughter and how my wife and I will do everything in our power to make sure she doesnʹt feel like she has to be walking alone at night. Either (a) she should be with a group of friends, or (b) we should have a pre‐arranged pick‐up time at which either my wife or I can be there in person to give her a ride. I simply couldnʹt live with myself if I knew that one of my children was kidnapped because of our ignorance. If that means we have to give them a phone, at the very least… •
…..if you must give your kids a phone, find one with a low SAR rating and do what you have to to mitigate the unknown risks. After all, 25 years from now, if a bunch of our kids end up very sick, wouldnʹt you rather know that you were one of the ones that was better safe than sorry? Full Story can be found at http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1159577_ HIGH MOBILE USE PUTS US AT RISK OF BRAIN TUMOURS ‐ By ‐ Eklavya Atray NEW DELHI: India could see several cases of brain tumours over the next two‐
to‐three years due to constant use of mobile phones say neurologists, as they debate a recent Australian study that says a correlation does exist between the two. Australian neurosurgeon Dr Vini Khuranaʹs study predicts that the fallout of heavy mobile phone use would be visible soon as the nationʹs love affair with mobile phone climbs to dizzying heights. In his research, Khurana says heavy usage of cell phones for a period of 10 years or more doubles the chances of brain tumour. It also, he adds, has larger public health ramification than asbestos and smoking. Union health minister Dr Anbumani Ramdoss has called for a study to be conducted to study the ill‐effects of mobile phones. Cellphonesʹ radiation can heat up the side of the head or potentially thermoelectrically interact with the brain, while bluetooth devices and unshielded headsets convert the userʹs head into self‐harming antenna, Dr Khurana says, based on his study. Children are at a greater risk because they possess a thinner skull in comparison to adults. Meanwhile, Dr Rajeev Ranjan, a neurology expert at Sir Gangaram Hospital, says, ʺEMR rays in general cause irritation, concentration lapses and in many cases even proliferation of cells which cause cancer.ʺ Particularly at risk, he says, are those with pacemakers which the EMR can interfere with. Dr Anshu Rohatgi, another Delhi neurologist, says, ʺElectro magnetic radiations, in general, affect the DNA and cause problems in cell recovery and cell growth.ʺ As regards Dr Khuranaʹs research, he says, ʺThe research is not totally proven till now but a UK study did say that cellphone usage may cause acoustic‐neuroma which is a non‐cancerous tumor that develops on the nerve connecting the ear to the brain.ʺ The UK study says no solid proof exists of the fact that cellphones cause brain cancer but a Swedish study in 2006 claimed that if you spend many years using your cellphone for at least an hour a day, the risk of developing a brain tumor is 240 percent higher than a person who never uses one. Researchers found that even the location of the tumour tends to be on the side of the head where the phone is used. Meanwhile, TV Ramachandran, director general of Cellular Operator Association of India, refutes the study. ʺDr Vini Khurana is first a neurosurgeon and not a researcher and so much credibility cannot be attached to his research,ʺ Ramchandran said ʺOrganisations like WHO conducted a study on the issue which proved that cellphones do not cause any greater chances of brain tumour,ʺ he adds The electromagnetic rays radiated by cell phones cannot harm anyone as ʺthey are non‐ionising and in such small doses that no harm can be caused by them.ʺ According to Ramchandran, ʺTelecom companies are unnecessarily being dragged and itʹs the word of one individual over the WHO and other health organisations.ʺ Dr Khurana has countered saying that the WHO fact‐sheet was irrelevant in this instance because most of the worrisome data has been surfacing in the last 12‐24 months. A study, funded by the telecom companies on the health effects of cellphone use, is expected to be out in a few weeks = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = For news updates throughout the day, visit _dnaindia.com_ (http://www.dnaindia.com/) Paul Raymond Doyon Yunnan Normal University (China) Lecturer ‐ English and Japanese MAT (TESOL), School for International Training MA Advanced Japanese Studies, University of Sheffield BA Psychology, University of California ʺA ʹGood Studentʹ answers questions ‐ but does not question answers.ʺ RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT ON CHILDREN AND CELL PHONES [WORLDCITIZENNET] [email protected] on behalf of Paul Doyon [[email protected]] The Russians have been aware of the dangers posed by EMR for a very long time. Thus, this is why they have some of the strictest regulations on EMR limits in the world. Interestingly, this may also very well explain why East Germans had extremely low rates of allergies while West Germans very high rates of allergies before the unification of the two countries while East Germany was adopting the Russian standards. After unification of the two countries, East German rates of allergies mysteriously rose to be on par with that of West German along with a relaxation of its EMR limits to meet West Germanyʹs standards. – Let us hope that this official Russian stance will prevail with the international standards‐
setting personalities in Geneva. The Russians also have considerable research experience with the re‐irradiation and the accumulation phenomena especially associated with microwaves ‐ and blissfully ignored by ʺWesternʺ scientists‐researchers ‐ Andrew Michrowski Handsets pose danger for children
http://eng.cnews.ru/news/top/indexEn.shtml?2008/04/18/297775
April 18, 2008, Fri 6:20 PM Telecom Security Handsets pose danger for children and teen‐agers, state experts of the Russian National Committee on Non‐Ionizing Radiation Protection having carried out experiments with animals of different age. The oncoming generation is recommended to reduce communication through handsets, as their nerves might be badly injured.
