EMF Journal

awareness … acceptance … action

Secret Link Between Cigarettes and Cell Phones?

Secret Link Between Cigarettes and Cell Phones?
Posted by: Dr. Mercola
September 29 2009 | 72,230 views

cell phones, cancer, brain cancer, tumors, brain tumors, radio waves, cellular, electromagnetic fields, EMF, ELFCell 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:

  1. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal
  2. Inclusion of participants using cell phones for a minimum of 10 years (to include potential latent effects
  3. 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:

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.

October 3, 2009 Posted by CSea Perkins | EMF, EMR, WiFi, awareness, cancer, cell phone, cell tower, disease, electrohypersensitivity, electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electrosmog, neutralize, public safety, radiation interference | , , , | No Comments Yet

The Basics on eSmog, electromagnetic radiation

There are so many sources, controversy, documented health hazards, testing, proof, Congressional activities, but how many know the basics, allowing them to relate it, then, to their life.

Ignorance is NOT bliss on this topic

______

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Electromagnetism
Solenoid.svg
Electricity · Magnetism

[show]Electrostatics
Electric charge · Coulomb’s law · Electric field · Electric flux · Gauss’s law · Electric potential · Electrostatic induction · Electric dipole moment · Polarization density ·
[show]Magnetostatics
Ampère’s law · Electric current · Magnetic field · Magnetization · Magnetic flux · Biot–Savart law · Magnetic dipole moment · Gauss’s law for magnetism ·
[hide]Electrodynamics
Free space · Lorentz force law · EMF · Electromagnetic induction · Faraday’s law · Lenz’s law · Displacement current · Maxwell’s equations · EM field · Electromagnetic radiation · Liénard-Wiechert Potential · Maxwell tensor · Eddy current ·
[show]Electrical Network
Electrical conduction · Electrical resistance · Capacitance · Inductance · Impedance · Resonant cavities · Waveguides ·
[show]Covariant formulation
Electromagnetic tensor · EM Stress-energy tensor · Four-current · Electromagnetic four-potential ·
[show]Scientists
Ampère · Coulomb · Faraday · Gauss · Heaviside · Henry · Hertz · Lorentz · Maxwell · Tesla · Weber · Ørsted ·
This box: view • talk • edit

Electromagnetic radiation (sometimes abbreviated EMR) is a ubiquitous phenomenon that takes the form of self-propagating waves in a vacuum or in matter. It consists of electric and magnetic field components which oscillate in phase perpendicular to each other and perpendicular to the direction of energy propagation. Electromagnetic radiation is classified into several types according to the frequency of its wave; these types include (in order of increasing frequency and decreasing wavelength): radio waves, microwaves, terahertz radiation, infrared radiation, visible light, ultraviolet radiation, X-rays and gamma rays. A small and somewhat variable window of frequencies is sensed by the eyes of various organisms; this is what we call the visible spectrum, or light.

EM radiation carries energy and momentum that may be imparted to matter with which it interacts.

Contents

[hide]

//

[edit] Physics

[edit] Theory

Shows three electromagnetic modes (blue, green and red) with a distance scale in micrometres along the x-axis.

Main article: Maxwell’s equations

Electromagnetic waves were first postulated by James Clerk Maxwell and subsequently confirmed by Heinrich Hertz. Maxwell derived a wave form of the electric and magnetic equations, revealing the wave-like nature of electric and magnetic fields, and their symmetry. Because the speed of EM waves predicted by the wave equation coincided with the measured speed of light, Maxwell concluded that light itself is an EM wave.

According to Maxwell’s equations, a time-varying electric field generates a magnetic field and vice versa. Therefore, as an oscillating electric field generates an oscillating magnetic field, the magnetic field in turn generates an oscillating electric field, and so on. These oscillating fields together form an electromagnetic wave.

A quantum theory of the interaction between electromagnetic radiation and matter such as electrons is described by the theory of quantum electrodynamics.

[edit] Properties

Electromagnetic waves can be imagined as a self-propagating transverse oscillating wave of electric and magnetic fields. This diagram shows a plane linearly polarized wave propagating from right to left. The electric field is in a vertical plane, the magnetic field in a horizontal plane.

Onde electromagnetique.svg

The physics of electromagnetic radiation is electrodynamics, a subfield of electromagnetism. Electric and magnetic fields obey the properties of superposition so that a field due to any particular particle or time-varying electric or magnetic field will contribute to the fields present in the same space due to other causes: as they are vector fields, all magnetic and electric field vectors add together according to vector addition. For instance, a travelling EM wave incident on an atomic structure induces oscillation in the atoms of that structure, thereby causing them to emit their own EM waves, emissions which alter the impinging wave through interference. These properties cause various phenomena including refraction and diffraction.

Since light is an oscillation it is not affected by travelling through static electric or magnetic fields in a linear medium such as a vacuum. However in nonlinear media, such as some crystals, interactions can occur between light and static electric and magnetic fields — these interactions include the Faraday effect and the Kerr effect.

