“…when non-thermal dangers were originally documented in America, military and industrial spokespeople refused to acknowledge them, lying to Congress and the public. Many scientists who naturally wanted to continue working went along with the charade.”

--Well-known scientist and author Robert Becker, 1985

The key point about electromagnetic pollution that the public has to realize is that it is not necessary that the intensity be large for a biological interaction to occur. There is now considerable evidence that extremely weak signals can have physiological consequences. These interactive intensities are about 1000 times smaller than the threshold values formerly estimated by otherwise knowledgeable theoreticians, who, in their vainglorious approach to science, rejected all evidence to the contrary as inconsistent with their magnificent calculations. These faulty estimated thresholds are yet to be corrected by both regulators and the media.

The overall problem with environmental electromagnetism is much deeper, not only of concern at power line frequencies, but also in the radiofrequency range encompassing mobile phones. Here the public’s continuing exposure to electromagnetic radiation is largely connected to money. Indeed the tens of billions of dollars in sales one finds in the cell phone industry makes it mandatory to corporate leaders that they deny, in knee-jerk fashion, any indication of hazard.

There may be hope for the future in knowing that weakly intense electromagnetic interactions can be used for good as well as harm. The fact that such fields are biologically effective also implies the likelihood of medical applications, something that is now taking place. As this happens, I think it will make us more aware about how our bodies react to electromagnetism, and it should become even clearer to everyone concerned that there is reason to be very, very careful about ambient electromagnetic fields.

Abraham R. Liboff, PhD

Research Professor
Center for Molecular Biology and Biotechnology
Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida
Co-Editor, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine

Professor Ross Adey, one of the most respected bio-electromagnetic researchers in the world,  says EMFs can reduce the ability of the white blood cells to kill tumour cells, affect our reproduction, create problems with cell growth, and affect the Central Nervous System and the brain, which can lead to cancer and cancer related problems.

Here’s Health: May 1997

"There is irrefutable proof of the harmful effects of electromagnetic radiation. It should actually be the responsibility of the operators and the industry to demonstrate that they are not harmful"

--Professor Stefaan Van Gool, clinic supervisor of the children's Haematology/oncology Department
at Louvain University Hospital and special professor to the Catholic University of Louvain

“In a world where a drug cannot be launched without proof that it is safe, where the use of herbs and natural compounds available to all since early Egyptian times are now questioned, their safety subjected to the deepest scrutiny, where a new food cannot be launched without prior approval, the idea that we can use mobile telephony, including masts, and introduce WiFi and mobile phones without restrictions around our 5 year olds is double-standards gone mad. I speak, not just as an editor and scientist that has looked in depth at all the research, but as a father that lost his beloved daughter to a brain tumour.”

Chris Woollams M.A. Biochemistry (Oxon).
Editor Integrated Cancer and Oncology News (icon magazine). CEO CANCERactive.

“The poor state of knowledge [on biological effects of EMR] is due to selective funding of research through governments and telecommunication industry combined with the willingness of hired scientists to adjust their findings to the needs of the awarding authorities, while the governmental blindness is the result of lobbyism in the antechambers of political power. National governments and international industries have in common that they only trust the false messages of scientists they co-operate with, and not the contradicting data of researchers like me.”

--Professor Franz Adlkofer, coordinator of The EU Reflex Study

It is estimated that man today is subjected to 100 - 200 million times more electromagnetic radiation than his ancestors were.

Dangers of EMF Radiation, Steve Gamble

Hmmm... those frequencies seem familiar?

"Research conducted at Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California in 1974, showed that experimental exposure to high levels of microwave radiation, well above U.S. and Canadian guidelines killed rats within a matter of seconds to few minutes.

The higher the power density (intensity of the radiation) the more quickly the rats died.  Of the four frequencies tested, the two most lethal frequencies (0.95 and 2.45 GHz) are commonly used for analog mobile phones (0.8 to 0.9 GHz); microwave ovens (2.45 GHz); and both digitally pulsed cordless phones and wireless routers (2.4 GHz).  The least toxic of the frequencies was 4.54 GHz (near 5.0 GHz also used for some WiFi systems)."

