Saturday, November 12, 2011

How the Telecom Industry Seeks to Confuse About the Dangers of Cell Phones

How the Telecom Industry Seeks to Confuse About the Dangers of Cell Phones

By Dr. Mercola
new report published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) claims to have found no association between long-term use of cell phones and brain or central nervous system tumors.
But like the Interphone study, which also initially reported no link between cell phones and brain cancer, this finding is seriously flawed and only adding to the false shroud of safety that the telecom industry is seeking to create.
As Devra Davis, PhD, cancer epidemiologist and president of the Environmental Health Trust, stated, the BMJ study results are "unsurprising, biased and misleading," and:
"From the way it was set up originally, this deeply flawed study was designed to fail to find an increased risk of brain tumors tied with cellphone use."

BMJ Study Excluded Heaviest Cell Phone Users from the Analysis

The BMJ study, "Use of mobile phones and risk of brain tumours: update of Danish cohort study," is a follow-up to an earlier Danish analysis of 358,403 mostly male cell phone subscribers over the age of 30 during the period 1990-2007. 
Unfortunately, the study simply extends the flaws found in the original study (which incidentally also found no cancer risk) by not only taking into account the fact that cell phone use and wireless exposure has changed dramatically even in the last few years, but also not including those most at risk of cell phone damage in the report: heavy business users.
Davis explains:
"In order for any study of a relatively rare disease like brain tumors to find a change in risk, millions must be followed for decades. By extending an earlier analysis on the same group of cellphone users this new report provides unsurprising, biased and misleading conclusions.
It uses no direct information on cell phone use, fails to consider recent and rapidly changing nature of and exposure to microwave radiation from cellphones, cordless phones and other growing sources, and excludes those who would have been the heaviest users—namely more than 300,000 business people in the 1990s who are known to have used phones four times as much as those in this study."
Conveniently, more than 300,000 business users were removed from the study, which represented nearly 30 percent of the original group. By excluding those who would have been the heaviest users, it is impossible to take the study results at face value, especially considering that a cell phone "user," as defined by the study, was anyone who made one call a week for 6 months.
Adding to this the fact that cell phone calls were more expensive to make several years ago, which means many likely kept their calls shorter than nowadays, when unlimited minutes are the norm, means that the group's average exposure was far less than what we're seeing today, and unlikely to provoke a noticeably increased risk during the study period.
There were other problems uncovered as well …

Seriously Understated Cell Phone Risks Skewed Study Findings

In order for a study to hold any scientific weight, it must compare its test group against a group of controls. In this case, the study compared cell phone subscribers to "non-subscribers," who therefore should have been unaffected by cell phone radiation in order to provide an accurate base-line against which the risks of cell phone use could be measured.
However, as a critique of the study released by reported, the non-subscribers became cell phone users later on -- a change that was not accounted for in the study.
" … the report analyzed the rates of brain tumors that occurred between 1990-2007 in those who began using cellphones after 1987, compared to those who were non-subscribers when the study started. This … understates risk, because most of those who began as 'non-subscribers' to cell phone service (i.e. the 'controls' at the time the cohort was collected) became cell phone users later on, and accumulated almost as many years (on average per person) as the 'exposed' subscribers.
Hence, the comparison to the population not contained in the subscriber sample is a comparison between two exposed groups.
Cell phone users who began using cell phones after 1995 and those under the age of 30 were not considered 'subscribers' in the study (as with the business users and pay-as-you go users), thus significantly diluting the results and underestimating the risk."
When this flaw was mathematically corrected by Michael Kundi and colleagues from the Medical University of Vienna in the earlier Danish study, they actually found a significantly increased risk for brain tumors! Davis also points out that the current study also found increased risks that are not being recognized by the researchers or reported by the media as such.
Davis states:
"Statistical significance tests are tools used in science to help understand the chance that a finding is real. In fact, the article reports a significant increased risk of a very rare form of glioma of the cerebral ventricle based on eight cases but the authors chose to make no mention of this significant finding. In this instance despite the small number the finding is significant.
Statistical analyses provide tools, but do not provide rules, for interpreting evidence. This means that findings can be important even when they do not reach significance statistically.  
In this report, the authors reject all other findings of borderline significance completely.  In a study of relatively rare diseases such as brain tumor, the failure to obtain statistical significance should not be confused with a lack of public health importance. In fact, most of the reported numbers of brain tumors in this article give estimated risks where the result goes from below 1 (a negative result meaning no increased risk), to above 1 (a positive result indicating in some instances a doubled or greater risk).
All of the few well-designed case-control studies of this issue have found significantly increased risk. Thus, these borderline findings of increased risk may well signal an important association."