In refraction, a wave crossing from one medium to another of different density alters its speed and direction upon entering the new medium. The ratio of the refractive indices of the media determines the degree of refraction, and is summarized by Snell’s law. Light disperses into a visible spectrum as light is shone through a prism because of the wavelength dependent refractive index of the prism material (Dispersion).

EM radiation exhibits both wave properties and particle properties at the same time (see wave-particle duality). Both wave and particle characteristics have been confirmed in a large number of experiments. Wave characteristics are more apparent when EM radiation is measured over relatively large timescales and over large distances while particle characteristics are more evident when measuring small timescales and distances. For example, when electromagnetic radiation is absorbed by matter, particle-like properties will be more obvious when the average number of photons in the cube of the relevant wavelength is much smaller than 1. Upon absorption the quantum nature of the light leads to clearly non-uniform deposition of energy.

There are experiments in which the wave and particle natures of electromagnetic waves appear in the same experiment, such as the diffraction of a single photon. When a single photon is sent through two slits, it passes through both of them interfering with itself, as waves do, yet is detected by a photomultiplier or other sensitive detector only once. Similar self-interference is observed when a single photon is sent into a Michelson interferometer or other interferometers.

[edit] Wave model

White light being separated into its components.

An important aspect of the nature of light is frequency. The frequency of a wave is its rate of oscillation and is measured in hertz, the SI unit of frequency, where one hertz is equal to one oscillation per second. Light usually has a spectrum of frequencies which sum together to form the resultant wave. Different frequencies undergo different angles of refraction.

A wave consists of successive troughs and crests, and the distance between two adjacent crests or troughs is called the wavelength. Waves of the electromagnetic spectrum vary in size, from very long radio waves the size of buildings to very short gamma rays smaller than atom nuclei. Frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength, according to the equation:

\displaystyle v=f\lambda

where v is the speed of the wave (c in a vacuum, or less in other media), f is the frequency and λ is the wavelength. As waves cross boundaries between different media, their speeds change but their frequencies remain constant.

Interference is the superposition of two or more waves resulting in a new wave pattern. If the fields have components in the same direction, they constructively interfere, while opposite directions cause destructive interference.

The energy in electromagnetic waves is sometimes called radiant energy.

[edit] Particle model

Electromagnetic radiation has particle-like properties as discrete packets of energy, or quanta, called photons.[1] The frequency of the wave is proportional to the particle’s energy. Because photons are emitted and absorbed by charged particles, they act as transporters of energy. The energy per photon can be calculated from the Planck–Einstein equation:[2]

\displaystyle E=hf

where E is the energy, h is Planck’s constant, and f is frequency. This photon-energy expression is a particular case of the energy levels of the more general electromagnetic oscillator whose average energy, which is used to obtain Planck’s radiation law, can be shown to differ sharply from that predicted by the equipartition principle at low temperature, thereby establishes a failure of equipartition due to quantum effects at low temperature.[3]

As a photon is absorbed by an atom, it excites an electron, elevating it to a higher energy level. If the energy is great enough, so that the electron jumps to a high enough energy level, it may escape the positive pull of the nucleus and be liberated from the atom in a process called photoionisation. Conversely, an electron that descends to a lower energy level in an atom emits a photon of light equal to the energy difference. Since the energy levels of electrons in atoms are discrete, each element emits and absorbs its own characteristic frequencies.

Together, these effects explain the emission and absorption spectra of light. The dark bands in the absoption spectrum are due to the atoms in the intervening medium absorbing different frequencies of the light. The composition of the medium through which the light travels determines the nature of the absorption spectrum. For instance, dark bands in the light emitted by a distant star are due to the atoms in the star’s atmosphere. These bands correspond to the allowed energy levels in the atoms. A similar phenomenon occurs for emission. As the electrons descend to lower energy levels, a spectrum is emitted that represents the jumps between the energy levels of the electrons. This is manifested in the emission spectrum of nebulae. Today, scientists use this phenomenon to observe what elements a certain star is composed of. It is also used in the determination of the distance of a star, using the red shift.

[edit] Speed of propagation

Main article: Speed of light

Any electric charge which accelerates, or any changing magnetic field, produces electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic information about the charge travels at the speed of light. Accurate treatment thus incorporates a concept known as retarded time (as opposed to advanced time, which is unphysical in light of causality), which adds to the expressions for the electrodynamic electric field and magnetic field. These extra terms are responsible for electromagnetic radiation. When any wire (or other conducting object such as an antenna) conducts alternating current, electromagnetic radiation is propagated at the same frequency as the electric current. At the quantum level, electromagnetic radiation is produced when the wavepacket of a charged particle oscillates or otherwise accelerates. Charged particles in a stationary state do not move, but a superposition of such states may result in oscillation, which is responsible for the phenomenon of radiative transition between quantum states of a charged particle.

