Radiation from phone masts
LETTERS: Radiation from phone masts
Wednesday October 14 2009
http://www.kerryman.ie/news/letters-radiation-from-phone-masts-1912644.html
Sir, I would like to respond to Dr Nolan’s letter on safety issues with mobile phone masts, published in The Kerryman of October 7.
Dr Nolan is wrong when he says that non-ionising radiation cannot affect living things if it is too weak to generate significant heat. The most obvious examples are the effects of visible light, which is of course non-ionising. Were it not for its effects on chlorophyll, plants would not be able to photosynthesise and, were it not for its effects on our visual pigments, we would not be able to see.
Non-ionising radio frequencies can affect other important pigments; for example, Ritz and co-workers (Nature, Vol. 429, 13th May 2004) showed that they affect the normal functioning of cryptochrome. Birds, bees and other animals use cryptochrome to sense the direction of the earth’s magnetic field for navigation, and radio waves can interfere with this. In fact, the cryptochromes are a family of pigments, present in virtually all animal and plant cells, where they also form a vital part of the biological clock that senses time. In animals that use the sun for navigation, an accurate sense of time is important because it enables them to compensate for its changing position throughout the day.
In the case of the bees, which can use either magnetic or solar navigation, radio waves from mobile phone masts will leave them with little or no sense of direction. This is probably the main contributory factor to the so-called colony collapse disorder in which foraging bees simply do not return to the hive. The bees clearly do not like this sort of radiation since, if you place a DECT cordless phone base station (a surrogate mobile phone mast) next to a hive, the bees leave and do not return. These effects now threaten the very survival of the bee population, which in turn threatens us because many of our crops depend on them for pollination.
However, we humans also use cryptochrome in our own biological clocks, and this may be responsible for the poor sleep patterns often reported in people living near mobile phone masts. They suffer fatigue during the day and interrupted sleep at night, just as if their biological clocks had ceased to function normally. This sort of disruption is like a permanent jet-lag and is associated with a damaged immune system (which works best at night), and increases the risk of getting cancer and other diseases. The increased risk of cancer, including breast and colorectal cancers, is well established in people whose rhythms have been disrupted by shift working and is now becoming increasingly reported as cancer clusters around mobile phone masts and radio and television transmitters.
However, the most serious biological effect of non-ionising radiation is its ability to disrupt cell membranes. This has been known since the work of Suzanne Bawin and her coworkers in 1975 (Ann NY Acad Sci Vol 247, pp 74-81). They discovered that amplitude-modulated radio-waves, where the signal strength rises and falls (as it does in mobile phones), could remove structurally important calcium ions from cell membranes at levels far too low to generate significant heat.
This makes them leak, which can give a whole range of biological effects that are similar to those of ionising radiation, which also makes cell membranes leak. The mechanism is, however different. Ionising radiation generates highly reactive free radicals, which destroy the fatty components of cell membranes to make permanent holes, whereas non-ionising radiation makes temporary holes as the components of the weakened membrane pull apart from time to time. Nevertheless, the effect is the same; the membranes leak.
In either case, the most serious effect is on the membranes of the lysosomes. These are structures in living cells that contain digestive enzymes and are normally used to digest waste for recycling. When these leak, they can release their enzymes and do serious damage to the rest of the cell, including to its DNA (bacteria, which have no lysosomes, are about a thousand times more resistant to radiation than higher organisms, which do have them).
The effects of non-ionising radiation are slower than ionising radiation. For example, it takes several hours for exposure to mobile phone radiation to do serious damage to the DNA in living cells (see www.bioinitiative.org ), but the effects are qualitatively the same.
The result is an increased risk for heavy mobile phone users of getting brain and other head cancers in later life. There has also been a mysterious increase in cancers of the thyroid gland (which is in the neck, close to where you hold your mobile phone), and a permanent reduction in thyroid function has been reported in rats exposed for more than three months to power line frequencies. In humans, this would be expected to lead to obesity and other symptoms of hypothyroidism. About one third of the population is currently overweight or clinically obese.
There is also a reduction in fertility in people using mobile phones for more than about four hours a day as sperm, and possibly also the eggs, are damaged. Another effect of DNA damage is the disruption of cell division in the bone marrow, which affects the production of healthy white blood cells and can lead to a reduced immunity to disease.
Yet another serious effect of leakage is on the blood-brain barrier. This is a layer of cells, where the gaps between them are sealed to prevent unwanted materials entering the brain from the bloodstream. It has been shown that mobile phone radiation makes this barrier leak, which results in the death of neurons, and is likely to lead to early dementia. There are similar barriers covering all of our body surfaces, both inside and out.
Leakage in the skin barrier allows the easier penetration of allergens, and is probably responsible for the recent rise in multiple allergies. Leakage in the nasal barrier will increase the risk of asthma. Leakage in the gut barrier has been linked to autoimmune diseases such as celiac disease, type-1 diabetes and multiple sclerosis, as undigested food enters the bloodstream and damages other cells, which are then destroyed by the immune system. More information on much of this, together with references to the appropriate
scientific journals, can be found at http://tinyurl.com/5ru6e6.
I’m afraid that Dr Nolan (who is an electronics engineer but not a biologist) is seriously and dangerously incorrect in his claim that weak non-ionising radiation can have no harmful biological effects.
Sincerely,
Andrew Goldsworthy BSc PhD
Lecturer in Biology (retired) Imperial College London.
Special thank you to Angela Flynn for making this available.
Secret Link Between Cigarettes and Cell Phones?