The Russian National Committee on Non‐Ionizing Radiation Protection (RNCNIRP) has expressed its opinion regarding the possible influence of handset electromagnetic field on children and teen‐ages. The experiments, consultations and discussions held led to the resolution ʹChildren and handsets: future generationsʹ health is under threatʹ. The given resolution comprises opinions of leading Russian scientists in hygiene and radiobiology of Non‐Ionizing Radiation. The given resolution is based on modern scientific knowledge and fundamental submission generated in many years of research into the influence of electromagnetic fields on human health.
Possible threat to human health is very high. One should not forget the electromagnetic field influences formation of higher nervous activity, while electromagnetic absorption in the head of a child is much higher as compared to adolescents (childrenʹs cerebral tissue is of higher conductivity, the head size is smaller, cranial bones are thinner, etc.). The childrenʹs organism is more sensitive to electromagnetic fields than that of adolescents; the childrenʹs brain has the peculiar propensity to accumulation of adverse reactions in case of re‐irradiation.
Specialists assert modern children are using handsets since early age and continue using them having grown, so the period of contact with electromagnetic radiation is longer as compared to adolescents. According to RNCNIRP specialists, children using handsets are prone to the following disorders: weakening memory, decline of attention, reduction of mental and cognitive capacity, irritation, sleep violation, increasing epileptic possibility. The other possible far‐standing consequences are brain, auditory and vestibular nerve tumor (at the age of 25‐30), Alzheimerʹs disease, ʹacquired dementiaʹ, depressive syndrome and other forms of neuronal degeneration of brain structures (at the age of 50‐60). According to Oleg Grigoriev, the given forecasts are based on the data analysis received and long scientific debates.
ʹChildren using handsets are not able to understand that their brain and health are exposed to the electromagnetic field and risk, respectively, ‐ the committee report reads. – The given risk is not inferior to the influence of tobacco and alcohol. Our duty is not to damage childrenʹs health – our future – doing nothingʹ.
RNCNIRP has already sent its resolution to Gennady Onishenko, chief sanitary doctor of Russia, requesting him to introduce a warning system about the electromagnetic threat to the childrenʹs health when using handsets. ʹThe simplest solution is to put brochures telling about the mentioned above problems into boxes with handsets, ‐ believes Oleg Grigoriev. – Such practices are wide spread in Great Britain, for example. Parents should be informed about the influence of the electromagnetic field on their childrenʹs health. One can also tell his child about the dangers related to handsetsʹ.
Oleg Grigoriev reports till the end of May 2008 RNCNIRP intends to work out certain recommendations for handset usage by children and teen‐ages under 18. ʹThe first recommendation is to limit childrenʹs communication through handsets but for cases of emergencyʹ, ‐ says Mr. Grigoriev. He recollects the main recommendations for adolescents: not to talk more than 15 minutes on the handset, the ratio of the length of talk to resting before the next talk should be 1:5, which means having talked for one minute, one has to abstain from further calls for five minutes; when sleeping the handset should be 1 meter away from your head, or switched off, Bluetooth should be used.
Oleg Grigoriev, director of the Center for Electromagnetic Safety and RNCNIRP deputy chairman, told CNews the mentioned above resolution was, in particular, based on the analysis of experiments held on animals of different age, principally rats and their embryos. The experiments proved the influence of electromagnetic radiation on developing organisms was strong. An electromagnetic field is an important biotropic factor that influences not only health but higher nervous activity including human behavior and mentality. When using a handset its electromagnetic field is influencing the userʹs brain.
Although Sanitary rules and regulations recommend limiting handset usage by those under 18 (Sanitary norms and regulations 2.1.8/2.2.4.1190‐03, item 6.9), children and teen‐agers have become the targeted marketing group for the mobile communication market, RNCNIRP experts say. The existing safety standards for handsets have been developed for adolescents regardless infant organism peculiarities.