Depending on the circumstances, electromagnetic radiation may behave as a wave or as particles. As a wave, it is characterized by a velocity (the speed of light), wavelength, and frequency. When considered as particles, they are known as photons, and each has an energy related to the frequency of the wave given by Planck’s relation E = hν, where E is the energy of the photon, h = 6.626 × 10-34 J·s is Planck’s constant, and ν is the frequency of the wave.

One rule is always obeyed regardless of the circumstances: EM radiation in a vacuum always travels at the speed of light, relative to the observer, regardless of the observer’s velocity. (This observation led to Albert Einstein’s development of the theory of special relativity.)

In a medium (other than vacuum), velocity factor or refractive index are considered, depending on frequency and application. Both of these are ratios of the speed in a medium to speed in a vacuum.

[edit] Thermal radiation and electromagnetic radiation as a form of heat

Main article: Thermal radiation

The basic structure of matter involves charged particles bound together in many different ways. When electromagnetic radiation is incident on matter, it causes the charged particles to oscillate and gain energy. The ultimate fate of this energy depends on the situation. It could be immediately re-radiated and appear as scattered, reflected, or transmitted radiation. It may also get dissipated into other microscopic motions within the matter, coming to thermal equilibrium and manifesting itself as thermal energy in the material. With a few exceptions such as fluorescence, harmonic generation, photochemical reactions and the photovoltaic effect, absorbed electromagnetic radiation simply deposits its energy by heating the material. This happens both for infrared and non-infrared radiation. Intense radio waves can thermally burn living tissue and can cook food. In addition to infrared lasers, sufficiently intense visible and ultraviolet lasers can also easily set paper afire. Ionizing electromagnetic radiation can create high-speed electrons in a material and break chemical bonds, but after these electrons collide many times with other atoms in the material eventually most of the energy gets downgraded to thermal energy, this whole process happening in a tiny fraction of a second. That infrared radiation is a form of heat and other electromagnetic radiation is not, is a widespread misconception in physics. Any electromagnetic radiation can heat a material when it is absorbed.

The inverse or time-reversed process of absorption is responsible for thermal radiation. Much of the thermal energy in matter consists of random motion of charged particles, and this energy can be radiated away from the matter. The resulting radiation may subsequently be absorbed by another piece of matter, with the deposited energy heating the material. Radiation is an important mechanism of heat transfer.

The electromagnetic radiation in an opaque cavity at thermal equilibrium is effectively a form of thermal energy, having maximum radiation entropy. The thermodynamic potentials of electromagnetic radiation can be well-defined as for matter. Thermal radiation in a cavity has energy density (see Planck’s Law) of

{U\over V} = \frac{8\pi^5(kT)^4}{15 (hc)^3},

Differentiating the above with respect to temperature, we may say that the electromagnetic radiation field has an effective volumetric heat capacity given by

\frac{32\pi^5 k^4 T^3}{15 (hc)^3},

[edit] Electromagnetic spectrum

Electromagnetic spectrum with light highlighted

Legend:
γ = Gamma rays
HX = Hard X-rays
SX = Soft X-Rays
EUV = Extreme ultraviolet
NUV = Near ultraviolet
Visible light
NIR = Near infrared
MIR = Moderate infrared
FIR = Far infrared

Radio waves:
EHF = Extremely high frequency (Microwaves)
SHF = Super high frequency (Microwaves)
UHF = Ultrahigh frequency
VHF = Very high frequency
HF = High frequency
MF = Medium frequency
LF = Low frequency
VLF = Very low frequency
VF = Voice frequency
ELF = Extremely low frequency

Generally, EM radiation (the designation ‘radiation’ excludes static electric and magnetic and near fields) is classified by wavelength into radio, microwave, infrared, the visible region we perceive as light, ultraviolet, X-rays and gamma rays. Arbitrary electromagnetic waves can always be expressed by Fourier analysis in terms of sinusoidal monochromatic waves which can be classified into these regions of the spectrum.

The behavior of EM radiation depends on its wavelength. Higher frequencies have shorter wavelengths, and lower frequencies have longer wavelengths. When EM radiation interacts with single atoms and molecules, its behavior depends on the amount of energy per quantum it carries. Spectroscopy can detect a much wider region of the EM spectrum than the visible range of 400 nm to 700 nm. A common laboratory spectroscope can detect wavelengths from 2 nm to 2500 nm. Detailed information about the physical properties of objects, gases, or even stars can be obtained from this type of device. It is widely used in astrophysics. For example, hydrogen atoms emit radio waves of wavelength 21.12 cm.

[edit] Light

Main article: Light

EM radiation with a wavelength between approximately 400 nm and 700 nm is detected by the human eye and perceived as visible light. Other wavelengths, especially nearby infrared (longer than 700 nm) and ultraviolet (shorter than 400 nm) are also sometimes referred to as light, especially when visibility to humans is not relevant.