Secret Link Between Cigarettes and Cell Phones?
Cell phones are used by an estimated 275 million people in the United States and 4 billion worldwide.
A recent review of studies assessed whether there was epidemiologic evidence for an association between long-term cell phone usage and the risk of developing a brain tumor.
In order to be included in the analysis, studies were required to have been published in a peer-reviewed journal, included participants who had used cell phone for 10 or more years, and analyzed the side of the brain tumor relative to the side of the head preferred for cell phone usage. Eleven long-term epidemiologic studies fit the criteria.
The results indicated that using a cell phone for 10 or more years approximately doubles the risk of being diagnosed with a brain tumor on the same side of the head as that preferred for cell phone use.
Iowa senator Tom Harkin, newly empowered to investigate health matters as chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, has promised to probe deeply into any potential links between cell phone use and cancer.
Harkin, who took over the committee after the death of Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy, said he was concerned no one has been able to prove cell phones do not cause cancer. A staffer said the senator became concerned by a report from the Environmental Working Group showing that radio wave emissions vary from one cell phone brand and model to another, as well as some reports suggesting there might be a link.
Sources:
Surgical Neurology September 2009;72(3):205-14According to Reuters, an estimated 4 billion people worldwide now use cell phones, up from about 3 billion around this time just last year.
Dangers Known for a Decade
Cell phones use radio waves to transmit voice data, and the dangers of consistent exposure to information-carrying radio waves have been known since at least 1998. Yet few have been willing to accept the evidence, and the cellular industry has followed in the footsteps of the tobacco industry, vehemently denying any risks.
It’s worth remembering that the telecommunication industry is even BIGGER than Big Pharma, and they have far more influence than the drug companies.
My belief is that this exponential increase in this type of radiation exposure is far more serious a threat than tobacco ever was.
To get a better understanding of the physics and biological impact of information-carrying radio waves and the electromagnetic fields emitted from your cell phone, please review the article, “If Mobile Phones Were a Type of Food, They Simply Would Not be Licensed.”
The first major indication that cell phones might be a health hazard came out of a massive, $28 million research project funded by the Cellular Telephone Industry Association (CTIA). To the industry’s surprise and dismay, the results of the study came to the opposite conclusion from the one they were hoping for.
The study’s results included findings of:
- A nearly 300 percent increase in the incidence of genetic damage when human blood cells were exposed to radiation in the cellular frequency band
- A significant increase in cell phone users’ risk of brain tumors at the brain’s outer edge, on whichever side the cell phone was held most often
- A 60 percent greater chance of acoustic neuromas, a tumor affecting the nerve that controls hearing, among people who had used cell phones for six years or more
- A higher rate of brain cancer deaths among handheld mobile phone users than among car phone users (car phones are mounted on the dashboard rather than held next to your head)
Prior to this, Alfred Gilman and Martin Rodbell had won the Nobel Prize (1994) for their research showing your body’s cells communicate with each other by subtle low electromagnetic signals. These signals carry all the vital information that are then translated into biochemical and physiological processes.
The following year, researchers discovered that animals exposed to cell phone radiation suffered double-strand DNA breakage – the type of genetic alterations that can lead to cancer, cell death and mutagenic problems.
Since then, many more scientists confirmed all of the above findings.
The Latest Findings Confirm Long-Held Concerns
The latest meta-analysis looks at the epidemiological evidence of cell phone usage and your risk of developing a brain tumor. In order to be included, the studies had to meet certain criteria:
- Publication in a peer-reviewed journal
- Inclusion of participants using cell phones for a minimum of 10 years (to include potential latent effects
- Incorporation of a “laterality” analysis of long-term users (i.e., analysis of the side of the brain tumor relative to the side of the head preferred for cell phone usage)
Eleven long-term epidemiologic studies were included, which led to the following findings:
“The results indicate that using a cell phone for > or = 10 years approximately doubles the risk of being diagnosed with a brain tumor on the same (“ipsilateral”) side of the head as that preferred for cell phone use.
The data achieve statistical significance for glioma and acoustic neuroma but not for meningioma.
The authors conclude that there is adequate epidemiologic evidence to suggest a link between prolonged cell phone usage and the development of an ipsilateral brain tumor.”
Other Health Hazards Linked to Cell Phone Use
So far, in addition to the widespread concern about brain cancer, scientists have found that information-carrying radio waves transmitted by cell phones and other wireless devices can:
- Harm your blood cells and cause cellular changes
- Damage your DNA
- Cause nerve-cell damage
- Accelerate and contribute to onset of autism , and trigger Alzheimer’s disease
- Damage your eyes
- Cause sleep disruptions, fatigue and headaches
I have been warning of the dangers of cell phones for over a decade now, watching for and reporting on new findings along the way. Fortunately, as the supporting evidence mounts, scientists, medical professionals, and government agencies around the world are starting to caution against cell phone use as well.
Health Authorities and Government Officials Speak Out
Last year, tumor immunologist Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute (UPCI), was one of the authorities who finally elected to speak out publicly about the potential dangers of cell phones. He also spoke to the U.S. House Subcommittee on Domestic Policy about the connection between cell phone use and the increased risk of brain cancer.
Prior to that, The BioInitiative Report, published August 31, 2007, by an international working group of scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals offered a serious warning to the public.
The report documents serious scientific concerns about the current limits regulating how much radiation is allowable from power lines, cell phones, and many other sources of exposure to radiofrequencies and electromagnetic fields in daily life. They concluded that the existing standards for public safety do not protect your health.