From MagdaHavas.com --Explanatory Page & Link to Original Research Here.

Please note that this research refers to US frequencies in the 800 MHz band, also used by Telstra Next G in Australia. If you are using the GSM 900 P, E, or R specification such as in Europe, Asia or Australia, your downlink is at roughly 920 to 960 MHz, which is exactly the "most deadly frequency" specified by this research.

The precautionary principle applies where scientific evidence is insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain--where preliminary scientific evaluations indicate that there are reasonable grounds for concern over the potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human, animal or plant health by the specific element of exposure in question. Such concern over the potential danger(s) may warrant a high (precautionary) level of protection to be chosen.

See the European Commission Communication on the Precautionary Principle, 2nd February 2000
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/docum/20001_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/library/pub/pub07_en.pdf

"I have never seen a set of epidemiological studies that remotely approached the weight of evidence we are seeing with extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields. Clearly there is something here."

­ Martin Halper, The Environmental Protection Agency, Director of Analysis and Support

Exposure to low level electromagnetic fields has been associated with a reduction in the production of the hormone melatonin. A powerful antioxidant and part of the human immune system, melatonin is thought to inhibit cancer growth and slow down the ageing process. It is produced by the pineal gland (located in the brain) at night, explaining why it is so important to avoid exposure to EMF’s while sleeping. At night the body cleans repairs and detoxifies itself. If it is exposed to electromagnetic stress at this time, in fact any stress, then our bodies produce water clustering which inhibits the cell’s natural detoxifying and repairing actions and intra and extra cellular activity (e.g. electrolyte exchange).

Environment and Health News: 3:1,7 1998.

The Venice Resolution, initiated by the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS) on June 6, 2008, and now signed by nearly 50 peer reviewed scientists worldwide, states in part, “We are compelled to confirm the existence of non-thermal effects of electromagnetic fields on living matter, which seem to occur at every level of investigation from molecular to epidemiological. Recent epidemiological evidence is stronger than before. We recognize the growing public health problem known as electrohypersensitivity. We strongly advise limited use of cell phones, and other similar devices, by young children and teenagers, and we call upon governments to apply the Precautionary Principle as an interim measure while more biologically relevant exposure standards are developed.

Prof. Livio Giuliani, PhD

Spokesperson, International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (www.icems.eu)
Deputy Director, Italian National Institute for Worker Protection and Safety, East Venice and South Tyrol;
Professor, School of Biochemistry of Camerino University, Italy

Last year I was really excited when the Today Show contacted me, asking for an interview about one particular study on the dangers of cellular phones, as I thought they were finally starting to accept the truth.

Needless to say, I was wrong.

They only aired four seconds of my 20-minute interview, censoring the supporting evidence. No doubt, you are being deceived now, the same way the public was deceived for decades about tobacco. Back then, large corporate interests were very effective at manipulating the media and legislation to perpetuate the myth that smoking was safe, and nothing has changed in that regard. The United States protects corporate interests above public health more than ever.

We really need to learn from history, and my belief is that this exponential increase in information-carrying radio waves is far more serious a threat than tobacco ever was.

Dr. Mercola, link

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.  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, or risk the known consequences. The science is very strong and we should sit up and pay attention.

Martin Blank, PhD

Associate Professor, Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons;
Researcher in Bioelectromagnetics;
Author of the BioInitiative Report’s section on Stress Proteins.

A report from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicated that a broad variety of degenerative brain diseases, including Alzheimer’s, are more common among workers exposed to electromagnetic fields.

Environment and Health News: 2:3 1996.

"Science is a hard taskmaster, and in the light of mounting evidence that suggestions of toxicity are for the most part ultimately confirmed by painstaking scientific inquiry, perhaps it is time to reexamine whether scientific standards of proof of causality - and waiting for the bodies to fall - ought not to give way to more preventative health policies that are satisfied by more realistic conventions and that lead to action sooner."