‐‐ Paul Raymond Doyon Yunnan Normal University (China) Lecturer ‐ English and Japanese MAT (TESOL), School for International Training MA Advanced Japanese Studies, University of Sheffield BA Psychology, University of California March 11, 1998
It's a Control Thing: Vermont vs. Cell Phone Towers
By CAREY GOLDBERG
As new towers for cellular phone traffic have cropped up by the thousands from coast to
coast, so have the spats, the lawsuits and the local rebellions, from California to New
Jersey to Florida.
But Vermont, with its sylvan sensibilities, is mounting an anti-tower offensive unlike any
other these days, making itself the new national focal point for what until now has been a
scattered guerrilla war.
''I don't want Vermont turned into a giant pincushion with 200-foot towers sticking out of
every mountain and valley,'' declared the state's Democratic United States Senator,
Patrick J. Leahy. ''We're not asking that Vermont be left out of the telecommunications
age. But we Vermonters want to be able to determine where the towers are located.''
So hot is the tower issue in Vermont that Mr. Leahy and two Congressional colleagues,
Senator James M. Jeffords, a Republican, and Representative Bernard Sanders, an
independent, held a meeting today to discuss it in this North Country hamlet, where a
150-foot tower is planned for the top of Buffalo Mountain. Their special guest was
William Kennard, the new chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, who
traveled the state's muddy roads to hear Vermonters' concerns.
What Mr. Kennard heard was plaints that cell-phone towers ruin the scenery and reduce
property values -- mixed with expressions of appreciation for the brave new wireless
world.
That compote was the kind of jumble of opinions that has troubled hundreds of American
towns like Hardwick in recent months as they contemplated their part in the construction
of more than 100,000 antenna sites by 2005, more than a tenth of them requiring towers.
''It's a stark clash that is upon us,'' Mr. Kennard told the 200 or so Vermonters gathered in
a high school auditorium.
The essence of the issue is that age-old political flash point, local control.
Congress decreed in 1996 that it was in the national interest to create a ''seamless
network'' of cellular communications across the country, and few people in this nation of
about 56 million cell phone users would object to that concept.
To make sure that this seamless network was created, Congress also decreed in effect that
though local governments could exercise their usual zoning powers in deciding where
towers went and how tall they were, they could not simply say no to cellular phone
companies that wanted to put towers in their cities or towns. If localities resisted
unreasonably, the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 said, the Federal
Government could override them.
Around the country, scores of local groups have banded together to fight particular
towers planned for particular spots. As tracked on a Cellular Tower Coalition Web site,
they range from residents in North Barrington, Ill., trying to stop a 200-foot tower on
their village hall to a Boca Raton, Fla., group fighting towers on school property. More
than 600 towns have put moratoriums on new tower sitings at some point, cellular
industry groups say, and some of the bans have lasted as long as two years.
But Vermont, its officials say, is leading the charge in the national political arena for
local control over tower decisions.
Mr. Leahy, Mr. Jeffords and Mr. Sanders have combined forces to push bills in Congress
that would restore full local control over tower-siting decisions. All three are vehement in
their assertions that Vermont, with its love for its green hills and its New Englandy
independent spirit, should be sovereign over its towers. And they have many allies in the
populace.
''None of us are anti-technology,'' said Holly Fournier, an investment adviser who has
been fighting for years to have a tower taken down in her Vermont town of Charlotte.
''We just want to make sure the towers are appropriately sited.''
But even in Vermont, the Hardwick discussion showed, opinions are deeply split. Most
everybody likes the convenience and life-saving potential of cell phones. But they do not
trust cellular phone giants backed by Federal clout.
''The natural landscapes of Vermont are our greatest economic resource,'' said Janet
Newton, a resident of the Thistle Hill area of Cabot, which has been fighting a proposed
cell tower. ''We Vermonters claim the right to make land-use and quality of life decisions
at the state and local level.''
One resident said a study had shown that property values would drop 25 percent near a
cell tower; several others commented that the long-term health effects of living near
microwave-emitting towers were not yet known.
On the other side were residents who wanted to be able to dial 911 from anywhere, and
those like Deb Moore, an emergency room nurse, who described how important it was to
be able to sustain contact between an ambulance crew and the hospital preparing to treat
its patient.
It is a problem in Vermont, ''as wonderfully rural as it is, to hit a dead zone,'' Ms. Moore
said. ''We need to look at other issues for Vermont besides aesthetics and your property
values.''
