Friday, March 30, 2007

"Are GM Crops Killing the Bees - Or is it the Microwaves?"

A new entry titled '#690: Are GM Crops Killing Bees?' has
been posted to EMFacts Consultancy.

The following article in Der Spiegel ( Germany) raises the
possibility that GM crops are killing the bees but while GM
crops are widespread in the US (about 40% I think) this is
not the case with Germany or in other European countries
where they have the same problem with rapidly disappearing
bees but little GM crops. So far the possibility of wireless
communications being the killer is not even being
considered [by most, but is highly likely].


Article in Der Spiegel - International version

SOURCE: DER SPIEGEL INTERNATIONAL March 22, 2007,1518,473166,00.html

Are GM Crops Killing Bees?

By Gunther Latsch
A mysterious decimation of bee populations has German
beekeepers worried, while a similar phenomenon in the United
States is gradually assuming catastrophic proportions. The
consequences for agriculture and the economy could be

Walter Haefeker is a man who is used to painting grim
scenarios. He sits on the board of directors of the German
Beekeepers Association (DBIB) and is vice president of the
European Professional Beekeepers Association. And because
griping is part of a lobbyist's trade, it is practically his
professional duty to warn that "the very existence of
beekeeping is at stake."

Is the mysterous decimation of bee populations in the US
and Germany a result of GM crops?

The problem, says Haefeker, has a number of causes, one
being the varroa mite, introduced from Asia, and another is
the widespread practice in agriculture of spraying
wildflowers with herbicides and practicing monoculture. Another
possible cause, according to Haefeker, is the controversial and
growing use of genetic engineering in agriculture.
As far back as 2005, Haefeker ended an article he
contributed to the journal Der Kritischer Agrarbericht (Critical
Agricultural Report) with an Albert Einstein quote: "If the
bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would
only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more
pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man."
Mysterious events in recent months have suddenly made
Einstein's apocalyptic vision seem all the more topical. For
unknown reasons, bee populations throughout Germany are
disappearing -- something that is so far only harming beekeepers.
But the situation is different in the United States, where
bees are dying in such dramatic numbers that the economic
consequences could soon be dire. No one knows what is
causing the bees to perish, but some experts believe that the
large-scale use of genetically modified plants in the US could
be a factor.

Felix Kriechbaum, an official with a regional beekeepers'
association in Bavaria, recently reported a decline of
almost 12 percent in local bee populations. When "bee
populations disappear without a trace," says Kriechbaum, it is
difficult to investigate the causes, because "most bees don't die
in the beehive." There are many diseases that can cause
bees to lose their sense of orientation so they can no longer
find their way back to their hives.

Manfred Hederer, the president of the German Beekeepers
Association, almost simultaneously reported a 25 percent drop
in bee populations throughout Germany. In isolated cases,
says Hederer, declines of up to 80 percent have been
reported. He speculates that "a particular toxin, some agent with
which we are not familiar," is killing the bees.
Politicians, until now, have shown little concern for such
warnings or the woes of beekeepers. Although apiarists have
been given a chance to make their case -- for example in
the run-up to the German cabinet's approval of a genetic
engineering policy document by Minister of Agriculture Horst
Seehofer in February -- their complaints are still largely

Even when beekeepers actually go to court, as they recently
did in a joint effort with the German chapter of the
organic farming organization Demeter International and other
groups to oppose the use of genetically modified corn plants,
they can only dream of the sort of media attention
environmental organizations like Greenpeace attract with their
protests at test sites.

But that could soon change. Since last November, the US has
seen a decline in bee populations so dramatic that it
eclipses all previous incidences of mass mortality. Beekeepers
on the east coast of the United States complain that they
have lost more than 70 percent of their stock since late last
year, while the west coast has seen a decline of up to 60

In an article in its business section in late February, the
New York Times calculated the damage US agriculture would
suffer if bees died out. Experts at Cornell University in
upstate New York have estimated the value bees generate -- by
pollinating fruit and vegetable plants, almond trees and
animal feed like clover -- at more than $14 billion.
Scientists call the mysterious phenomenon "Colony Collapse
Disorder" (CCD), and it is fast turning into a national
catastrophe of sorts. A number of universities and government
agencies have formed a "CCD Working Group" to search for
the causes of the calamity, but have so far come up
empty-handed. But, like Dennis vanEngelsdorp, an apiarist with the
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, they are already
referring to the problem as a potential "AIDS for the bee