-- From an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, April 1987

Studies by Danish scientists have shown that 20 - 80% of the electromagnetic radiation generated by mobile phones (depending on the make) is absorbed directly into the brain of the user. A few minutes exposure to cell phone type radiation can transform a 5% active cancer into a 95% active cancer.

Environment and Health News: The Environment - Health Trust 1997.

There is every indication that cell phones cause brain tumors, salivary gland tumors and eye cancer.  Yet, because the cell phone industry provides a substantial proportion of research funding, this reality is hidden from the general public.  The Interphone Study, a 13-country research project, substantially funded by the cell phone industry has consistently shown that use of a cell phone protects the user from risk of a brain tumor!  Does anything more need to be said?  It is time that fully independent studies be funded by those governmental agencies whose charter is to protect its citizens so that the truth about the very damaging health hazards of microwave radiation becomes clear and well known.

L. Lloyd Morgan, BS Electronic Engineering

Director Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States

Member Bioelectromagnetics Society

Member Brain Tumor Epidemiological Consortium

There are many examples of the failure to use the precautionary principle in the past, which have resulted in serious and often irreversible damage to health and environments. Appropriate, precautionary and proportionate actions taken now to avoid plausible and potentially serious threats to health from EMF are likely to be seen as prudent and wise from future perspectives.

Professor Jacqueline McGlade

Executive Director, European Environmental Agency
Advisor to European Union countries under the European Commission

It is evident that various biological alterations, including immune system modulation, are present in electrohypersensitive persons. There must be an end to the pervasive nonchalance, indifference and lack of heartfelt respect for the plight of these persons. It is clear something serious has happened and is happening. Every aspect of electrohypersensitive peoples’ lives, including the ability to work productively in society, have healthy relations and find safe, permanent housing, is at stake. The basics of life are becoming increasingly inaccessible to a growing percentage of the world’s population. I strongly advise all governments to take the issue of electromagnetic health hazards seriously and to take action while there is still time. There is too great a risk that the ever increasing RF-based communications technologies represent a real danger to humans, especially because of their exponential, ongoing and unchecked growth. Governments should act decisively to protect public health by changing the exposure standards to be biologically-based, communicating the results of the independent science on this topic and aggressively researching links with a multitude of associated medical conditions.

Olle Johansson, Ph.D.

Associate Professor, The Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden;  Author of the BioInitiative Report’s section on the Immune System.

The radiofrequency radiation safety policy in force in the United States fails to protect the public. Currently in the US there are more than 260 million wireless subscribers, the demand that drives the continuing build-out of antenna sites in residential and commercial neighborhoods, including near schools, daycare centers, and senior living centers and in the workplace.  The January 2008 report issued by the National Academy of Sciences committee whose task was to examine the needs and gaps in the research on the biological effects of exposure to these antennas points out that the research studies to date do not adequately represent exposure realities. Specifically, the studies 1) assume a single antenna rather than the typical arrangements of a minimum of four to six antennas per site, thereby underestimating exposure intensities, 2) do not pertain to the commonly used multiple-element base station antennas, thereby not taking into account exposures to multiple frequencies, 3) lack models of several heights for men, women, and children of various ages for use in the characterization of Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) distributions for exposures from cell phones, wireless PCs, and base stations and 4) do not take into consideration absorption effects of exposures from the many different radio frequency emitting devices to which the public is often simultaneously exposed. A federal research strategy to address these very serious inadequacies in the science on which our government is basing health policy is sorely needed now.