If radiation having a frequency in the visible region of the EM spectrum reflects off of an object, say, a bowl of fruit, and then strikes our eyes, this results in our visual perception of the scene. Our brain’s visual system processes the multitude of reflected frequencies into different shades and hues, and through this not-entirely-understood psychophysical phenomenon, most people perceive a bowl of fruit.

At most wavelengths, however, the information carried by electromagnetic radiation is not directly detected by human senses. Natural sources produce EM radiation across the spectrum, and our technology can also manipulate a broad range of wavelengths. Optical fiber transmits light which, although not suitable for direct viewing, can carry data that can be translated into sound or an image. The coding used in such data is similar to that used with radio waves.

[edit] Radio waves

Main article: Radio waves

Radio waves can be made to carry information by varying a combination of the amplitude, frequency and phase of the wave within a frequency band.

When EM radiation impinges upon a conductor, it couples to the conductor, travels along it, and induces an electric current on the surface of that conductor by exciting the electrons of the conducting material. This effect (the skin effect) is used in antennas. EM radiation may also cause certain molecules to absorb energy and thus to heat up; this is exploited in microwave ovens.

[edit] Derivation

Electromagnetic waves as a general phenomenon were predicted by the classical laws of electricity and magnetism, known as Maxwell’s equations. If you inspect Maxwell’s equations without sources (charges or currents) then you will find that, along with the possibility of nothing happening, the theory will also admit nontrivial solutions of changing electric and magnetic fields. Beginning with Maxwell’s equations for free space:

\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E} = 0 \qquad \qquad \qquad \ \ (1)
\nabla \times \mathbf{E} = -\frac{\partial \mathbf{B}}{\partial t} \qquad \qquad \ (2)
\nabla \cdot \mathbf{B} = 0 \qquad \qquad \qquad \ \ (3)
\nabla \times \mathbf{B} = \mu_0 \epsilon_0 \frac{\partial \mathbf{E}}{\partial t} \qquad \quad \ (4)
where
\nabla is a vector differential operator (see Del).

One solution,

\mathbf{E}=\mathbf{B}=\mathbf{0},

is trivial.

To see the more interesting one, we utilize vector identities, which work for any vector, as follows:

\nabla \times \left( \nabla \times \mathbf{A} \right) = \nabla \left( \nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} \right) - \nabla^2 \mathbf{A}

To see how we can use this take the curl of equation (2):

\nabla \times \left(\nabla \times \mathbf{E} \right) = \nabla \times \left(-\frac{\partial \mathbf{B}}{\partial t} \right) \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad \ \ \ (5) \,

Evaluating the left hand side:

\nabla \times \left(\nabla \times \mathbf{E} \right) = \nabla\left(\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E} \right) - \nabla^2 \mathbf{E} = - \nabla^2 \mathbf{E} \qquad \ \ (6) \,
where we simplified the above by using equation (1).

Evaluate the right hand side:

\nabla \times \left(-\frac{\partial \mathbf{B}}{\partial t} \right) = -\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \left( \nabla \times \mathbf{B} \right) = -\mu_0 \epsilon_0 \frac{\partial^2 \mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} \quad \ \ \ \ (7)

Equations (6) and (7) are equal, so this results in a vector-valued differential equation for the electric field, namely

\nabla^2 \mathbf{E} = \mu_0 \epsilon_0 \frac{\partial^2 \mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2}

Applying a similar pattern results in similar differential equation for the magnetic field:

\nabla^2 \mathbf{B} = \mu_0 \epsilon_0 \frac{\partial^2 \mathbf{B}}{\partial t^2}.

These differential equations are equivalent to the wave equation:

\nabla^2 f = \frac{1}{{c_0}^2} \frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial t^2} \,
where
c0 is the speed of the wave in free space and
f describes a displacement

Or more simply:

\Box f = 0
where \Box is d’Alembertian:
\Box = \nabla^2 - \frac{1}{{c_0}^2} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} = \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2} + \frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2} + \frac{\partial^2}{\partial z^2} - \frac{1}{{c_0}^2} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} \

Notice that in the case of the electric and magnetic fields, the speed is:

c_0 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu_0 \epsilon_0}}

Which, as it turns out, is the speed of light in free space. Maxwell’s equations have unified the permittivity of free space ε0, the permeability of free space μ0, and the speed of light itself, c0. Before this derivation it was not known that there was such a strong relationship between light and electricity and magnetism.

But these are only two equations and we started with four, so there is still more information pertaining to these waves hidden within Maxwell’s equations. Let’s consider a generic vector wave for the electric field.