Debate over tower siting has been heating up in recent months in part as a result of the
1996 Federal Telecommunications Act, which fostered telephone-industry competition
and allowed many new players into the cellular phone market -- players who need towers.
The rash of antenna building also stems from the swelling pool of cellular phone users,
and from the advent of technology known as P.C.S., or personal communications
systems. P.C.S. systems use digital transmissions rather than analog ones and need more
antennas because their range is shorter.
Over all, said Tim Ayers, vice president for communications of the Cellular
Telecommunications Industry Association, the largest association representing the
wireless industry, it will take up to 125,000 antennas to build the cellular system
authorized by the F.C.C., and the process will take until perhaps 2005.
The antennas are often easy to install in cities, where they can be stuck on existing tall
buildings, steeples and roofs; in largely rural areas like Vermont, towers are often needed.
The cellular companies face pressures of their own, Mr. Ayers pointed out. To keep their
licenses, he said, they must be able to say they are serving a substantial part of the
population. They must also worry about paying off the cost of their licenses, which they
got through Government auction.
To Vermonters, however, it can seem as if their towns are being invaded by corporate
giants with only a bottom line in mind.
Some towns rush to pass ordinances limiting the towers' height and possible location.
Others declare a tower-building moratorium to figure out what to do. But then they run
the risk of legal challenges by the impatient cellular phone companies, and it is the law,
as well as money, that cellular corporations have on their side. Court cases have generally
been decided in favor of the cellular companies because the 1996 law so clearly states
that they may not be turned down, Mr. Ayers said.
Ultimately, Mr. Kennard and others say, there will be solutions for all of this.
There are compromises gaining wider practice, from disguising towers as trees or
steeples to agreements that allow several phone companies to ''co-locate'' on one tower,
reducing the number of towers needed.
''This is not an intractable problem,'' Mr. Kennard told the gathered Vermonters, without
specifying plans to solve it.
Correction: June 18, 1998, Thursday A picture caption on March 11 about a fight
against cellular telephone towers in Vermont referred incompletely to a structure in the
town of Charlotte. While the tower now includes a cellular antenna, it was built as a radio
tower and also supports a radio antenna and an antenna for the local fire and rescue
station. A cellular industry group reported the omission to The Times in March, but its
request for a correction went astray through an editing lapse.
•
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/JRJohnson/Desktop/Clearwire/16%20a%20The%20Independent%20-%20Danger%20on%20Airwaves.txt
The Independent - Print ArticleIndependent.co.uk
Danger on the airwaves: Is the Wi-Fi revolution a health time bomb?
It's on every high street and in every coffee shop and school. But experts have
serious concerns about the effects of electronic smog from wireless networks
linking our laptops and mobiles, reports Geoffrey Lean
Sunday, 22 April 2007
Being "wired-up" used to be shorthand for being at the cutting edge, connected
to all that is cool. No longer. Wireless is now the only thing to be.
Go into a Starbucks, a hotel bar or an airport departure lounge and you are
bound to see people tapping away at their laptops, invisibly connected to the
internet. Visit friends, and you are likely to be shown their newly installed
system.
Lecture at a university and you'll find the students in your audience tapping
away, checking your assertions on the world wide web almost as soon as you make
them. And now the technology is spreading like a Wi-Fi wildfire throughout
Britain's primary and secondary schools.
The technological explosion is even bigger than the mobile phone explosion that
preceded it. And, as with mobiles, it is being followed by fears about its
effect on health - particularly the health of children. Recent research, which
suggests that the worst fears about mobiles are proving to be justified, only
heightens concern about the electronic soup in which we are increasingly
spending our lives.
Now, as we report today, Sir William Stewart (pictured below right), the man who
has issued the most authoritative British warnings about the hazards of mobiles,
is becoming worried about the spread of Wi-Fi. The chairman of the Health
Protection Agency - and a former chief scientific adviser to the Government - is
privately pressing for an official investigation of the risks it may pose.
Health concerns show no sign of slowing the wireless expansion. One in five of
all adult Britons now own a wireless-enabled laptop. There are 35,000 public
hotspots where they can use them, usually at a price.
In the past 18 months 1.6 million Wi-Fi terminals have been sold in Britain for
use in homes, offices and a host of other buildings. By some estimates, half of
all primary schools and four fifths of all secondary schools have installed
them.
Whole cities are going wireless. First up is the genteel, almost bucolic, burgh
of Norwich, which has installed a network covering almost the whole of its
centre, spanning a 4km radius from City Hall. It takes in key sites further
away, including the University of East Anglia and a local hospital, and will be
expanded to take in rural parts of the south of the county.