Cell Phone Safety Spin is Ongoing

You simply cannot take the word of the CTIA (the wireless industry trade group) for granted when it states that "no research has found cell phones to be a danger to health." They misinterpret and misrepresent certain studies while ignoring a large portion of the published research showing harm!
Stating that cell phones "are not a danger to health" is an utter farce—which some would call a fraud—being perpetrated on the American people, and all other citizens of the world.
According to Camilla Rees of,
"It highlights the lack of integrity in governments, which more and more are turning a blind eye to public health while supporting commercial interests."
I wrote about the serious flaws of the Interphone study when it was first released. The massive Interphone study, which was meant to finally provide definitive evidence on the safety, or lack thereof, of cell phones cost more than $30 million (funded in part by the mobile phone industry) to carry out, and involved at least 50 scientists from 13 countries. But the International EMF Collaborative found that the study seriously underestimates the brain cancer risk from cell phone use.
Some of the key design flaws of the Interphone study mirror those in the current BMJ study, such as leaving out key groups of study participants and using exposed subjects as a "control" group. For example, flaws of the Interphone study include:
  • Results were only provided for brain cancers (gliomas) and meningiomas, but not tumors within the 20 percent of the brain's volume irradiated by cell phones
  • The 5-year-old results are woefully inadequate as a gauge of risk today, as adults and children now speak on cell phones many hours a day compared to only 2 to 2.5 hours a month at the time the study was conducted
  • Categorizing subjects who used portable phones (which emit the same microwave radiation as cell phones) as 'unexposed', thus comparing subjects who were actually 'exposed' with others who were 'exposed' as a means to gauge risk
  • Excluding people who had died, or were too ill to be interviewed, as a consequence of their brain tumor
  • Excluding children and young adults, who are more vulnerable to the effects of radiation and who now use cell phones heavily

The Cell Phone Cancer Risk is Real

The Interphone Study Group did eventually acknowledge that "heavy users" of cell phones—which is MOST people today, including children and teens—had an approximately doubled risk of glioma, a life threatening and often-fatal brain tumor, after 10 years of cell phone use. This should be a wake-up call for all except those in deepest denial.
And here's the most shocking piece of evidence of this risk: their definition of a "heavy user" was someone using a cell phone for about two hours per month! So how could any rational objective scientist claim that this study proved cell phones safe, when you double your risk of a fatal brain tumor after using your cell phone for just two hours a month for 10 years?
For more information about the Interphone study, I recommend reading the report, "Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern, Science, Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone." After closely reviewing the facts and the flaws of the Interphone study, the report concluded:
  • There is a risk of brain tumors from cell phone use
  • Telecom-funded studies underestimate the risk of brain tumors
  • Children have larger risks than adults for brain tumors
On May 21, 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a committee of 27 scientists from 14 different countries working on behalf of the World Health Organization (WHO), also concluded that exposure to cell phone radiation is a "possible carcinogen" and classified it into the 2B category. This is the same category as the pesticide DDT, lead, gasoline engine exhaust, burning coal and dry cleaning chemicals, just to name a few.
The group did not perform any new research; rather the decision is based on a review of the previously published evidence, including the Interphone study results published so far (about 50% have still not been released). This is the same evidence that the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Cancer Society (ACS), among others, have previously waved aside, calling it "reassuring," and claiming it showed "no evidence" of harm.
Camilla Rees, MBA, founder of, actually believes that the new BMJ study was released specifically to counter the IARC cancer classification, and also points out similarities between the BMJ study spin and apreviously released, and also heavily misleading, study that claimed children have no brain tumor risk from cell phones – which incidentally was conducted by some of the same researchers as the BMJ study.
Rees notes:
"This churning of the handicapped Danish cohort study is likely intended to counter the recent WHO IARC classification of cell phone radiation as a Class 2B 'Possible Carcinogen.' The misrepresentation to the media evidenced here parallels the recent misleading CEFALO brain tumor study that purported to show that there is no higher risk of brain cancer in children. 
In fact, that study did find increased risk of brain tumors in children that the authors dismissed. But, experts in pediatric oncology understand that brain tumors in children could well occur in shorter time periods than in adults. The overlap in investigators in these two studies should also be noted."
So please understand that cell phone radiation has the potential to harm your health, just like DDT or lead, which is what experts in the field have been saying for years. That doesn't mean that every person exposed to those substances will get cancer.
But it raises your overall risk, depending on a number of other factors, such as your general state of health, which in part is dependent on exposure to other toxins through food, air, and water, just to name a few. 
And I believe it's important to remember that when we're talking about toxins in general, it's your accumulated toxic load that matters most. So in that sense, heavy users of cell phones and other wireless gadgets, as well as children, are at exponentially increased risk, and should at the very least be warned so that they can make educated decisions about their self-imposed level of exposure.