Janet Newton

President, The EMR Policy Institute
www.EMRPolicy.org

Ambient man-made electromagnetic fields (EMFs), across a range of frequencies, are a serious environmental issue. Yet most environmentalists know little about it, perhaps because the subject has been the purview of physicists and engineers for so long that biologists have lost touch with electromagnetism’s fundamental inclusion in the biological paradigm. All living cells and indeed whole living beings, no matter what genus or species, are dynamic coherent electrical systems utterly reliant on bioelectricity for life’s most basic metabolic processes. It turns out that most living things are fantastically sensitive to vanishingly small EMF exposures. Living cells interpret such exposures as part of our normal cellular activities (think heartbeats, brainwaves, cell division itself, etc.) The problem is, man-made electromagnetic exposures aren’t “normal.” They are artificial artifacts, with unusual intensities, signaling characteristics, pulsing patterns, and wave forms, that don’t exist in nature. And they can misdirect cells in myriad ways. Every aspect of the ecosystem may be affected, including all living species from animals, humans, plants and even microorganisms in water and soil. We are already seeing problems in sentinel species like birds, bats, and bees. Wildlife is known to abandon areas when cell towers are placed. Radiofrequency radiation (RF)—the part of the electromagnetic spectrum used in all-things-wireless today—is a known immune system suppressor, among other things. RF is a form of energetic air pollution and we need to understand it as such. Humans are not the only species being affected. The health of our planet may be in jeopardy from this newest environmental concern—added to all the others. Citizens need to call upon government to fund appropriate research and to get industry influence out of the dialogue. We ignore this at our own peril now.

B. Blake Levitt

Former New York Times journalist and author of Electromagnetic Fields, A Consumer’s Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves, and Editor of Cell Towers, Wireless Convenience? Or Environmental Hazard?

Sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation is the emerging health problem of the 21st century.  It is imperative health practitioners, governments, schools and parents learn more about it. The human health stakes are significant.

William Rea, MD

Founder & Director of the Environmental Health Center, Dallas
Past President, American Academy of Environmental Medicine

"Allan Frey would help pioneer the science that suggested otherwise. At the vanguard of a new field of study that came to be known as bioelectromagnetics, he found what appeared to be grave nonthermal effects from microwave frequencies—the part of the spectrum that belongs not just to radar signals and microwave ovens but also, in the past fifteen years, to cell phones. (The only honest way to think of our cell phones is that they are tiny, low-power microwave ovens, without walls, that we hold against the sides of our heads.) Frey tested microwave radiation on frogs and other lab animals, targeting the eyes, the heart, and the brain, and in each case he found troubling results. In one study, he triggered heart arrhythmias. Then, using the right modulations of the frequency, he even stopped frog hearts with microwaves—stopped the hearts dead.

Frey observed two factors in how microwaves at low power could affect living systems. First, there was the carrier wave: a frequency of 1,900 megahertz, for example, the same frequency of many cell phones today. Then there was the data placed on the carrier wave—in the case of cell phones, this would be the sounds, words, and pictures that travel along it. When you add information to a carrier wave, it embeds a second signal—a second frequency—within the carrier wave. This is known as modulation. A carrier wave can support any number of modulations, even those that match the ­extra-low frequencies at which the brain operates (between eight and twenty hertz). It was modulation, Frey discovered, that induced the widest variety of biological effects. But how this happened, on a neuronal level, he didn't yet understand.

In a study published in 1975 in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Frey reported that microwaves pulsed at certain modulations could induce "leakage" in the barrier between the circulatory system and the brain. Breaching the blood-brain barrier is a serious matter: It means the brain's environment, which needs to be extremely stable for nerve cells to function properly, can be perturbed in all kinds of dangerous ways. Frey's method was rather simple: He injected a fluorescent dye into the circulatory system of white rats, then swept the ­microwave frequencies across their bodies. In a matter of minutes, the dye had leached into the confines of the rats' brains.

Frey says his work on radar microwaves and the blood-brain barrier soon came under assault from the government. Scientists hired and funded by the Pentagon claimed they'd failed to replicate his findings, yet they also refused to share the data or methodology behind their research ("a most unusual action in science," Frey wrote at the time). For more than fifteen years, Frey had received almost unrestricted funding from the Office of Naval Research. Now he was told to conceal his blood-brain-barrier work or his contract would be canceled."