\mathbf{E} = \mathbf{E}_0 f\left( \hat{\mathbf{k}} \cdot \mathbf{x} - c_0 t \right)

Here \mathbf{E}_0 is the constant amplitude, f is any second differentiable function, \hat{\mathbf{k}} is a unit vector in the direction of propagation, and {\mathbf{x}} is a position vector. We observe that f\left( \hat{\mathbf{k}} \cdot \mathbf{x} - c_0 t \right) is a generic solution to the wave equation. In other words

\nabla^2 f\left( \hat{\mathbf{k}} \cdot \mathbf{x} - c_0 t \right) = \frac{1}{{c_0}^2} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} f\left( \hat{\mathbf{k}} \cdot \mathbf{x} - c_0 t \right),

for a generic wave traveling in the \hat{\mathbf{k}} direction.

This form will satisfy the wave equation, but will it satisfy all of Maxwell’s equations, and with what corresponding magnetic field?

\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E} = \hat{\mathbf{k}} \cdot \mathbf{E}_0 f'\left( \hat{\mathbf{k}} \cdot \mathbf{x} - c_0 t \right) = 0
\mathbf{E} \cdot \hat{\mathbf{k}} = 0

The first of Maxwell’s equations implies that electric field is orthogonal to the direction the wave propagates.

\nabla \times \mathbf{E} = \hat{\mathbf{k}} \times \mathbf{E}_0 f'\left( \hat{\mathbf{k}} \cdot \mathbf{x} - c_0 t \right) = -\frac{\partial \mathbf{B}}{\partial t}
\mathbf{B} = \frac{1}{c_0} \hat{\mathbf{k}} \times \mathbf{E}

The second of Maxwell’s equations yields the magnetic field. The remaining equations will be satisfied by this choice of \mathbf{E},\mathbf{B}.

Not only are the electric and magnetic field waves traveling at the speed of light, but they have a special restricted orientation and proportional magnitudes, E0 = c0B0, which can be seen immediately from the Poynting vector. The electric field, magnetic field, and direction of wave propagation are all orthogonal, and the wave propagates in the same direction as \mathbf{E} \times \mathbf{B}.

From the viewpoint of an electromagnetic wave traveling forward, the electric field might be oscillating up and down, while the magnetic field oscillates right and left; but this picture can be rotated with the electric field oscillating right and left and the magnetic field oscillating down and up. This is a different solution that is traveling in the same direction. This arbitrariness in the orientation with respect to propagation direction is known as polarization.

October 1, 2009 Posted by CSea Perkins | awareness, cancer, cell phone, electrohypersensitivity, electrosmog, neutralize, solutions | , , , , , , , , , , , , | No Comments Yet

The FCC sets lower Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) for cellphones

The FCC sets lower Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), at 1.6 Watts per kilogram than the 2.0 W/kg, that many countries have adopted based on recommendations by the International Commission on Non-ioni zing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP.)

So, the FCC SAR is only marginally lower. THE IEEE revised exposure guidelines recommend 2.0 W/kg and the concerned scientists are opposed to raising it to that level.

But there are concerns that the basis for setting the SAR is not relevant to the exposure condition it supposedly protective of. The SAR is based on avoiding a “heating effect” and includes a lower safety threshold below that effect to add a protective layer.

However, there are studies demonstrating biological mechanisms of effect and adverse health consequences such as headaches, memory and concentration problems, and, brain, eye, salivary gland and ear canal nerve tumors that can occur at much lower intensity and that are not caused by heat.

Some scientists have for over a decade pointed to the need to study the amplitude and frequency modulation of the wave form at different frequencies, but particularly at those to which the general population is now constantly exposed, such as 60 hertz for electricity from different sources and 2.4-3.8 Ghz for 3G phones, WIFI networks and WIMAX. There are other wave form characteristics that could be biologically active and need to be taken into account in setting biologically based standards. A paper by Dr. Carl Blackman in the August issue of the the Journal on Pathophysiology, referenced at the end of the Porto Alegre Resolution, goes into the details.

So, using a cell phone that has a lower SAR is better and the FCC sets a stricter standard than ICNIRP countries but the assumptions underlying the SAR may still not be protective enough. Remember those “low tar” cigarettes?

Elizabeth Kelley

provided by:
Angela Flynn
Wireless Radiation Alert Network
WRAN
301-229-0282
FAX 301-229-4752

September 29, 2009 Posted by CSea Perkins | EMF, cancer, cell tower, electrohypersensitivity, electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electrosmog | , , , , , , , | No Comments Yet

Cell phone radiation – full report

This 42 page report provides a plethora of substantiation on this controversial topic.

Of course, you know there is technology available to protect us from technology; but, face it, not everyone will head the warnings.  Take measures to protect yourselves even when those around you won’t.

http://www.ewg.org/project/2009cellphone/cellphoneradiation-fullreport.pdf

September 9, 2009 Posted by CSea Perkins | awareness, cancer, cell phone, cell tower, children, electrohypersensitivity | , , , , , , | No Comments Yet

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.