More than 200 small aerials were attached to lamp posts to create the network,
which anyone can use free for an hour. There is nothing to stop the 1,000 people
who use it each day logging off when their time is up, and logging on again for
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/JRJohnson/Des...0The%20Independent%20-%20Danger%20on%20Airwaves.txt (1 of 3)4/25/2008 2:06:09 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/JRJohnson/Desktop/Clearwire/16%20a%20The%20Independent%20-%20Danger%20on%20Airwaves.txt
another costless session.
"We wanted to see if something like this could be done," says Anne Carey, the
network's project manager. "People are using it and finding it helpful. It is, I
think, currently the largest network of its kind."
Not for much longer. Brighton plans to launch a city-wide network next year, and
Manchester is planning one covering over 400 square miles, providing free access
to 2.2 million people.
So far only a few, faint warnings have been raised, mainly by people who are so
sensitised to the electromagnetic radiation emitted by mobiles, their masts and
Wi-Fi that they become ill in its presence. The World Health Organisation
estimates that up to three out of every hundred people are "electrosensitive" to
some extent. But scientists and doctors - and some European governments - are
adding their voices to the alarm as it becomes clear that the almost universal
use of mobile phones may be storing up medical catastrophe for the future.
A recent authoritative Finnish study has found that people who have used mobiles
for more than ten years are 40 per cent more likely to get a brain tumour on the
same side of the head as they hold their handset; Swedish research suggests that
the risk is almost four times as great. And further research from Sweden claims
that the radiation kills off brain cells, which could lead to today's younger
generation going senile in their forties and fifties.
Professor Lawrie Challis, who heads the Government's official mobile safety
research, this year said that the mobile could turn out to be "the cigarette of
the 21st century".
There has been less concern about masts, as they emit very much less radiation
than mobile phones. But people living - or attending schools - near them are
consistently exposed and studies reveal a worrying incidence of symptoms such as
headaches, fatigue, nausea, dizziness and memory problems. There is also some
suggestion that there may be an increase in cancers and heart disease.
Wi-Fi systems essentially take small versions of these masts into the home and
classroom - they emit much the same kind of radiation. Though virtually no
research has been carried out, campaigners and some scientists expect them to
have similar ill-effects. They say that we are all now living in a soup of
electromagnetic radiation one billion times stronger than the natural fields in
which living cells have developed over the last 3.8 billion years. This, they
add, is bound to cause trouble
Prof Leif Salford, of Lund University - who showed that the radiation kills off
brain cells - is also deeply worried about wi-fi's addition to "electronic
smog".
There is particular concern about children partly because they are more
vulnerable - as their skulls are thinner and their nervous systems are still
developing - and because they will be exposed to more of the radiation during
their lives.
The Austrian Medical Association is lobbying against the deployment of Wi-Fi in
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/JRJohnson/Des...0The%20Independent%20-%20Danger%20on%20Airwaves.txt (2 of 3)4/25/2008 2:06:09 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/JRJohnson/Desktop/Clearwire/16%20a%20The%20Independent%20-%20Danger%20on%20Airwaves.txt
schools. The authorities of the province of Salzburg has already advised schools
not to install it, and is now considering a ban. Dr Gerd Oberfeld, Salzburg's
head of environmental health and medicine, says that the Wi-Fi is "dangerous" to
sensitive people and that "the number of people and the danger are both
growing".
In Britain, Stowe School removed Wi-Fi from part of its premises after a
classics master, Michael Bevington - who had taught there for 28 years developed headaches and nausea as soon as it was installed.
Ian Gibson, the MP for the newly wireless city Norwich is calling for an
official inquiry into the risks of Wi-Fi. The Professional Association of
Teachers is to write to Education Secretary Alan Johnson this week to call for
one.
Philip Parkin, the general secretary of the union, says; "I am concerned that so
many wireless networks are being installed in schools and colleges without any
understanding of the possible long-term consequences.
"The proliferation of wireless networks could be having serious implications for
the health of some staff and pupils without the cause being recognised."
But, he added, there are huge commercial pressures" which may be why there has
not yet been "any significant action".
Guidelines that were ignored
The first Stewart Report, published in May 2000, produced a series of sensible
recommendations. They included: discouraging children from using mobiles, and
stopping the industry from promoting them to the young; publicising the
radiation levels of different handsets so that customers could choose the
lowest; making the erection of phone masts subject to democratic control through
the planning system; and stopping the building of masts where the radiation
"beam of greatest intensity" fell on schools, unless the school and parents
agreed.