Excerpt from GQ Magazine's excellent "Warning: Your Cell Phone May Be Hazardous to Your Health"

Doctors suspect mobile phones are behind a huge increase in brain tumours in Australia. Over the ten years that the devices became popular, cases soared by more than 60% in women, and by 50% in men. Studies in Australia and the U.S. showed that the phones sent radiation into the brains of mice and rats, causing cancer, short term memory loss and lapses in concentration.This has prompted the Australian government to launch a five-year study into the potential health dangers from mobile phones and related electrical equipment including transmission towers.

Shears. Richard: Daily Mail Jan. 6.98. p.15.

Very recently, new research is suggesting that nearly all the human plagues which emerged in the twentieth century, like common acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children, female breast cancer, malignant melanoma and asthma, can be tied to some facet of our use of electricity.  There is an urgent need for governments and individuals to take steps to minimize community and personal EMF exposures.

Samuel Milham MD, MPH

Medical epidemiologist in occupational epidemiology.
First scientist to report increased leukemia and other cancers in electrical workers and to demonstrate that the childhood age peak in leukemia emerged in conjunction with the spread of residential electrification.

A danger of Stubborn Pseudoskepticism against EMR effects

“Recently we were at the funeral of a much loved friend who died at 58 from progressive lung cancer. Even the vicar leading the ceremony said, “With such an early death, there must be questions as to why”. We know they slept next to a DECT phone base and had WiFi installed and he sat next to a WiFi enabled computer all day at work. Five years ago we explained my own electro-sensitivity illness and he stated that “it was rubbish about EMR and that it hadn’t done him any harm”."

ES-UK March 2011 Newsletter

For instance, in the aqueous solution of the Zhadin experiment, we witnesss an ion current peak - that can be detected in the order of 10-100 nA - when we apply a suitable combination of DC-AC magnetic fields. But the AC field is very weak: in the order of 10nT! And the DC field is like the geomagnetic one: there is no transfer of energy able to induce an alteration in the system temperature. It is not only a non thermal effect; it is an athermal effect!

Livio Giuliani
National Institute for Prevention and Safety at Work (ISPESL), Rome, Italy

“Our study is important because it shows for the first time that exposures to common exposures to radiation from cell and cordless phones can affect proteins of the mouse brain that are critical to learning, memory, and thinking, such as proteins in the hippocampus, cerebellum and frontal lobe. We specifically found that microwave radiation alters proteins that others have found to be linked with Alzheimer’s, brain cancer, glioblastoma, and glucose metabolism.”

--Adamantia F. Fragopoulou, a researcher with the University of Athens and co-author of the paper “Brain proteome response following whole body exposure of mice to mobile phone or wireless DECT base radiation”, was pub. in Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, (Early Online: 1–25, 2012)

“A high throughput approach that examines dozens of proteins at the same time has never previously been applied to evaluating cordless and cellular phone radiation levels that are below international standards recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. People should be very cautious when using mobile phones next to their body (especially next to their brain). In addition, cordless phones should not be located in areas where people spend much time. Children, of course, require special protection from such exposures.”

--Professor, Lukas H. Margaritis co-author of the above paper and head of the University of Athens Electromagnetic Radiation Research Group

Radio frequency radiation and other forms of electromagnetic pollution are harmful at orders of magnitude well below existing guidelines. Science is one of the tools society uses to decide health policy. In the case of telecommunications equipment, such as cell phones, wireless networks, cell phone antennas, PDAs, and portable phones, the science is being ignored. Current guidelines urgently need to be re-examined by government and reduced to reflect the state of the science. There is an emerging public health crisis at hand and time is of the essence.

Magda Havas, PhD

Associate Professor, Environment & Resource Studies, Trent University, Canada.
Expert in radiofrequency radiation, electromagnetic fields, dirty electricity and ground current.