Reducing Your Risk of Health Damage from Cell Phone Use

While the IARC panel, being a science not policy organization, did not make many specific recommendations to consumers, IARC Director Christopher Wild did take it upon himself to publicly state:
"Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings it is important that additional research be conducted into the long-term, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands-free devices or texting."
These are sensible solutions, but keep in mind that completely eliminating exposure is close to impossible. Even if you don't use a cell phone and your home is wireless-free, you can be exposed to microwave radiation from your neighbor's wireless devices or while visiting "hot spots" or traveling near cell phone towers. That said, there's still plenty you can do to minimize your exposure and help safeguard your children's health:
  • 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, and still developing immune and neurological systems.
  • Reduce Your Cell Phone Use: Turn your cell phone off more often. Reserve it for emergencies or important matters. As long as your cell phone is on, it emits radiation intermittently, even when you are not actually making a call.

    Leave an outgoing message on your phone stating your cell phone policy so others know not to call you on it except in emergencies.
  • 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 some of them do not broadcast constantly even when no call is being made. Note the only way to truly be sure if there is an exposure from your cordless phone is to measure with an electrosmog meter, and it must be one that goes up to the frequency of your portable phone (so old meters won't help much). As many portable phones are 5.8 Gigahertz, we recommend you look for RF meters that go up to 8 Gigahertz, the highest range now available in a meter suitable for consumers.

    Alternatively you can be very careful with the base station placement as that causes the bulk of the problem since it transmits signals 24/7, even when you aren't talking. So if you can keep the base station at least three rooms away from where you spend most of your time, and especially your bedroom, it may not be as damaging to your health.

    Ideally it would be helpful to turn off or disconnect your base station every night before you go to bed. Levels of microwave radiation from portable phones can be extraordinarily high, according to Camilla Rees.
    "Portable phone radiation can be as high or higher than a wireless router, though most people would have no idea that this common device at their bedside could be harmful."
    You can find RF meters at But you can pretty much be sure your portable phone is a problem if the technology is labeled DECT, or digitally enhanced cordless technology.
  • Limit Your Cell Phone Use to 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. Placing a cell phone in a shirt pocket over the heart is asking for trouble, as is placing it in a man's pocket if he seeks to preserve his fertility.
  • Don't Assume One Cell Phone is Safer than Another. There's no such thing as a "safe" cell phone, and do not rely on the SAR value to evaluate the safety of your phone. Always seek CDMA carriers over GSM as they have far lower radiation in their signaling technology. And remember, eliminating cell phone use, or greatly lowering cell phone use from phones of all kinds, is where true prevention begins.
  • 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.
  • Respect Others Who are More Sensitive: Some people who have become sensitive can feel the effects of others' cell phones in the same room, even when it is on but not being used. If you are in a meeting, on public transportation, in a courtroom or other public places, such as a doctor's office, keep your cell phone turned off out of consideration for the 'second hand radiation' effects. Children are also more vulnerable, so please avoid using your cell phone near children.
  • 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 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.
To learn more about this extremely important issue, please see my dedicated EMF site. I also highly recommend setting aside an hour to listen to founder Camilla Rees' interview with Karl Maret, MD. With an extensive background in medicine, electrical engineering, and biomedical engineering, Dr. Maret is uniquely qualified to speak on the topic of electromagnetic fields, and he shares some of the most compelling arguments to date on why you must use extreme caution when it comes to not only cell phones but also cordless phones, smart meters and other forms of electromagnetic fields (EMFs).
You can also listen to an important 20-minute speech by Martin Blank, PhD, who spoke at the November 18, 2010 Commonwealth Club of California program, "The Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields," co-sponsored by Dr. Blank speaks with deep experience and commanding authority on the impact on cells and DNA from electromagnetic fields, and explains why your DNA is especially vulnerable to electromagnetic fields of all kinds. 

Friday, November 11, 2011

Discussing mobile phone safety with young people

Sarah Starkey
British Journal of School Nursing, Vol. 6, Iss. 9, 11 Nov 2011, pp 434 - 438
The UK Chief Medical Officers recommend that children and young people under the age of 16 years use mobile phones for essential purposes only. But many young people use their mobile or smart phones throughout the day and keep them switched on close to their bodies during the night. Simple steps to reduce exposure to the electromagnetic fields emitted from wireless gadgets may help to protect long-term health. Raising awareness of wireless technology safety allows young people to make informed choices and to take responsibility for this area of their health and wellbeing.;article=BJSN_6_9_434_438

Spanish Authorities using a new EMP weapon on Citizens?