The report also includes studies showing evidence for:
- Effects on Gene and Protein Expression (Transcriptomic and Proteomic Research)
- Genotoxic Effects – RFR and ELF DNA Damage
- Stress Response (Stress Proteins)
- Effects on Immune Function
- Effects on Neurology and Behavior
- Brain Tumors and Acoustic Neuromas
- Childhood Cancers (Leukemia)
- Magnetic Field Exposure: Melatonin Production; Alzheimer’s Disease; Breast Cancer
- Breast Cancer Promotion (Melatonin links in laboratory and cell studies)
- Disruption by the Modulating Signal
Another noted brain cancer authority who voiced his concerns last year was Australian Dr Vini Gautam Khurana. His paper titled: Mobile Phones and Brain Tumors was the result of reviewing more than 100 sources of recent medical and scientific literature on this topic.
Iowa senator Tom Harkin, now chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, has recently vowed to investigate any potential links between cell phone use and cancer, noting that the Senate Health committee does have jurisdiction over both the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
On September 14th, he called a hearing of the Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education to start looking into the many questions surrounding this issue. He also stated he will get the National Institutes of Health (NIH) involved.
“I’m reminded of this nation’s experience with cigarettes,” Harkin said.
“Decades passed between the first warnings about smoking tobacco and the final definitive conclusion that cigarettes cause lung cancer.”
Protect Yourself and Your Children
Remember, the damage from cell phone exposure will take many years to surface, and there are rarely any initial symptoms, just like smoking and lung cancer.
At this point, you cannot completely avoid wireless radiation from all sources since they’re so pervasive. Getting rid of your cell phone altogether can help protect you. But even if you don’t want to take that step, you can still minimize your exposure and reduce your risks by following these common sense guidelines:
Children Should Never Use Cell Phones: Barring a life-threatening emergency, children should not use a cell phone, or a wireless device of any type. Children are far more vulnerable to cell phone radiation than adults, because of their thinner skull bones.
Reduce Your Cell Phone Use: Turn your cell phone off more often. Reserve it for emergencies or important matters.
Use a Land Line at Home and at Work: Although more and more people are switching to using cell phones as their exclusive phone contact, it is a dangerous trend and you can choose to opt out of the madness.
Reduce or Eliminate Your Use of Other Wireless Devices: You would be wise to cut down your use of these devices. Just as with cell phones, it is important to ask yourself whether or not you really need to use them every single time. If you must use a portable home phone, use the older kind that operates at 900 MHz. They are no safer during calls, but at least they do not broadcast constantly even when no call is being made.Use Your Cell Phone Only Where Reception is Good: The weaker the reception, the more power your phone must use to transmit, and the more power it uses, the more radiation it emits, and the deeper the dangerous radio waves penetrate into your body. Ideally, you should only use your phone with full bars and good reception. Also seek to avoid carrying your phone on your body as that merely maximizes any potential exposure. Ideally put it in your purse or carrying bag.
Turn Your Cell Phone Off When Not in Use: As long as your cell phone is on, it emits radiation intermittently, even when you are not actually making a call.Keep Your Cell Phone Away From Your Body When it is On: The most dangerous place to be, in terms of radiation exposure, is within about six inches of the emitting antenna. You do not want any part of your body within that area.
Use Safer Headset Technology: Wired headsets will certainly allow you to keep the cell phone farther away from your body. However, if a wired headset is not well-shielded — and most of them are not — the wire itself acts as an antenna attracting ambient information carrying radio waves and transmitting radiation directly to your brain.
Make sure that the wire used to transmit the signal to your ear is shielded.
The best kind of headset to use is a combination shielded wire and air-tube headset. These operate like a stethoscope, transmitting the information to your head as an actual sound wave; although there are wires that still must be shielded, there is no wire that goes all the way up to your head.
Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern
PRESS RELEASE
Contact: USA – Lloyd Morgan Tel. 510 841 4362 E-mail: bilovsky@aol.com
UK - Alasdair Philips Tel. 01353 778422 E-mail: alasdair@powerwatch.org.uk
Cellphones Cause Brain Tumors, Says New Report by International EMF Collaborative
You Tube Introduction:
August 25, 2009. A new report, “Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern,Science, Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone,” was released today by a collaborative of international EMF activists. Groups affiliated with the report include Powerwatch and the Radiation Research Trust in the U.K., and in the U.S., EMR Policy Institute, ElectromagneticHealth.org and The Peoples Initiative Foundation. Download the report. (http://www.radiationresearch.org/pdfs/15reasons.asp )
The exposé discusses research on cellphones and brain tumors and concludes:
· There is a risk of brain tumors from cellphone use;
· Telecom funded studies underestimate the risk of brain tumors, and;
· Children have larger risks than adults for brain tumors.
This report, sent to government leaders and media today, details eleven design flaws of the 13-country, Telecom-funded Interphone study. The Interphone study, begun in 1999, was intended to determine the risks of brain tumors, but its full publication has been held up for years. Components of this study published to date reveal what the authors call a ‘systemic-skew’, greatly underestimating brain tumor risk.
The design flaws include categorizing subjects who used portable phones (which emit the same microwave radiation as cellphones,) as ‘unexposed’; exclusion of many types of brain tumors; exclusion of people who had died, or were too ill to be interviewed, as a consequence of their brain tumor; and exclusion of children and young adults, who are more vulnerable.
Lloyd Morgan, lead author and member of the Bioelectromagnetics Society says, “Exposure to cellphone radiation is the largest human health experiment ever undertaken, without informed consent, and has some 4 billion participants enrolled. Science has shown increased risk of brain tumors from use of cellphones, as well as increased risk of eye cancer, salivary gland tumors, testicular cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and leukemia. The public must be informed.”