A school in which the transients caused the measurement meters to go off scale had a cancer incidence in teachers nearly 3 times higher than expected. A single year of working in the building raised the risk of developing cancer by 21%. Pupils were not spared either, and some of them also had contracted cancer, even fatally.

Milham & Morgan, 2008

“the weaknesses of the study design put in serious doubts the validity and usefulness of the final conclusions of the Interphone [study]”

Research Professor Dariusz Leszczynski from the Radiation Nuclear safety Authority of Finland

There is no question EMFs have a major effect on neurological functioning. They slow our brain waves and affect our long-term mental clarity. We should minimize exposures as much as possible to optimize neurotransmitter levels and prevent deterioration of health.

Eric Braverman, MD

Brain researcher, Author of The Edge Effect, and Director of Path Medical in New York City and The PATH Foundation. Expert in the brain’s global impact on illness and health.

Electromagnetic fields are packets of energy that do not have any mass, and visible light is what we know best. X-rays are also electromagnetic fields, but they are more energetic than visible light. Our concern is for those electromagnetic fields that are less energetic than visible light, including those that are associated with electricity and those used for communications and in microwave ovens.  The fields associated with electricity are commonly called “extremely low frequency” fields (ELF), while those used in communication and microwave ovens are called “radiofrequency” (RF) fields.  Studies of people have shown that both ELF and RF exposures result in an increased risk of cancer, and that this occurs at intensities that are too low to cause tissue heating.  Unfortunately, all of our exposure standards are based on the false assumption that there are no hazardous effects at intensities that do not cause tissue heating. Based on the existing science, many public health experts believe it is possible we will face an epidemic of cancers in the future resulting from uncontrolled use of cell phones and increased population exposure to WiFi and other wireless devices.  Thus it is important that all of us, and especially children, restrict our use of cell phones, limit exposure to background levels of Wi-Fi, and that government and industry discover ways in which to allow use of wireless devices without such elevated risk of serious disease. We need to educate decision-makers that ‘business as usual’ is unacceptable. The importance of this public health issue can not be underestimated.

David Carpenter, MD

Professor, Environmental Health Sciences, and Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, School of Public Health, University of Albany, SUNY
Co-Editor, The BioInitiative Report

Radiofrequency radiation human exposure standards for personal wireless communications devices and for environmental exposure to wireless transmitters are set by national  governments to guide the use of wireless communications devices and for wireless transmitters. In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Communications Commission set these standards. The Council on Wireless Technology Impacts considers these exposure standards to be inadequate as they are based on heating effects and do not accommodate the low level, cumulative exposure conditions in which the public now lives. These standards are also designed for acute, short term exposure conditions and do not acknowledge the medical evidence pointing to increased risks and actual harm that results from chronic, intermittent exposure.  Federal and State public heath agencies are not officially addressing what many concerned scientists and medical doctors now see as an emerging public health problem. There are no health surveillance or remedial response systems in place to advise citizens about electromagnetic radiation  exposure (EMR). As wireless technology evolves, ambient background levels increase, creating electrical pollution conditions which are becoming ubiquitous and more invasive. We strongly encourage consumers, manufacturers, utility providers and policymakers to reduce, eliminate and mitigate EMR exposure conditions and to support biologically based standards.

Libby Kelley, MA

Managing Secretariat International Commission For Electromagnetic Safety; Founder, Council on Wireless Technology Impacts; Co-Producer of documentary, “Public Exposure: DNA, Democracy and the Wireless Revolution”; EMF environmental consultant and leading appellant in challenging the FCC Radio Frequency Radiation human exposure guidelines, 1997-2000. (www.icems.eu)

BOWLING: I was under the impression when this whole issue started that if you had a Radiation Protection Branch, that it exists to protect Canadians from radiation. But what it really does is it exists to protect the radiation industry from Canadians.

Milt Bowling, Canadian Cellphone Tower Activist

Read "Cone of Silence" for more