One thing is certain: Millions of bees have simply
vanished. In most cases, all that's left in the hives are the
doomed offspring. But dead bees are nowhere to be found --
neither in nor anywhere close to the hives. Diana Cox-Foster, a
member of the CCD Working Group, told The Independent that
researchers were "extremely alarmed," adding that the
crisis "has the potential to devastate the US beekeeping

It is particularly worrisome, she said, that the bees'
death is accompanied by a set of symptoms "which does not seem
to match anything in the literature."
In many cases, scientists have found evidence of almost all
known bee viruses in the few surviving bees found in the
hives after most have disappeared. Some had five or six
infections at the same time and were infested with fungi -- a
sign, experts say, that the insects' immune system may have

The scientists are also surprised that bees and other
insects usually leave the abandoned hives untouched. Nearby bee
populations or parasites would normally raid the honey and
pollen stores of colonies that have died for other reasons,
such as excessive winter cold. "This suggests that there is
something toxic in the colony itself which is repelling
them," says Cox-Foster.

Walter Haefeker, the German beekeeping official, speculates
that "besides a number of other factors," the fact that
genetically modified, insect-resistant plants are now used in
40 percent of cornfields in the United States could be
playing a role. The figure is much lower in Germany -- only
0.06 percent -- and most of that occurs in the eastern states
of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and Brandenburg. Haefeker
recently sent a researcher at the CCD Working Group some
data from a bee study that he has long felt shows a possible
connection between genetic engineering and diseases in

The study in question is a small research project conducted
at the University of Jena from 2001 to 2004. The
researchers examined the effects of pollen from a genetically
modified maize variant called "Bt corn" on bees. A gene from a
soil bacterium had been inserted into the corn that enabled
the plant to produce an agent that is toxic to insect pests.
The study concluded that there was no evidence of a "toxic
effect of Bt corn on healthy honeybee populations." But
when, by sheer chance, the bees used in the experiments were
infested with a parasite, something eerie happened.
According to the Jena study, a "significantly stronger decline in
the number of bees" occurred among the insects that had been
fed a highly concentrated Bt poison feed.
According to Hans-Hinrich Kaatz, a professor at the
University of Halle in eastern Germany and the director of the
study, the bacterial toxin in the genetically modified corn
may have "altered the surface of the bee's intestines,
sufficiently weakening the bees to allow the parasites to gain
entry -- or perhaps it was the other way around. We don't

Of course, the concentration of the toxin was ten times
higher in the experiments than in normal Bt corn pollen. In
addition, the bee feed was administered over a relatively
lengthy six-week period.
Kaatz would have preferred to continue studying the
phenomenon but lacked the necessary funding. "Those who have the
money are not interested in this sort of research," says the
professor, "and those who are interested don't have the

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan

Warning: 4G is on its Way!

The New York Times

Published: March 26, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO, March 25 - It is referred to as the last
beachfront property in the wireless world - a prized swath of
spectrum that is about to be sold at federal auction. And
it has touched off an intense lobbying effort pitting
cellular companies against a variety of new players interested in
the potential of a next-generation mobile Internet.

The Federal Communications Commission will set the rules
for the auction, possibly as soon as next month. Depending on
that ruling, the spectrum could be used for voice services
for cellular carriers, new frequencies for emergency
responders, or a commercial high-speed broadband multimedia

Among those trying to influence the outcome are three of
the nation's four largest cellular providers, rural and
regional wireless carriers, cable and satellite television
companies and a range of technology companies - including Google
and Yahoo.

Along with other wireless technology proposals, the auction
could reshape the debate over who controls access to the
networks that deliver digital content to consumers. Opening
the door to more network competition nationally could have a
tremendous economic impact.

'This offers the potential for a real game changer in
broadband spectrum,' said John M. R. Kneuer, assistant secretary
for communications and information at the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, an arm of the
Commerce Department. 'It can both generate new innovation and
lower prices.'

The airwaves in question are in the 700-megahertz band, a
segment used until now for UHF television but freed up by
the move to digital broadcasting. Unless Congress reverses
itself, those frequencies are scheduled to be reclaimed by
the government and reallocated for public safety and
commercial broadband networks on Feb. 19, 2009.