International scientists endorsing “Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern” include Ronald B. Herberman, MD, Director Emeritus, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute; David Carpenter, MD, Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany; Martin Blank, PhD, Associate Professor of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, Columbia University;Professor Yury Grigoriev, Chairman of Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, and many others.
Sign Petition – MCS / EMF / EMS
READ THIS
National Petition 101 | Mitigate America Dr. Rhoda Zione Alale, Founder
Tax Credits for those who mitigate their homes, schools, offices, public space, public transportation vehicles, airplanes, trains, buses, trucks , subway systems, etc.
Testing and Mitigation of all Real Estate Properties before they can be leased, sold, or occupied.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/national-petition-101-mitigate-america
Neuroscience For Kids The Blood Brain Barrier (“Keep Out”)
As seen at http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bbb.html
More than 100 years ago it was discovered that if blue dye was injected into the bloodstream of an animal, that tissues of the whole body EXCEPT the brain and spinal cord would turn blue.
To explain this, scientists thought that a “Blood-Brain-Barrier” (BBB) which prevents materials from the blood from entering the brain existed. More recently, scientists have discovered much more about the structure and function of the BBB.
Mitigate EMF
Anatomy of the BBB
The BBB is semi-permeable; that is, it allows some materials to cross, but prevents others from crossing. In most parts of the body, the smallest blood vessels, called capillaries, are lined with endothelial cells. Endothelial tissue has small spaces between each individual cell so substances can move readily between the inside and the outside of the vessel. However, in the brain, the endothelial cells fit tightly together and substances cannot pass out of the bloodstream. (Some molecules, such as glucose, are transported out of the blood by special methods.)
Glial cells (astrocytes) form a layer around brain blood vessels and may be important in the development of the BBB. Astrocytes may be also be responsible for transporting ions from the brain to the blood.
Functions of the BBB
The BBB has several important functions:
1.Protects the brain from “foreign substances” in the blood that may injure the brain.
2.Protects the brain from hormones and neurotransmitters in the rest of the body.
3.Maintains a constant environment for the brain.
General Properties of the BBB
1.Large molecules do not pass through the BBB easily.
2.Low lipid (fat) soluble molecules do not penetrate into the brain. However, lipid soluble molecules, such as barbituate drugs, rapidly cross through into the brain.
3.Molecules that have a high electrical charge are slowed.
The BBB can be broken down by:
1.Hypertension (high blood pressure): high blood pressure opens the BBB.
2.Development: the BBB is not fully formed at birth.
3.Hyperosmolitity: a high concentration of a substance in the blood can open the BBB.
4.Microwaves: exposure to microwaves can open the BBB.
5.Radiation: exposure to radiation can open the BBB.
6.Infection: exposure to infectious agents can open the BBB.
7.Trauma, Ischemia, Inflammation, Pressure: injury to the brain can open the BBB.
Circumventricular Organs
There are several areas of the brain where the BBB is weak. This allows substances to cross into the brain somewhat freely. These areas are known as “circumventricular organs”. Through the circumventricular organs the brain is able to monitor the makeup of the blood. The circumventricular organs include:
Pineal body: Secretes melatonin and neuroactive peptides. Associated with circadian rhythms.
Neurohypophysis (posterior pituitary): Releases neurohormones like oxytocin and vasopressin into the blood.
Area postrema: “Vomiting center”: when a toxic substance enters the bloodstream it will get to the area postrema and may cause the animal to throw up. In this way, the animal protects itself by eliminating the toxic substance from its stomach before more harm can be done.
Subfornical organ: Important for the regulation of body fluids.
Vascular organ of the lamina terminalis: A chemosensory area that detects peptides and other molecules.
Median eminence: Regulates anterior pituitary through release of neurohormones.
BBB from the Society for Neuroscience.
RF EMF and neurodegenerative disease
Effect of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on in vitro models of neurodegenerative disease.
Department of Veterinary Morphophysiology and Animal Production (DIMORFIPA), Bologna University, Bologna, Italy.
In this work we tested viability, proliferation, and vulnerability of neural cells, after continuous radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields exposure (global system for mobile telecommunications (GSM) modulated 900 MHz signal at a specific absorption rate (SAR) of 1 W/kg and maximum duration 144 h) generated by transverse electromagnetic cells.
We used two cellular systems, SN56 cholinergic for example, SN56 cholinergic cell line and rat primary cortical neurons, and well-known neurotoxic challenges, such as glutamate, 25-35AA beta-amyloid, and hydrogen peroxide. Exposure to RF did not change viability/proliferation rate of the SN56 cholinergic cells or viability of cortical neurons.
Co-exposure to RF exacerbated neurotoxic effect of hydrogen peroxide in SN56, but not in primary cortical neurons, whereas no cooperative effects of RF with glutamate and 25-35AA beta-amyloid were found. These data suggest that only under particular circumstances exposure to GSM modulated, 900 MHz signal act as a co-stressor for oxidative damage of neural cells.
Bioelectromagnetics, 2009. (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Submitted by
Philippe Hug
Chairman of ARA
http://www.alerte.ch
1. Del Vecchio may 2009.pdf
May 2009 as Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS) Awareness Month in Connecticut
CONNECTICUT GOVERNOR PROCLAIMS MAY 2009 AS ELECTROMAGNETIC SENSITIVITY (EMS) AWARENESS MONTH
Her Excellency M. Jodi Rell, Governor of the State of Connecticut, signed a proclamation declaring May 2009 as Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS) Awareness Month in Connecticut. As stated in the proclamation , people in Connecticut and throughout the world have developed Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS) as a result of global electromagnetic pollution.
Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS) is a painful chronic illness of hypersensitivities reactions to electromagnetic radiations for which there is no known cure. The symptoms of EMS include dermal changes, acute numbness and tingling, dermatitis, flushing, arrhythmia, muscular weakness, tinnitus, malaise, gastric problems, nausea, visual disturbances, severe neurological, respiratory, speech problems and numerous other physiological symptoms.
It is also stated in the proclamation of Her Excellency M. Jodi Rell, that Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS) is recognized by the Americans with Disabilities Act, the U.S. Access Board , and numerous commissions, and that the health of the general population is at risk from electromagnetic exposures, that can lead to this illness induced by electromagnetic radiations, and that this illness may be preventable through the reduction or avoidance of electromagnetic radiations in both indoor and outdoor environments and by conducting further scientific research, and that people with EMS need the support of the medical establishment, understanding of family, friends, co- workers and society as they struggle with their illness and have to adapt to new lifestyles.
For more information on Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS) and to view the EMS proclamation signed by Her Excellency M. Jodi Rell, Governor of Connecticut, please visit the award winning website:
Class Action Suit Against CLEAR WI-MAX. Technology Threatens Health of Everyone
Join the Class Action Suit Against CLEAR WI-MAX. Technology Threatens Health of Everyone
| Could Dow Chemical set up a plant in downtown Portland? Well, Wi-Max technology is wi fi on steroids that will blast every portlander in our homes whether we subscribe to it or not and this technology is at least 3x’s as harsh as the average cell tower. They must be stopped or the genetic integrity of our children may be at risk. Thousands of studies worldwide (not one ongoing study in the u.s.!!) confirm that this unregulated technology poses a devastating health risk that some scientists predict will overtake tobacco and asbestos combined. Check out Bioinitiative Report and www.wirelesswatchblog.com |
| Where does it begin and where does it end? |
|
If you would like to know more about this, write to oregonskywatch@gmail.com and check out the site: www.wirelesswatchblog.com We are organizing a class action suit against the company and the Mayor and City Council for allowing this to be set up here.
———————————————————————————–
Wi-fi faces health concerns The mobile telephone industry spent many years – and millions of dollars – fighting charges that wireless handsets could cause brain cancer. Now it looks like the budding wi-fi movement could face its own legal crisis with lawsuits alleging that 802.11 networks can cause similar physical problems. A few families in the Chicago suburb of Oak Park, Illinois, have filed a class-action lawsuit against Oak Park Elementary School’s District 97. They assert that wireless local-area networks (WLAN) in the school buildings expose their children to potential harm. Their suit points to a “substantial body of evidence that high frequency electro-magnetic radiation poses substantial and serious health risks, particularly to growing children.” The suit does not seek financial damages, but an end to the use of wi-fi in the neighborhood’s schools. The Wi-Fi Alliance, an industry group with members including Intel, Microsoft, Philips, and IBM, is aware of the suit, and says it will continue to pay attention to developments. “It’s natural when you hear about litigation for people to take notice,” says Alliance chairman Dennis Eaton. “Members are sensitive to the amount of time and effort that might have to be spent defending themselves.” The small suit could have big ramifications, particularly with wi-fi vendors. Global sales of 802.11 networks reached almost $1.3 billion through the first three quarters of this year, according to market research firm Dell’Oro Group. Tens of millions of people use the technology now, and the company predicts that the number will grow to 707 million by 2008, says Pyramid Research. Furthermore, as public hotspots invade hotels, airports, and coffee shops, an enormous number of people could claim to be adversely and unknowingly affected by WLANs. That is a key point of the lawsuit. “We have not established a level that can be considered safe or even tolerably safe,” says Ron Baiman, one of the parents who filed the lawsuit. “Our thinking is that it is certainly prudent at this point not to use these in public schools.” Collaborative on Health and the Environment (CHE), October 10, 2006 CONSENSUS STATEMENT ON ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION — DRAFT [Rachel's introduction: The Collaborative on Health and the Environment (CHE) has been building consensus on the need for precautionary measures to avert harm from electromagnetic radiation. Here is their draft statement.] We, the undersigned, are members of the CHE-EMF Working Group within the Collaborative on Health and the Environment (CHE), together with like-minded colleagues from science, medicine and environmental health. We believe there are legitimate health concerns regarding exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (EMR), which has rapidly become one of the most pervasive environmental exposures in modern life. These concerns are based on the weight of evidence spanning decades of scientific research on radiofrequency (RF) radiation from countries around the world. The radiofrequency radiation sources addressed in this Consensus Statement are those from newer wireless technologies such as cell phones and cordless phones, cell towers/antennas, WI-FI networks, WI-MAX, as well as Broadband Radiofrequency Internet over electrical power lines (BPL). We recognize that there are significant uncertainties about the long- term health effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation. However, prudent policy requires acting on the best available scientific evidence. Then, based on the Precautionary Principle, which is an overarching guide for decision making when dealing with credible threats of harm and scientific uncertainty, policies to protect public health can be adopted. As a way of implementing the Precautionary Principle, there should be an ongoing investment in research, as well as funding for a transparent, participatory policy analysis of alternatives, when there is reason to believe that there may be a significant risk from current or proposed technologies. The principle states that “when an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.” These precautionary measures may include but are not necessarily limited to making investments in research and policy analysis. We