The Government accepted most of these recommendations, but then, as 'The
Independent on Sunday' has repeatedly pointed out, failed to implement them.
Probably, it has lost any chance to curb the use of mobiles by children and
teenagers. Since the first report, mobile use by the young has doubled.
Additional reporting by Paul Bignall, Will Dowling and Jude Townend
SearchQuery: Independent.co.uk The Web Go
©independent.co.uk Legal Terms & Policies | E-mail sign-up | RSS | Contact us |
Syndication | Work for INM | Advertising Guide | Group Sites | London Careers
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/JRJohnson/Des...0The%20Independent%20-%20Danger%20on%20Airwaves.txt (3 of 3)4/25/2008 2:06:09 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/JRJohnson/Desktop/Clearwire/16%20b%20The%20Independent%20-%20Children%20at%20Risk.txt
The Independent - Print ArticleIndependent.co.uk
Wi-Fi: Children at risk from 'electronic smog'
::: Revealed - radiation threat from new wireless computer networks
::: Teachers demand inquiry to protect a generation of pupils
By Geoffrey Lean, environment editor
Sunday, 22 April 2007
Britain's top health protection watchdog is pressing for a formal investigation
into the hazards of using wireless communication networks in schools amid
mounting concern that they may be damaging children's health, 'The Independent
on Sunday' can reveal.
Sir William Stewart, the chairman of the Health Protection Agency, wants pupils
to be monitored for ill effects from the networks - known as Wi-Fi - which emit
radiation and are being installed in classrooms across the nation.
Sir William - who is a former chief scientific adviser to the Government, and
has chaired two official inquiries into the hazards of mobile phones - is adding
his weight to growing pressure for a similar examination of Wi-Fi, which some
scientists fear could cause cancer and premature senility.
Wi-Fi - described by the Department of Education and Skills as a "magical"
system that means computers do not have to be connected to telephone lines - is
rapidly being taken up inschools, with estimates that more than half of primary
schools - and four-fifths of secondary schools - have installed it .
But several European provincial governments have already taken action to ban, or
limit, its use in the classroom, and Stowe School has partially removed it after
a teacher became ill.
This week the Professional Association of Teachers, which represents 35,000
staff across the country, will write to Alan Johnson, Secretary of State for
Education, to demand an official inquiry. Virtually no studies have been carried
out into Wi-Fi's effects on pupils, but it gives off radiation similar to
emissions from mobile phones and phone masts.
Recent research has linked radiation from mobiles to cancer and to brain damage.
And many studies have found disturbing symptoms in people near masts.
Professor Olle Johansson, of Sweden's prestigious Karolinska Institute, who is
deeply concerned about the spread of Wi-Fi, says there are "thousands" of
articles in scientific literature demonstrating "adverse health effects". He
adds: "Do we not know enough already to say, 'Stop!'?"
For the past 16 months, the provincial government of Salzburg in Austria has
been advising schools not to install Wi-Fi, and is considering a ban. Dr Gerd
Oberfeld, its head of environmental health and medicine, calls the technology
"dangerous".
Sir William - who takes a stronger position on the issue than his agency - was
not available for comment yesterday, but two members of an expert group that he
chairs on the hazards of radiation spoke of his concern.
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/JRJohnson/Desk...b%20The%20Independent%20-%20Children%20at%20Risk.txt (1 of 2)4/25/2008 2:06:11 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/JRJohnson/Desktop/Clearwire/16%20b%20The%20Independent%20-%20Children%20at%20Risk.txt
Mike Bell, chairman of the Electromagnetic Radiation Research Trust, says that
he has been "very supportive of having Wi-Fi examined and doing something about
it". And Alasdair Philips, director of Powerwatch, an information service, said
that he was pressing for monitoring of the health of pupils exposed to Wi-Fi.
Labour MP Ian Gibson, who was interviewed with Sir William for a forthcoming
television programme, last week said that he backed proposals for an inquiry.
SearchQuery: Independent.co.uk The Web Go
©independent.co.uk Legal Terms & Policies | E-mail sign-up | RSS | Contact us |
Syndication | Work for INM | Advertising Guide | Group Sites | London Careers
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/JRJohnson/Desk...b%20The%20Independent%20-%20Children%20at%20Risk.txt (2 of 2)4/25/2008 2:06:11 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/JRJohnson/Desktop/Clearwire/16c%20The%20Independent%20-%20Schools.txt
The Independent - Print ArticleIndependent.co.uk
The school that took on mobile phone companies
By Jude Townend
Sunday, 22 April 2007
Two giant mobile phone companies are to move a mast at a primary school, after
parents claimed their children fell sick.