Spanish Authorities using a new EMP weapon on Citizens?

Spanish Authorities using a new EMP weapon on Citizens?
A Special Report For The Sovereign Independent
By Diarmaid O Seigefriede
In Spain three weeks ago in a town called Alzira population (maybe about 50,000 people) 30 kilometres south of Malaga a big shot politician flew in by helicopter. The landing zone was in the local police station which was based close the centre of the town .The politician was coming to the town to sort out the compensation claims and worries of the peoples where a nearby local forest and bush fire had damaged property .These forest and bush fires are a common event in the dry October end of summer tinderbox Spanish country side.
The difference this time was that the local police force used some high tech device from the police station that caused most all electronic items within 500 meters of the police station to be knocked out for about one hour.  The Police told the locals it was a safety wave .This safety wave
effect lasted for about one hour in the early morning times while the Helicopter flew in and about one hour later flew out. The effects were no mobile phones in that 500 meter radius of the police station would work. No cars within that field effect could be made to start their engines. All other cars outside the region were not allowed to enter this safety wave region so it’s not known if they
can knock out engines that were running at the time of the safety wave event.
All satellite TV and cable TV devices in the safety wave region were knocked out also. We are talking a region festooned with multi story apartment blocks with hundreds if not thousands of normal Spanish going about their normal lives unaware that there was some sort of test of a safety wave device about to be given to them.
There seems to have been other unconfirmed issues suggesting pace makers and other medical devices were effected both within the safety wave region and possibly further than the safety wave field. There seemed to have been a local spike in death rates that day and for several days it was rumoured that the local funeral homes had a spike in burials.
There was no forewarning to the locals about this Police safety wave machines existence or its deployment for that day. Only under severe discontent from the locals suffering some bizarre
event early morning in the central part of town forced the police to tell the locals they deployed this safety wave machine. The local and Spanish Main stream media didn’t mention this event which is pretty much the norm in Spain where the main stream media tows the political commands from the government.  I was passing through the town a few days after the event to visit friends and got the story from the locals who were not happy to be the receiving end of these high tech devices that they had no idea even existed in their obscure stick Ville town in Spain.
This device is probably an offshoot of the Iraq war where to defend helicopters landing in the city centres from missiles and other attacks. If a jamming signal jams the incoming missiles electronics there is an increased chance that the missile will miss the target be it helicopters or the local police /army bases or even the Parliament or town halls.
Any attempt to launch missiles within the 500 meter radius protection zone will probably mean the missiles trigger and guidance systems will fail. Any attempt to use car bombs or ramming the target with modern cars or trucks could be more likely to fail. The bombs trigger systems could fail also. However older fashioned cars and trucks which don’t use electronic systems could be more able to get past these safety wave devices and bomb and IED trigger systems can be made to resist safety waves using shielding systems. Most modern new cars from about 1999 to 2000 are also now running using electronic systems and are actually designed to cause the car engines to quit when the police trigger the safety wave devices near to them. These smaller mostly hand held devices that police cars can use are to disable cars within 100 meters of the cop car with the safety wave
devices. All police car in modern European countries could soon like the USA police cars which are now able to stop most all car chases using these hand held safety wave devices. The Police car in the USA in car chases now triggers the safety wave device and the modern car that is being chased by the USA police car will suffer the motor stopping when its electronic ignition systems receive this signal to stop the engine. The result is the car chase finishes sooner.
However the same safety wave signal from the USA police is causing several other cars within the field of the police car to also stop their motors with no warning and this has caused accidents to innocent parties who were not involved in the car chases. This hand held cop car safety wave system could also lead to more motorway pile ups like the recent London UK M25 crash that killed
several peoples. This larger safety wave jamming device will probably affect most all electronic devices within the protection zone estimated to be 500 meters radius. It is probably some sort of massive EMP (Electromagnetic pulse) devise that creates a local magnetic pulse causing electronic devices that are not protected from this safety wave devise to fail. The biggest risk from cops having these devices in Europe or elsewhere and randomly using them is that anybody on pacemakers and
intricate medical devices like diabetic pumps could suffer injuries or death from an unannounced use of this safety wave machines in their regions. If the police forces supply some warning such as one day in advance their intention to deploy the safety wave the bad guys Al-CIA-DA (Al Qaeda) would receive forewarning a big politician is coming to town. The Al Qaeda might know ways to circumvent the safety wave from their CIA training manual meant for the rent a bogie man Al Qaeda terrorists .
They Al Qaeda know for instance not to use no electronic solutions for attacks The CIA manuals for Al Qaeda would suggest use primitive mortar fire or use older vehicles for ramming targets and shield electronics for IED and detonators for bombs .
Until more information arrives it could be advisable for all peoples on pace makers or similar medical devices to try not to live beside sensitive targets like Political centres, town halls, army or police stations. We can assume that all of these places in Europe will get these safety wave devices devises if they don’t already have them. Expect more false flag attacks from AL-CIA-DA units to European
targets to drag Europe into a war with Iran and Syria as the USA army forces hasn’t sufficient army strength to do these wars and will try to ensure Europe fights these wars alongside Israel and the USA. We can also assume these safety wave devices will increase their range from the present known 500 meters. If enough points in the towns have these safety wave devices the whole town will become a non-electronic run town for the duration of the safety wave which could be made to last weeks or months if the powers to be decide to use them in that way. Even Hospitals which would generally not have EMP or safety wave protected equipment could suffer huge spikes in death and injury rate while a safety wave is pressed into service nearby to them
Research is still on-going on this event or similar events in Spain and Europe or world-wide. All feedback from all sources especially army and police force members who have worked with these so called safety wave devices appreciated.