are deeply concerned that there is insufficient non-industry funding support for critical research, given the potential public health consequences of involuntary and chronic exposure to radiofrequency radiation. The following four examples show how the Precautionary Principle has been implemented. * Scientists in the United Kingdom recommend that no child under the age of 8 years old use a cell phone. Research evidence shows that children are more vulnerable than adults to harm from other environmental exposures (such as chemicals), and the same may be true of radiofrequency radiation exposures. * The International Association of Fire Fighters passed a resolution in 2004, calling for a moratorium on new cell phone antennas on fire stations and a study of the health effects of these installations. The Chairman of the Russian National Committee for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (RNCNIRP), Yuri Grigoriev, advised that cellular communication is strongly contraindicated for children and teenagers. The Canadian Public Health Officer, David Butler-Jones, advised Canadians to limit their and their children’s use of cell phones until science resolves uncertainties about long-term health effects. * More research is needed on the health/biological effects, the level of current and future exposure, and the feasibility, cost and exposure implications of these technologies, as well as alternatives and modifications to current technology. * While research continues, we believe there is sufficient evidence to recommend precautionary measures that people can take to protect their health, and the health of their families, co-workers and communities. We recommend the following measures: Use a corded phone/land line if possible, which does not involve RF exposure. Emergency use of cell phones is not discouraged but land lines should be used for normal day-to-day communication needs. If you use a cell phone, use an earpiece/headset or the “speaker phone” setting, which greatly reduces the RF exposure because the phone is not held next to your head and brain. Using text messaging is also a good way to reduce RF exposure. Be aware that the cell phone radiates to some degree even when in “standby” mode. You can avoid this radiation by either keeping the phone off (using it as an answering machine), or away from your body. Using a cordless phone outdoors to alert you to an incoming call is handy, but returning inside to use a corded phone/land line to conduct the conversation is advisable. Before adopting WI-FI wireless networks in workplaces, schools and cities, the extent of exposure and possible health effects should be publicly discussed. Although convenient, WI-FI wireless networks create pervasive, continuous, involuntary exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Preferable alternatives to wireless technology for voice and data transmission, including cable and fiber-optic technologies (that produce no radiofrequency radiation), should be considered, given the uncertainties about health, cost, liability, and inequity of impact. There needs to be substantial community involvement in decisions about the placement and operation of cell towers (also called antennas or masts). Where possible, siting of these facilities should avoid residential areas and schools, day-care centers, hospitals and other buildings that house populations more vulnerable to the effects of radiation exposure. Periodic information on levels of exposure should be provided to the public. Cell towers produce radiofrequency radiation exposure in communities that is constant and involuntary. While acknowledging that this technology enables voice and data transmission via a cell phone that is important to many people in every community, those who live, work or go to school in the vicinity of wireless facilities will be disproportionately exposed. Not enough research has been done to determine the safety or risk of chronic exposure to low-intensity RF radiation from cell towers and some studies suggest there may be harm. Broadband Radiofrequency Internet transmitted over electrical power lines (BPL) needs to be thoroughly researched and the findings publicly disclosed and discussed before full deployment of this new technology. Discussion should include comparison of exposures and potential health effects of BPL technology versus cable and fiber optics. BPL technology uses electrical wiring as the vehicle for carrying RF radiation into and throughout all electrified buildings in a community, including every home. Therefore, BPL has the potential to expose entire communities to a new, continuous, involuntary source of RF radiation. The RF signal will be carried on everyone’s home wiring, even in the homes of those who do not wish to subscribe to this new Internet service. People will have no chance to “opt out” or turn off the signal. In summary, we recommend caution in the further deployment of wireless technologies, and deployment of safer, wired alternatives until further study allows better definition of the risks of wireless. Signed by: Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, Member, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, Corte Madera, CA James B. Beal, EMF Interface Consulting, Wimberley, TX Martin Blank, PhD, Columbia University, New York, NY Roger Coghill, Coghill Research Labs, UK Andy Davidson, HESE-UK, Worthing, UK Cynthia Drasler, MBA, President, Organic Excellence Chemical Free Products; Host, Chemical Free Living Radio Show, Phoenix, AZ Nancy Evans, Health Science Consultant, San Francisco, CA David Fancy, Canadian SWEEP Initiative (Safe Wireless Electric and Electromagnetic Policy), St. Catherines, Ontario, Canada Marne Glaser, Chicago, IL Reba Goodman, PhD, Columbia University, New York, NY Leonore Gordon, Coordinator, New York State Coalition to Regulate Antenna Siting, Brooklyn, NY Elizabeth A. (“Libby”) Kelley, Executive Director, Council on Wireless Technology Impacts, Novato, CA Michael Kundi, PhD, Institute of Environmental Health, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria Henry Lai, PhD, University of Washington, Seattle, WA Michael Lerner, PhD, Commonweal, Bolinas, CA Samuel Milham, MD, MPH, Indio, CA Lloyd Morgan, Berkeley, CA Lisa Nagy, MD, Member, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, and Environmental Health Research Foundation, Vineyard Haven, MA Elihu Richter, MD, MPH, Hebrew University, Hadassah School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Jerusalem, Israel Joan M. Ripple, Treasurer, Council on Wireless Technology Impacts and health and disability researcher, Novato, CA Jeanne Rizzo, RN, Executive Director, Breast Cancer Fund, San Francisco, CA Ted Schettler, MD, MPH, Science and Environmental Health Network, Ann Arbor, MI Cindy Sage, Sage Associates, Santa Barbara, CA Lavinia