The mast was already in use when St Edward's RC primary school opened in
Coleshill, Warwickshire 11 years ago. It is owned by O2, which rents space on it
to Orange. An O2 spokesman said "there were concerns from some of the local
people that there are health issues" but added that the mast posed no risks to
health.
But parents said children and staff suffered from insomnia, headaches and
numbness. They conducted a survey of 22 staff who had been at the school for the
11 years, and 59 children who had been pupils for seven years.
Their results showed 56 per cent of the children and 86 per cent of the staff
had problems sleeping, 54 per cent and 59 per cent respectively were getting
headaches and migraines, and 46 per cent and 95 per cent respectively reported
fatigue and numbness. About 45 per cent of teachers and pupils had red eyes;
other symptoms included dizziness, nosebleeds, nausea and hearing strange hums
and clicks.
The parents have been backed by Warwickshire County Council and their MP, Mike
O'Brien, the Solicitor General. Parents and their representatives held talks
with O2.
SearchQuery: Independent.co.uk The Web Go
©independent.co.uk Legal Terms & Policies | E-mail sign-up | RSS | Contact us |
Syndication | Work for INM | Advertising Guide | Group Sites | London Careers
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/JRJohnson/Desktop/Clearwire/16c%20The%20Independent%20-%20Schools.txt4/25/2008 2:06:12 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/JRJohnson/Desktop/Clearwire/16%20d%20The%20Independent%20-%20Hi-tech%20horrors.txt
The Independent - Print ArticleIndependent.co.uk
Leading article: Hi-tech horrors
Sunday, 22 April 2007
The technologies we grow to love most have a way of exacting a toll once we
become dependent on them. They change our lives and then come back to demand
their price. Take the internal combustion engine, which has allowed us to be
comfortably mobile, but killed many millions in accidents and from pollution. Or
indeed the burning of fossil fuels, which has driven prosperity for more than
two centuries, but now threatens to destroy through uncontrolled global warming
the very civilisation it has created. Mobile phones are our latest love affair over 50 million are in use in Britain - and for these too there may well be a
reckoning. Evidence is beginning to accumulate that the radiation they emit may
cause cancer and so damage the brains of today's young people that they become
senile while still in the prime of life. Two official reports by Sir William
Stewart - chairman of the official Health Protection Agency and a former
government chief scientist - have warned against the dangers, only to be
effectively ignored by the Government.
The measures he proposed were moderate and sensible, but were treated with
unforgivable contempt. He wanted ministers to circulate a leaflet detailing the
potential dangers to every home; they restricted distribution so much that it
was hard to get. He asked for information on the widely varying radiation levels
of different phones to be put on the handsets and the packaging, so that
customers could choose to buy low-radiation models for themselves or their
children; ministers pledged to do so, and broke their promise. He recommended
that erecting mobile phone masts near schools should be banned unless parents
agreed; the Government simply refused. Above all, he insisted that children
should be discouraged from using mobiles and that industry should be stopped
from promoting them to the young; nothing happened and their use became almost
universal.
Now, as we report today, he is privately airing new concerns - about the rapid
spread of Wi-Fi technology, particularly in schools. The radiation emitted by
the networks is far less than from mobiles, and it is not delivered so close to
the head. But it is constant, and involuntary. People who are particularly, and
dangerously, sensitive to the radiation will not be able to escape it. Nor will
those who might choose not to take the gamble with their health. And as the
technology is rolled out to cover whole cities, any refuge will become next to
impossible.
The inconvenient truth is that we are conducting a massive experiment on
ourselves and particularly on our children. We are surrounding ourselves with an
ever-thickening electronic soup the like of which living cells have not
encountered during their billions of years of evolution. Of course, all may be
well; we may be immune to any ill-effects. But there is enough evidence
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/JRJohnson/Desk...%20d%20The%20Independent%20-%20Hi-tech%20horrors.txt (1 of 2)4/25/2008 2:06:11 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/JRJohnson/Desktop/Clearwire/16%20d%20The%20Independent%20-%20Hi-tech%20horrors.txt
accumulating to make it seem unlikely that we will be so lucky. As we
exclusively reported last week, other members of the animal kingdom - bees - may
be even more affected.
We need to stop and think. Weshould be officially monitoring the effects on the
children we expose to the radiation in classrooms. We also need another official
inquiry - as authoritative as the Stewart reports on mobile phones - before the
technology is deployed further. And this time, ministers must implement what it
recommends.