Mr. Kneuer points out that because the new band is at a
lower frequency than today's cellular and digital wireless
services, it has a far greater range as well as the ability to
penetrate the walls of homes and office buildings more

SNIP: Read the full article at:

Parasite Takes Over Brain After Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation Weakens Immune System

From Dr. Robert Becker's The Body Electric

Subliminal Stress and Brain Parasite

...we came upon a frightening Russian report. Yuri Klolodov had administered steady magnetic fields of 100 and 200 gauss to rabbits and found areas of cell death in their brains during autopsy. Although his fields were ten times as strong as ours, we stopped all human experiments immediately. 
Friedman decided to duplicate Kholodov's experiment with a more detailed analysis of brain tissue. He made the slides and sent them to an expert on rabbit brain diseases, but coded them so no one knew which were which until later. 
The report showed that all the animals had been infected with a brain parasite that was peculiar to rabbits and common throughout the world. However, in half the animals the protozoa had been under control by the immune system, whereas in the other half they'd routed the defenders and destroyed parts of the brain. The expert suggested that we must have done something to undermine resistance of the rabbits in the experimental group. The code confirmed that the most of the brain damage had occurred in animals subjected to the magnetic fields. Later, Friedman did biochemical tests on another series of rabbits and found that the fields were causing a generalized stress reaction marked by large amounts of cortisone in the bloodstream. This is the response called forth by a prolonged stress, like a disease, that isn't an immediate threat to life, as opposed to the fight-or-flight response generated by adrenaline.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

The Precautionary Principle


A White paper written for The Science and Environmental Health Network; The Center for Rural Affairs; The Consortium for Sustainable Agriculture, Research and Education

June 1999

By: Carolyn Raffensperger, M.A., J.D. (Science & Environmental Health Network)
Scott Peters, Ph.D. (Cornell University)
Fred Kirschenmann, Ph.D. (Kirschenmann Family Farms)
Ted Schettler, M.D., M.P.H. (Science & Environmental Health Network)
Katherine Barrett (University of British Columbia)
Mary Hendrickson, Ph.D. (University of Missouri)
Dana Jackson (Land Stewardship Project)
Rick Voland (University of Wisconsin-Madison)
Kim Leval (Consortium for Sustainable Agriculture, Research & Education and the Center for Rural Affairs)
David Butcher (Midwest Sustainable Agriculture Working Group)

[Editor's Introduction: Co-author Carolyn Raffensperger explains that the following working paper grows out of a concern that publically funded research sometimes runs contrary to any reasonable definition of the public good. A good example is the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture's involvement in developing the "Terminator Technology" -- a biotechnological technique for rendering agricultural seed self- sterile, so that farmers are prevented from setting seed aside for use in future seasons. The working paper attempts to develop criteria for distinguishing such socially dubious or detrimental research from research that genuinely advances a public or common good.]

[Carolyn Raffensperger is the Executive Director of the Science & Environmental Health Network and also Chair of the Board of the Loka Institute.]


It is in the interest of science, government agencies, and advocates for the public interest alike to develop a clear, coherent definition of "public interest research." When the connections among science, government, and the public interest are murky and inconsistent, both good science and the public interest suffer.

Yet neither government agencies, universities, nor nonprofit organizations have defined what constitutes research in the public interest. Agreeing on a definition is important. Science and technological advances may serve the common good, private profit, or both; but when public money is involved, the public has a right to expect that research it has funded will serve the public interest. Moreover, when private interests may result in public harm, it is the duty of public agencies to support public interest over private interests.

The authors of this paper--a diverse group of scientists, sustainable agriculture practitioners, environmentalists, health care providers, and others--propose the following working definition of public interest research, encompassing both ends and means:

Public interest research aims at developing knowledge and/or technology that increases the commonwealth. Such research requires complex problem-solving and will involve at least the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of people and natural resources. It will require that insights from these different ways of knowing be synthesized, and that an active citizenry be involved. (Peters, 1999)

Such research will be identified by its beneficiaries, the public availability of its results, and public involvement in the research. These key benchmarks identify public interest research:

The primary, direct beneficiaries are society as a whole or specific populations or entities unable to carry out research on their own behalf. Information and technologies resulting from public interest research are made freely available (not proprietary or patented); and Such information and technologies are developed with collaboration or advice from an active citizenry. "Public" means "not private." Most research done in the private interest is done for the financial gain of a limited, circumscribed group. Research done in the public interest will seldom involve such direct financial gain to the developers and will benefit a community or the commons.

The following questions may help clarify these three elements:

IDENTIFYING THE BENEFICIARY OF RESEARCH: Whose problem is being addressed? What new sources of economic and political power will emerge as a result? Who benefits from any scientific uncertainty surrounding the solution?