Gene Weissman, Managing Director, WorkEcology, Jamaica Plain, MA Patricia Wood, Executive Director, Grassroots Environmental Education, Port Washington, NY See below for international resolutions urging precaution with wireless technologies. International Resolutions Advocating a Precautionary Approach to the Use and Expansion of Wireless Technologies Scientists and public policy researchers across the globe have acknowledged the evidence of potential health effects from radiofrequency radiation and advocated a precautionary approach to the use and expansion of wireless technologies. For example: October 1998, scientists adopt the Vienna Resolution, which states that “biological effects from low intensity [RFR] exposures are scientifically established.” June 2000, scientists adopt the Salzburg Resolution, stating “the assessment of biological effects of exposures from base stations in the low-dose range is difficult but indispensable for protection of public health…there is at present evidence of no threshold for adverse health effects.” In other words, there is no threshold for safe exposure. May 2000, the UK Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones chaired by Sir William Stewart, reports that “a precautionary approach be adopted until more robust scientific information becomes available.” [Read the "Stewart Report" here.] September 2002, scientists at the International Conference “State of the Research on Electromagnetic Fields Scientific and Legal Issues” held in Catania, Italy, adopt the Catania Resolution, calling for “preventive strategies based on the precautionary principle.” November 2004, the European Union’s EMF REFLEX Research Project is released [11 Mbyte PDF], showing that mobile phone radiation (radiofrequency radiation) damages DNA in human cells. [Read a commentary by Dr. Lennart Hardell here.] In January 2005, the UK National Radiation Protection Board issues a warning that no child under age 8 should use a cell phone, citing the growing scientific evidence that exposure to RFR poses a health risk. The report also cautions about the health risks of exposure to cell phone antennas (referred to as “base stations): “…there remain particular concerns in the UK about the impact of base stations on health, including well-being. Despite current evidence which shows that exposures of individuals are likely to be only a small fraction of those from phones, they may impact adversely on well-being.” In February 2005, the Irish Doctors Environmental Association (IDEA) issues a statement urging that “the strictest possible safety regulations be established for the installation of masts and transmitters, and for the acceptable levels of potential exposure of individuals to electromagnetic radiation.” In September 2006, the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS) releases the Benevento Resolution, which emphasizes that the accumulated evidence points to “adverse health effects from occupational and public exposures to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (EMF) at current exposure levels.” Signed by 31 leading scientists from around the world, this resolution calls for governments to “adopt guidelines for public and occupational EMF exposure that reflect the Precautionary Principle.” |
homepage: http://www.wirelesswatchblog.com
Informant: Martin Weatherall
BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF)
March 12, 2009 - Orebro University Hospital; Umea, Sweden; Columbia University, New York: University of Albany, New York; Karolinska Institute, Sweden
International Scientists Find Harmful Effects from Wireless Technologies and Urge New Safety Rules for Cell Phones
Public health concerns and scientific evidence for risks from cell phones and other wireless devices is published today in the journal Pathophysiology. International researchers have urged quick precautionary action to address a possible epidemic of brain tumors and many other health risks. Over four billion people around the world now use cell phones. They are rapidly eliminating the use of traditional land-line phones throughout the world. Health researchers from six countries give findings in fifteen (15) chapters covering health risks to humans and wildlife from electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation.
The global rollout of wireless technologies and devices like cell phones, cordless phones, cell towers (masts) and many other sources greatly increases our EMF exposure in daily life. The enormous popularity of new communication devices that allow email, texting, and access to the Internet from any city street has placed the issue squarely before government agencies like the FDA and the FCC, and also parents and school administrators. Parents must decide whether possible health risks to their children outweigh the convenience of keeping track of them. School officials and teachers care because of disruption and distraction in the classroom from cell phone use. National safety officials in the US face public criticism about highway collisions and road deaths from cell phone use while driving. Federal railway officials are still coping with the problem of illicit texting by US railroad personnel that lead to the catastrophic collision of two trains in Chatsworth, California in 2008 killing 24 and injuring 135 more.
Research professor and Editor Martin Blank PhD (Associate Professor, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons) says, “This special issue of Pathophysiology is about the human body’s sensitivity to EMF signals in the environment, e.g., EMF effects on DNA, effects on the brain from cell phone radiation, and how EMFs in the environment may lead to Alzheimer’s disease, dementia and breast cancer. The scientific evidence tells us that our safety standards are inadequate, and that we must protect ourselves from exposure to EMF due to power lines, cell phones and the like.”
Reba Goodman, PhD (Columbia University) reports that, “Cells in the body react to EMFs as potentially harmful, just like to other environmental toxins including heavy metals and toxic chemicals. The DNA in living cells recognizes electromagnetic fields at very low levels of exposure, and produces a biochemical stress response.”
David O. Carpenter, MD and Director of the University of Albany, Institute of Health and the Environment concludes, “The existing FCC and international limits do not do enough to protect people, especially children, from daily exposures to electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation. The existing safety limits did not anticipate these new kinds of technologies affecting the health of people living with and using wireless devices on a daily basis. These effects are now widely reported to occur at exposure levels significantly below most current national and international limits.”