SearchQuery: Independent.co.uk The Web Go
©independent.co.uk Legal Terms & Policies | E-mail sign-up | RSS | Contact us |
Syndication | Work for INM | Advertising Guide | Group Sites | London Careers
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/JRJohnson/Desk...%20d%20The%20Independent%20-%20Hi-tech%20horrors.txt (2 of 2)4/25/2008 2:06:11 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/JRJohnson/Desktop/Clearwire/16%20e%20The%20Independent%20-%20Bees.txt
The Independent - Print ArticleIndependent.co.uk
Are mobile phones wiping out our bees?
Scientists claim radiation from handsets are to blame for mysterious 'colony
collapse' of bees
By Geoffrey Lean and Harriet Shawcross
Sunday, 15 April 2007
It seems like the plot of a particularly far-fetched horror film. But some
scientists suggest that our love of the mobile phone could cause massive food
shortages, as the world's harvests fail.
They are putting forward the theory that radiation given off by mobile phones
and other hi-tech gadgets is a possible answer to one of the more bizarre
mysteries ever to happen in the natural world - the abrupt disappearance of the
bees that pollinate crops. Late last week, some bee-keepers claimed that the
phenomenon - which started in the US, then spread to continental Europe - was
beginning to hit Britain as well.
The theory is that radiation from mobile phones interferes with bees' navigation
systems, preventing the famously homeloving species from finding their way back
to their hives. Improbable as it may seem, there is now evidence to back this
up.
Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) occurs when a hive's inhabitants suddenly
disappear, leaving only queens, eggs and a few immature workers, like so many
apian Mary Celestes. The vanished bees are never found, but thought to die
singly far from home. The parasites, wildlife and other bees that normally raid
the honey and pollen left behind when a colony dies, refuse to go anywhere near
the abandoned hives.
The alarm was first sounded last autumn, but has now hit half of all American
states. The West Coast is thought to have lost 60 per cent of its commercial bee
population, with 70 per cent missing on the East Coast.
CCD has since spread to Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece.
And last week John Chapple, one of London's biggest bee-keepers, announced that
23 of his 40 hives have been abruptly abandoned.
Other apiarists have recorded losses in Scotland, Wales and north-west England,
but the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs insisted: "There
is absolutely no evidence of CCD in the UK."
The implications of the spread are alarming. Most of the world's crops depend on
pollination by bees. Albert Einstein once said that if the bees disappeared,
"man would have only four years of life left".
No one knows why it is happening. Theories involving mites, pesticides, global
warming and GM crops have been proposed, but all have drawbacks.
German research has long shown that bees' behaviour changes near power lines.
Now a limited study at Landau University has found that bees refuse to return to
their hives when mobile phones are placed nearby. Dr Jochen Kuhn, who carried it
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/JRJohnson/Desktop/Clearwire/16%20e%20The%20Independent%20-%20Bees.txt (1 of 2)4/25/2008 2:06:13 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/JRJohnson/Desktop/Clearwire/16%20e%20The%20Independent%20-%20Bees.txt
out, said this could provide a "hint" to a possible cause.
Dr George Carlo, who headed a massive study by the US government and mobile
phone industry of hazards from mobiles in the Nineties, said: "I am convinced
the possibility is real."
The case against handsets
Evidence of dangers to people from mobile phones is increasing. But proof is
still lacking, largely because many of the biggest perils, such as cancer, take
decades to show up.
Most research on cancer has so far proved inconclusive. But an official Finnish
study found that people who used the phones for more than 10 years were 40 per
cent more likely to get a brain tumour on the same side as they held the
handset.
Equally alarming, blue-chip Swedish research revealed that radiation from mobile
phones killed off brain cells, suggesting that today's teenagers could go senile
in the prime of their lives.
Studies in India and the US have raised the possibility that men who use mobile
phones heavily have reduced sperm counts. And, more prosaically, doctors have
identified the condition of "text thumb", a form of RSI from constant texting.
Professor Sir William Stewart, who has headed two official inquiries, warned
that children under eight should not use mobiles and made a series of safety
recommendations, largely ignored by ministers.
SearchQuery: Independent.co.uk The Web Go
©independent.co.uk Legal Terms & Policies | E-mail sign-up | RSS | Contact us |
Syndication | Work for INM | Advertising Guide | Group Sites | London Careers
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/JRJohnson/Desktop/Clearwire/16%20e%20The%20Independent%20-%20Bees.txt (2 of 2)4/25/2008 2:06:13 PM