August 25, 2009 Posted by CSea Perkins | EMF, EMR, awareness, cancer, cell phone, children, disease, electrohypersensitivity, electromagnetic fields, electrosmog, environment, global warming, mast, mobile, tower | , , | No Comments Yet

Dr. Martin Blank in Toronto – EMF Fields and Health

August 22, 2009 Posted by CSea Perkins | EMF, EMR, WiFi, awareness, cancer, cell phone, electrohypersensitivity, electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electrosmog, environment, mobile | , , , , , , | No Comments Yet

Senator Arlen Specter Said To Hold a Cell Phone Hearing

August 18…  Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) will hold a hearing on cell phones and health on September 14. So says Devra Davis, an activist scientist at the University of Pittsburgh. If Specter follows through, it would be the centerpiece of a conference she is organizing that week in Washington, as well as a triumph for Davis herself. She is on a mission to make cell phones a more visible public health issue in the U.S. and to secure funding for a major research program. It would be the first time in more than 30 years that the U.S. Senate has addressed RF/microwave health risks.

“I have spoken and met with Senator Specter and his senior staffers,” Davis told Microwave News. “They are planning to hold a hearing on this important topic.” Among those who will be invited to testify, she said, are Frank Barnes of the University of Colorado, Boulder, Margaret Hamburg, the commissioner of the FDA, Dariusz Leszczynski of Finland’s radiation protection agency (STUK), Israeli epidemiologist Siegal Sadetzki, a member of the Interphone group, as well as Davis herself. Barnes served as the chairman of the committee that prepared the 2008 National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council report on research needs on potential impacts of wireless radiation. Leszczynski is helping to organize the conference and Sadetzki is on its steering committee.

Davis is confident enough to have included the Specter hearing in the draft agenda of the conference, which she has posted on the Web site of the Environmental Health Trust, an offshoot of the Devra Lee Davis Charitable Foundation. The Expert Conference on Cell Phones and Public Policy Questions will be held September 13-15 at the Credit Union House, which is strategically located “within walking distance of the Senate.”

Davis said that the official invitations for the meeting have not yet been sent out due to “press of health care issues.” She cautioned, “Of course, the timing of events in Washington are difficult to predict.” Specter is deeply involved in the health care reform debate and is facing a tough reelection campaign. A picture of him being confronted by an angry constituent at a town hall meeting was on the front-page of the New York Times last week with a story headlined, “Senator Goes Face to Face with Dissent.” Specter is a brain tumor survivor; he is also fighting Hodgkin’s disease.

John Myers, a Specter legislative aide, did not respond to a request for confirmation that the hearing will be held on September 14. Davis assured Microwave News that the Senator’s staff is fully engaged in preparing for the hearing, even though no formal announcement has yet been made.

The cell phone industry is largely boycotting the conference. The only industry participant on the latest version of the agenda is Jack Rowley of the GSM Association. He is listed as “invited.” Rowley is on vacation this week and was unavailable for comment. Davis said that he is still “mulling it over.” Motorola’s C.K. Chou declined to come because he felt the list of invited speakers is not balanced. The current program does favor the side of the cell phone debate that favors precaution. The only possible source of disagreement among the speakers would likely come from Om Gandhi of the University of Utah and Niels Kuster of IT’IS Foundation who have been feuding for over a decade over the potential risks to children.

Davis sees the meeting as a first step towards establishing an RF health research program in the U.S. For the last 25 years, the federal government has funded very few studies. To that end, Specter’s support is key.

Over the last year, Davis has worked hard to raise the visibility of cell phone health risks. Last July, Ronald Herberman, the then director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, issued a call for precaution in the use of cell phones —a move she encouraged (see our posts of July 23, 25 & 28, 2008). While the initiative prompted a good amount of press coverage, it was badly received by the cancer establishment, some members of which have been critical of her 2007 book, The Secret History of the War on Cancer. Davis no longer has a position at the cancer center. She said she resigned. Davis remains a professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health. She said that she would continue to have an appointment at the school through the 2009-2010 academic year. At the same time she has moved her office to Washington.

In September 2008, not long after he issued his appeal, Herberman testified at a Congressional hearing called by Rep. Denis Kucinich (D-OH). He said that, looking at government statistics, he had been “struck” by the fact that the incidence of brain cancer has been increasing over the last ten years, particularly among 20-29 year-olds. (See our “Are Brain Cancer Rates Rising Among Young Adults?“) The peer-reviewed paper with those results will appear soon, Davis said. She and Herberman and Melissa Bondy of the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston are all coauthors of the forthcoming paper. Bondy will also be at the conference.

Kucinich and Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) have been invited to participate at a round-table discussion on September 15 at the close of the conference.

Part of the money for the meeting has come from a grant to the University of Pittsburgh from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). Chris Portier, an associate director of the institute, is a member of the conference steering committee. On July 31, the Competence Initiative for the Protection of Humanity, Environment and Democracy in Germany issued an “Appeal to Support the Conference.” It stated, in part, “If the conference in Washington fails for financial reasons, this would mean to miss a great chance that independent research is heard in the political field.”