MAKING RESULTS FREELY AVAILABLE: How are the data and results of publicly funded research kept in the public domain? Are they made available through the internet, public libraries, newsletters, press releases for media stories? Who decides how such results are used?

INVOLVING CITIZENS IN RESEARCH: Has an active citizenry been involved in or signed off on the research?

Finally, an important set of questions has to do with

PROTECTING THE PUBLIC FROM RESEARCH THAT IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST: Will new problems be created by solving an old one? Who may be harmed as a result? Is science being used to delay or obfuscate action? Will the citizenry and natural resources be protected by precautionary measures, if results are uncertain?


What problem is the research in question trying to address? Is it a public question, or does it address a private concern? If the latter, has public funding been used against the public interest?

The U.S. Department of Agriculture carried out research for Delta and Pineland Co. on genetically engineering seed to make it sterile in the second generation, thus forcing farmers to buy seed every year. This "Terminator Technology" did not address a public question. Instead, it addressed a question posed by a private corporation attempting to protect its investment.

Terminator, like much of today's research, is directed toward product development for purposes of global trade and economic development. Some segments of the public will benefit from such research indirectly as the balance of trade is enhanced and the gross national product expanded. Yet the principal, direct beneficiary is the corporation manufacturing and selling the product.

Use of public funds to support research in the private interest is questionable at best. In this case, the technology is demonstrably detrimental to a large segment of the public. Terminator technology thus falls outside the bounds of public interest research and should not have been publicly funded.

Contrast the research by J. Lewis and his colleagues at the Agricultural Research Service of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, examining the systemic response of plants to predators. This research is likely to promote systems that perpetuate themselves in nature, enhancing ecosystem services and long-term environmental health. All of this is clearly in the larger public interest.

Research on global climate change, teen pregnancies, endocrine disruption, and worker health and safety are examples of questions that fall squarely in the public domain.

A research problem may be posed so that it either falls squarely in the public interest or veers away from it. For instance, preventing cancer is unquestionably in the public interest. However, curing cancer is a grayer area, since the primary beneficiaries are not only cancer sufferers but also drug companies who benefit financially from the research. Moreover, the cancer patients who benefit may be those who can afford to pay for the technology, and not the cancer population as a whole. If the research is publicly funded, the unequal distribution of both financial and health gains resulting from the research raises ethical questions.

The Terminator technology also illuminates the question of economic and political power. By engineering seed sterility and preventing farmers from saving seed, large corporations garner unprecedented power over the world's food supply. In contrast, research by Miguel Altieri on small-scale food systems keeps economic power at a local level, enhancing the ability of farmers to fit their farming practices into sustainable cultural and ecological niches. The former represents private interest; the latter represents public interest.

In developing the public policy agenda and allocating public funding, we believe that research that is clearly in the public interest should receive the highest priority.

The question of who benefits from scientific uncertainty surrounding the solution to a research question is a more subtle and very important way to identify the beneficiary of research. Agricultural, public health, and environmental questions have potentially large societal impacts but also are areas of significant scientific uncertainty. For example:

We do not know for certain whether global climate change will adversely affect the planet. But petroleum companies benefit from that uncertainty if it allows them to continue expanding their use of polluting technologies and to profit financially from those technologies. We do not know for certain what health effects PVC toys laden with plasticizers will have on children who chew them. The toy industry benefits financially from the uncertainty so long as PVCs are not banned for such use. Pesticide manufacturers benefit from the absence of conclusive proof that their products disrupt endocrine function in humans and wildlife. In these cases, industries benefit from the failure of researchers to produce conclusive evidence of harm, in situations where absolute proof of harm is elusive. The public and the environment, meanwhile, bear the cost.


The issue of who owns the results of publicly funded research is complex and a continuing matter for debate in the scientific community. Much of this research is carried out in universities, which many would consider to be appropriate custodians of the public domain. Most current practices are built around this assumption. For instance, many universities require a potential source of research funds to agree that the university and the researchers retain the right to make decisions about publication of results of research. Federal law requires that inventions resulting from federally funded projects must be disclosed to the university where the research was carried out. Researchers at some universities may be free to choose the fate of the invention.

But others argue that universities represent yet another form of private interest. As universities accept private funding it becomes increasingly difficult for them to uphold the public interest. Private interests set priorities that may not be in the public interest. Both private funding and government funding may come laden with secrecy requirements. Secrecy cuts off public debate both within the university and within the larger community about whether such research and its results serve the public interest.