Brain tumor specialist Dr. Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD works as both an oncologist and a researcher at Orebro University Hospital in Sweden. He is an expert on cell phones and brain tumors. “The evidence for risks from prolonged cell phone and cordless phone use is quite strong. For people who have used these devices for 10 years or longer, and when they are used mainly on one side of the head, the risk of malignant brain tumor is doubled for adults and is even higher for persons with first use before the age of 20 years.” Swedish researcher Olle Johansson, PhD (Karolinska Institute) says, “Most worrisome to me are the constant and unavoidable EMF exposures (from cell and DECT phones, power lines, new wireless technologies like WIMAX and WIFI, etc.) everywhere in our daily life that may affect the overall health of this and coming generations. I worry especially about the impacts on the immune system, our only real line of defense against disease.”
Wildlife biologist Alfonso Balmori, PhD of Valladolid, Spain reports that, “Electromagnetic radiation is a form of environmental pollution which may hurt wildlife. Phone masts located in their living areas are irradiating continuously some species that could suffer long-term effects, like reduction of their natural defenses, deterioration of their health, problems in reproduction and reduction of their useful territory through habitat deterioration. Therefore microwave and radiofrequency pollution constitutes a potential cause for the decline of animal populations and deterioration of health of plants living near phone masts.”
Prolonged exposure to radiofrequency and microwave radiation from cell phones, cordless phones, cell towers, WI-FI and other wireless technologies has been linked to interference with short-term memory and concentration, sleep disruption, headache and dizziness, fatigue, immune disruption, skin rashes and changes in cardiac function. However, “These effects can happen with even very small levels of exposure if they occur on a daily basis. Cell phone use is likely to be more harmful in children whose brain and nervous system development can last into late adolescence,” says Cindy Sage of Sage Associates, “The public health implications of billions of people who are exposed makes this a matter of critical concern to policy-makers around the world.”
The BioInitiative Report first warned that existing scientific knowledge has grown strong enough to alert the public and urge governments to develop new safety limits for electromagnetic fields (EMF). The Report was prepared by an international group of scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals who cautioned in 2007 that existing public safety limits regulating how much EMF is allowable from power lines and wireless devices like cell phones are inadequate to protect public health.
Contact: Dr. Martin Blank Tel: (212) 305-3644 Email: mb32@columbia.edu December 3, 2008 - BioInitiative Working Group Letter to Interphone Study Group
August 31, 2007 - Serious Public Health Concerns Raised Over Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) from Powerlines and Cell Phones. (pdf) (html)
An international working group of scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals (The BioInitiative Working Group) has released its report on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and health. They document serious scientific concerns about current limits regulating how much EMF is allowable from power lines, cell phones, and many other sources of EMF exposure in daily life.
The report concludes the existing standards for public safety are inadequate to protect public health.
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=BioInitiative
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Martin+Blank
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Reba+Goodman
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=David+O.+Carpenter
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Hardell
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Johansson
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Balmori http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Cindy+Sage
French Law Cracks Down on Cell Phone Use by Children: Bans Advertising and Phones Designed for Kids
Swedish researchers have found that children and teenagers are five times more likely to get brain cancer from mobile phones, causing concern their may be an epidemic of the disease for young people later in life.
The French response to this growing concern of the safety of cell phones for children is threefold:
1. NO advertising of mobile phones directed at children under 12.
2. BANS the sale of cell phones designed for children under 6-years-old.
3. Introduce new limits for radiation from the phones and require mobile phones to be sold with earphones
French cities have also started an advertising campaign warning parents about the dangers of cell phone use for children, as well as discouraging their purchase as gifts over the holidays.
According to the Independent, the French cell phone ban is unique in Europe:
The clampdown represents the most comprehensive action yet taken by any government worldwide. It contrasts sharply with the stance of British ministers, who have largely ignored the recommendations of an official report nine years ago that people aged under 16 should be discouraged from using mobiles, and that the industry should be stopped from promoting them to children. Since then their use by the young has almost doubled, so that nine out of 10 of the country’s 16-year-olds own a handset.
The French Ministry has warned, “mobile phone use is increasing at a rapid pace among youths”, and that young children may be “more sensitive because their bodies are still developing”.
Other countries have also issued warning statements about the use of cell phones by children:
◦Toronto’s Department of Public Health: Children under eight should only use mobiles in emergencies; teenagers should limit calls to 10 minutes or less.
◦Russian Ministry of Health: Young people under 18 should not use cell phones.
◦Israel’s Health Ministry: Advises caution
Even though I don’t live in France, I certainly will think twice about letting my children us a mobile phone (not that they do anyways since they don’t work where I live). I don’t feel like young children need their own mobile devices, although I do see the benefits of teenagers having them for emergencies and to stay in touch with parents (even if they use them more for calls and texts with friends).
Given all the attention on mobile devices, it really makes me wonder about the radiation the cell phone towers are giving off into our air space.
-
Archives
- March 2010 (5)
- February 2010 (3)
- January 2010 (9)
- December 2009 (1)
- November 2009 (5)
- October 2009 (8)
- September 2009 (10)
- August 2009 (11)
- July 2009 (8)
- June 2009 (7)
- May 2009 (3)
- April 2009 (13)
-
Categories
- airline industry
- antenna
- appliances
- awareness
- CA
- cancer
- cell phone
- cell tower
- children
- disease
- economy
- electricity
- electrohypersensitivity
- electromagnetic fields
- electromagnetic radiation
- electronics
- electrosmog
- EMF
- EMR
- environment
- family
- France
- global warming
- greenhouse emissions
- harmonizer
- Health
- mast
- media
- microwave
- mobile
- neutralize
- pollution
- power
- pregnancy
- protect
- public safety
- radiation interference
- schools
- sensativity
- solutions
- teens / tweens
- toddlers
- tower
- USA
- WiFi
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