Money seems to be in short enough supply that Davis is planning to ask reporters (Microwave News included) to pay the $100 registration fee she is asking from all attendees except invited speakers. That may hamper press coverage. One long-time Washington journalist was skeptical. “No one from the press will come,” he predicted.

August 19, 2009 Posted by CSea Perkins | cell phone, electrohypersensitivity, electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation | , , | No Comments Yet

$25,000 RF Safety Case

http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2009/db0603/DA-09-1208A1.pdf

Adopted: May 28, 2009 Released: June 3, 2009

By the Regional Director, Northeast Region, Enforcement Bureau:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. In this Forfeiture Order (“Order”), we issue a monetary forfeiture in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) to Minority Business & Housing Development, Inc. (“MBHD”), licensee of FM radio station WYGG in Asbury Park, New Jersey, for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.1310 of the Commission’s Rules (“Rules), by failing to comply with radio frequency radiation (“RFR”) maximum permissible exposure (“MPE”) limits applicable to facilities, operations, or transmitters; 1 Section 73.1350(a) of the Rules, by operating with an excessive antenna height from an unauthorized location; 2 and Section 73.3527(a) of the Rules, by failing to maintain a public inspection.

After identifying the station’s location, the FCC agent then entered the building located at 601 Bangs Avenue and identified himself to the front desk clerk. The clerk indicated that he had a key to the roof and contacted the building manager, who escorted the agent to the roof. To access the roof, it was necessary to unlock a padlocked door that led into a poorly illuminated elevator equipment room, which was followed by an unlocked door leading outside to the lower level of the roof. The roof had an upper level, which could only be accessed by climbing a ladder mounted on the side wall. The agent observed WYGG’s transmitting antenna approximately 8 feet above the upper roof level mounted on a pole approximately 3 feet away from the top of the ladder. The agent also observed a set of cellular antennas mounted on the side wall around the edges of the upper roof, and a set of 8 thick cables laid across the upper roof within several feet of WYGG’s antenna. Using a personal RF safety monitor, the agent determined that there was an area near the top of the ladder leading to the upper roof that met or exceeded the general population RFR MPE limits. There were no warning signs or barriers on the rooftop to prevent access to the area in question. In response to questions, the building manager stated that workers routinely gain access to the roof by obtaining a key from the front desk or the office on the 11th floor and that workers recently accessed the roof to work on the cellular equipment. She also stated that she was unaware of any RFR hazards on the roof. the agents observed two small, inconspicuous signs near the unlocked door that led to the rooftop. One was a small RFR sign posted to the left of the door by a wireless service provider indicating that the RFR levels may exceed FCC Standards for general public exposure. The sign did not indicate which areas on the roof exceeded the public or general population limits. The second was a small white paper sign glued to the right of the access door advising of a “radio frequency hazard” and that “anyone who has to climb the ladder to the top out of this door please contact the radio station on 7th floor suite 705.” Two phone numbers for the station were listed on the sign. Neither warning sign was clearly visible because the elevator equipment room was not illuminated. The view of the small white sign to the right of the access door was blocked by a large piece of electrical equipment.

The agents then proceeded to the upper rooftop to conduct RFR measurements. There were still no warning signs or barriers on the rooftop to prevent access to hazardous areas. Using a calibrated RFR meter, the agents determined that the occupational and general population limits were exceeded in an area about 5 feet around WYGG’s antenna support pole. The agents made a total of 12 spatially averaged measurements one foot from WYGG’s antenna support pole at a single location where the highest RFR levels were detected. The measurements showed that the RFR level was 158% of RFR MPE occupational limit, and 790% of the general population RFR MPE limit, or 1.58 mW/cm2

7. Immediately after making the RFR measurements, an agent contacted the station manager at one of the numbers listed on the warning sign. The agent stated to the station manager that workers were about to go on the roof and asked the manager if there were any hazards for persons working on the upper level roof (note: without RF safety training). The manager indicated that there were no hazards on the roof but that the workers should not go too close to the antenna. The agent repeatedly informed the manager that men would be working near the antenna on the upper roof and asked if there would be a problem. The manager stated that the antenna has been up there for 5 or 6 years and that people had worked on the roof before and nothing happened. The agent called the manager back about 10 minutes later, explained that he was still concerned about RFR from the antenna, and asked if it would be possible to temporarily turn off the power to the station so that the men could work safely on the roof. The manager said that he would ask the station operators to turn off the station. A few minutes later, the manager called the agent back and said he was going to the station himself to turn off the station. Shortly thereafter, the manager called the agent again, stating that he was at the studio and was turning off the station for 30 minutes. The agent asked the manager if it would be safe for the men to go to the upper roof, and the manager said that it would. The agents then observed that the radio transmitter for station WYGG was still operating.