Some would say that keeping information in the public domain does not rule out profit. The computer industry is experiencing the benefits of freely available programs and operating systems developed by volunteers. In some cases, companies continue to invest in systems they will not be able to own, and both the public and the company profit from the development this stimulates. But others wonder whether research that results in financial gain to universities, hospitals, and corporations qualifies as public interest research.

American agriculture and society as a whole have benefited from the freely available information coming from publicly funded experimental stations and universities. This has begun to change, however, as patent laws assign ownership to information developed at public expense. While the privilege of patenting genes and organisms encourages investment in research and marketing to exploit these technologies, it also directs public money to private gain.

When public funds have supported any aspect of research, it is difficult to reconcile the issuing of patents and the sealing off of proprietary information with the public interest.


Public interest research is characterised by "extended peer" communities, that is, it reaches beyond traditional narrow fields of expertise in large part because public interest research is often multi-disciplinary and involves policy questions. Accordingly, scientists involved in public interest research have the opportunity to test their work against a wider public and a wider variety of knowledge. The tension that will inevitably result between experts and nonexperts can also be productive. Such collaboration can lead to more robust and cost-effective science. (Peters, 1999)

Members of the public have identified and helped define numerous problems, stimulating research carried out in the public interest. Laypeople can make important contributions to the research itself by offering observations, firsthand and over periods of time, about changes in an ecology or in public health. For example:

Schoolchildren in Minnesota were the first to observe widespread deformations in frogs in the area. This observation resulted in an international effort to understand the causes of those deformations. Mothers in Woburn, Massachusetts, observed a horrifying increase in leukemia in their neighborhoods. In collaboration with scientists and physicians, they traced the cause to drinking water contamination. Ordinary citizens first called Rachel Carson's attention to dying birds, leading to Carson's landmark discoveries linking DDT to numerous environmental consequences.


It is precisely because many results of apparently benign technological development cannot be foreseen that public involvement in research and the research agenda is so important. The public often serves as guinea pigs and victims of technological developments, even while supporting them with their tax dollars.

In technological advances, the solution sometimes becomes the problem. Although insecticides kill a target insect, they may also kill predators that previously kept pests in check. DDT, CFCs, the automobile, and atomic energy have all had unintended, serious, and expensive consequences. The technology of genetic engineering is rapidly changing the face of agriculture and medicine, but its potential social, environmental, or public health consequences have not been addressed. We have not successfully adopted scientific review practices that predict consequences of technologies that mayhave broad geographical and temporal impacts.

When a public entity or a "common"--the ozone layer, farmers, marine resources, public health--will be damaged by a solution to a research question, the research is the antithesis of public interest and should not be undertaken with public money. This is especially true when those adversely affected have no means of defending themselves.

In cases of scientific uncertainty--when a problem threatens great but as yet unproven or unprovable damage--it is imperative that the public, rather than private interests, receive the benefit of such doubt. Public interest research is grounded in the precautionary principle, which requires precautionary action in the face of scientific uncertainty and the likelihood of harm.

Current regulatory approaches emphasize avoiding false negatives--that is, they refrain from taking action until proof of harm is irrefutable. This gives the benefit of doubt to the proponent of a technology. But the public should not bear the responsibility for scientific uncertainty when a private interest is at stake.

Unfortunately, industry often uses science and the elusiveness of scientific proof to stop preventive action. For example, pesticide companies, in an effort to block regulation of organophosphates and carbamates under the Food Quality Protection Act, have initiated practices such as testing pesticides on humans in order to undermine EPA's safety factor. In the case of dioxin, EPA's peer review of one report has been going on for years with no resolution, thus preventing updated regulatory action.


It is not enough to couch a research agenda in slogans such as "feeding the world" or "national security." It is essential to adopt criteria whereby we can assess whether research will benefit the public and examine the consequences of that research. We recognize that there are many gray areas, particularly where the public may benefit from research despite inordinate financial gain on the part of a few. Those gray areas demand extra scrutiny, particularly when the public helps fund the research, and when the consequences are uncertain.


Parts of the preceding discussion were adapted from Scott Peters, Nicholas Jordan, and Gary Lemme, "Towards a Public Science," to be published in the 1999 issue of the Kettering Foundation's Higher Education Exchange.