8. Several minutes later, the station manager came to the rooftop. When agents asked why the power to the station was not turned off after he agreed to do so, the manager explained that he thought that turning off the audio to the radio station was sufficient. The agents explained that the transmitter itself must be turned off in order to eliminate the RFR emanating from the antenna. After the WYGG transmitter was turned off, the agents conducted additional RFR measurements in the same location under WYGG’s antenna with the calibrated RFR meter. No RFR emissions were detected when station WYGG was off the air, which indicated that WYGG was responsible for 100% of the emissions measured earlier. Therefore, the RFR emissions from WYGG were 158% of RFR MPE occupational limit, and 790% of the general population RFR MPE limit, or 1.58 mW/cm2. The agents explained to the manager that the RFR levels due to WYGG’s transmission exceeded the occupational and general population MPE limits, creating an RFR hazard, and that the problem should be addressed as soon as possible. The agents also advised the manager that, in addition to the RFR violations, the station was still in violation for operating at an unauthorized location and height.

Forfeiture Amount

We (The FCC) find that MBHD’s request for a “significant reduction” in the forfeiture amount is without merit. First, we decline to reduce the forfeiture amount based on MBHD’s claim that it did not intend to violate the rules. The Commission has long held that violations resulting from inadvertent error or failure to become familiar with the FCC’s requirements are willful violations and that “willful” does not require a finding that the rule violation was intentional.20 Rather, the term “willful” means that the violator knew that it was taking (or not taking) the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate the rules. In any event, because we find here that MBHD’s violations of Section 1.1310, Section 73.1350(a), and Section 73.3527(a) were repeated, we do not also need to make a determination that they were willful.21 We likewise decline to take into consideration the “ongoing efforts that WYGG has made to become FCC compliant.” The Commission has consistently held that a licensee is expected to correct errors when they are brought to the licensee’s attention and that such correction is not grounds for a downward adjustment in the forfeiture.22

18. In sum, we have examined MBHD’s response to the NAL pursuant to the statutory factors above, and in conjunction with the Forfeiture Policy Statement. As a result of our review, we conclude that MBHD willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.1310, Section 73.1350(a), and Section 73.3527(a) of the Rules and that the $25,000 forfeiture proposed in the NAL is warranted.

August 16, 2009 Posted by CSea Perkins | EMF, EMR, electrohypersensitivity, electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electrosmog, environment | , | No Comments Yet

Sign Petition – MCS / EMF / EMS

READ THIS

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

August 16, 2009 Posted by CSea Perkins | awareness, cancer, disease, electrohypersensitivity, electromagnetic radiation, electrosmog, environment, harmonizer | , , , , , , | No Comments Yet

Decades of warnings via documented harmful effects

Decades of documentation identifying the danger and harmful effects.  Have we learned?

The following link takes you to a 7 page report released six years ago.  Let’s get with the times, ignorance does not resolve!

CLICK HERE FOR REPORT

Chronic Exposures to Low-Level, Non-ionizing Radiation A Literature Review Compiled by Roger Mattson

Low-Level Exposure Literature
4/30/03

A.  Critics of Standards that Do Not Account for Chronic, Low-Level Exposures

These are organizations from around the world that have expressed concern that small doses of nonionizing radiation accumulating over a long period of time will eventually lead to harmful effects. Note that the Federal Communications Commission of the United States is one of those organizations.

1. US National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (1986)
2. US Environmental Protection Agency (1993,1996, 1999)
3. Swedish National Board of Occupational Safety and Health; National Board of Housing, Building and Planning; National Electric Safety Board; National Board of Health and Welfare; and Radiation Protection Institute (The Precautionary Principle for Low Frequency Electrical and Magnetic Fields 1996)
4. US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institutes of Health (NIEHS Working Group Report, August 1998)
5. Switzerland Agency for Public Health (For “prudent avoidance” adopted 2 W/cm2 for the frequency range 10-400 MHz, 1999)
6. US Federal Radiofrequency Interagency Working Group (Guidelines Statement, June 1999)
• National Institute of Occupational Safety
• Federal Communications Commission
• Environmental Protection Agency
• National Telecommunication and Information Agency
• Food and Drug Administration
7. US Food and Drug Administration (Epidemiology, Owen, March 2000)
8. US National Institutes of Health, National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, National Toxicology Program (Recommendation from FDA, February 2000)
9. Colorado Department of Health (Testimony of Dr. Hoffman to Jefferson County Commissioners, 1999)
10. Independent Expert Group of the Parliament of the United Kingdom (Stewart Report, May 2000)
11. Scottish Parliament Inquiry on Telecommunications Development (Guidelines, 2000)
12. World Health Organization, International Agency on Research for Cancer International Electromagnetic Fields Project, 2001)
13. Italian Institute for Prevention and Work Safety, International Conference on State of Research on Electromagnetic Fields (2002)
14. California EMF Risk Evaluation (2002)

August 11, 2009 Posted by CSea Perkins | EMF, EMR, electrohypersensitivity, electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation | , | No Comments Yet

« Previous Entries