Some questions were adapted from Neil Postman, "Staying Sane in a Technological Society," Lapis #7, 1998: 53-57.



(a) COMMUNICATE your comments to the authors of the preceding white paper by sending them to Carolyn Raffensperger, SEHN, Route 1, Box 73, Windsor, ND 58424 USA; E-mail; Tel./Fax +1-701-763-6286. Please let Carolyn know whether or not she has your permission to share your comments publicly with others (e.g., via Internet discussion lists).

(b) SHARE AND DISCUSS your reactions to the white paper by joining the Loka Institute's FASTnet (Federation of Activists on Science & Technology Network) Internet discussion list. To subscribe, send an E-mail message to with a blank subject line and "subscribe FASTnet" as the message text. You will receive an automated reply giving more details. FASTnet is a moderated discussion list, which protects subscribers from receiving posts inappropriate to the list's purpose.

(c) URGE ORGANIZATIONS WITH WHICH YOU ARE AFFILIATED to consider adopting a statement similar to that articulated in the white paper.

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. **

Monday, March 26, 2007

"Our WiFi was making our son Sick!" An Interesting Letter to B. Blake Levitt

Dear Ms. Levitt,

My son has been having serious ailments over the last 6 months including: Severe and constant headaches, leg pains, poor sleep, and even heart palpitations. Various specialists were at a loss as to why he had these conditions! The only thing that showed up in extensive bloodwork was a low IgA level. I did some research and figured out that it may be the WiFi Wireless Internet I installed in our home exactly 6 months prior.

So I quietly unhooked the system, and monitored my son so not to tell him of my changes. Sure enough, within hours his headache that he had without pause for 6 months went away. We're about 2 weeks from when I first disabled the WiFi system and my sons ENTIRE medical symptom list has complete cleared up! No longer does he complain of sore legs or headaches, which is a big relief to us.

Most importantly, his blood panel showed that his IgA levels returned to normal. Upon investigation I found that EMF/EMR from Wireless Networks can lower Melatonin, which indirectly lowers IgA - there are studies that confirm this. IgA itself is responsible for fighting a VARIETY of illness. So we can say indirectly that EMF/EMR may be responsible for an extremely wide range of human ailments.

I have found some schools and some countries are already removing WiFi systems because of extremely high levels of complaints from teachers and students about ill effects after their installation.. I believe this issue is vastly more dangerous than Cellular towers because of the highly concentrated continuous signal nature of wireless internet.

I believe there needs to be some detailed and up to date works to reflect the rapid increase of high powered wireless internet networks being installed in schools, homes, and cities nationwide.

Any opinions on this? Kind Regards,


Dear Anonymous,

Thanks for this email. I will pass it along to appropriate people in federal regulatory agencies who need to hear this exact kind of information. Just so you know, this is about the 10th such communication within the last year that I have gotten describing pretty much the same symptoms. WiFi is certainly a problem. When I lecture on cell towers, I now say that it never ceases to amaze me that people will fight a cell tower in their neighborhood, then throw in a WiFi system at home which is just like inviting a cell tower indoors. The problem with towers/infrastructure now is that they are using significantly higher frequencies due to the FCC licensing of broadband, i.e. telecom companies can now offer Internet access, TV, text messaging, music downloads, etc. etc. Yesterday's old analog cell tower that could cover a 10-15 mile radius morphed into digital PCS that could cover about a 3-mile radius, and now the "next generation" infrastructure requires antennas/towers every 1-2 miles. These are likely all unsafe technologies, it's just a question of degree and exposure parameters. But personal WiFi domestic systems are by far the worst right now due to it's very close proximity to people and the higher frequencies at which they operate. And of course whole cities are going WiFi. Unfortunately the learning curve on this is steep, there are literally NO research funds available in America, and the FCC, which controls for exposure standards, is a non-health agency. So everyone is learning about this one individual anatomy at a time, literally. Eventually the adage that the "plural of anecdote is data" will come to pass. But someone needs to collect the information and we don't even have that going on. No one wants to monitor this. Everyone just wants it to be fine. People who get into difficulties have no one to tell but a journalist like me. And most MDs are clueless.

I am glad that you figured out your son's problems so quickly. That's unfortunately rare. Please let me know how he progresses.

Best Regards,
Blake Levitt

P.S. I wrote about melatonin in my first book on this subject and there is another book called The Melatonin Hypothesis, edited by Stevens, Wilson &Anderson. That latter is mostly about powerline frequencies but it is full of good information.