Diarmaid O Seigefriede

Wednesday, November 09, 2011

EMFields: Children's health at risk from mobile phone russian roulette

Children's health at risk from mobile phone russian roulette

9th November 2011

Would you let your children play with a loaded gun?

Silly question - or is it more relevant than you might think?

Experts are now saying that giving a child a mobile phone could be like giving them a loaded gun. Fatal cancer is not the only thing that the radiation from a mobile phone could be responsible for in their future. Infertility, behaviour problems and dementia are also linked to mobile phone use according to a number of reputable scientific papers.

Even the conservative International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified radiation such as that given off by mobile phones as possibly carcinogenic and advised 'pragmatic' measures to reduce exposure such as using hands-free kits. A 2008 Swedish study suggested children who use mobile phones are five times more likely to develop brain tumours. The UK department of Health say under 16s should only use a mobile phone in an emergency.

British charity MobileWise says that children's use of mobile phones should be severely restricted to protect the health of the next generation. An estimated eight out of 10 youngsters aged between seven and 11 now have their own mobile and ownership is also spiralling among those even younger.

So where has it all gone wrong?

Children respond to pressure from their peer-group about what is the most 'must-have' accessory. This may be fine for the latest craze in toys, but it surely shouldn't apply to what is considered by some to be nothing less than a health time bomb.

MobileWise director Vicky Fobel said: "We have a choice. We can either continue to ignore the mounting evidence of risks and do nothing until we have incontrovertible proof that mobiles can damage health or we can take note of this evidence, even if it is still inconclusive, and act to protect children before it is too late."

In their report published yesterday, MobileWise say the Government is underplaying the potentially 'enormous' health risks - especially for children, whose smaller, thinner skulls are more susceptible to radiation.

Dr Lennart Hardell, professor of oncology and cancer epidemiology at Orebro University Hospital, in Sweden, says "This timely report draws attention to the large body of evidence which links prolonged phone use to health hazards such as brain tumours."

While further research is still needed, there is certainly enough evidence to warrant urgent action by public health agencies to protect the public, especially children, who are significantly more vulnerable."

Neurosurgeon Kevin O'Neill, chairman of the Brain Tumour Research Campaign, said: "We know that children are much more vulnerable to phone radiation." He also said the latency period for brain tumours is 30 years so it is possible the consequences of phone use are not yet apparent.
Although the experts concede the links are not proven, they argue that 'schools, phone shops and the healthcare system' should be enlisted into a campaign to reduce mobile phone use.
Ms Fobel said: "The UK Government is lagging behind other countries such as Canada, France and certain states in the US, which have tightened up their policy on mobile phones."

David Spiegelhalter, professor of risk management at Cambridge University, said: 'Public health campaigns have a cost. With no evidence of current harm, then they can lessen trust in science and increase anxiety.'

John Cooke, of the Mobile Operators Association, said: "Mobile phones in the UK are subject to rigorous safety tests and the overwhelming body of evidence does not show any adverse health effects." But he added: "More research is needed. Kids should be discouraged from using their mobile phones excessively and should text rather than call."

For newspaper coverage of the story, please see the following links:
Daily Express - Health alert for children who use mobile phones
Daily Mail - Mobile phones - health time bomb

If you feel that your child should have a mobile phone, you might want to consider reducing their exposure the the harmful radiation by buying them a BlocSock, or Airtube hands-free kit. A Christmas present to provide your child with a safety net they deserve.

This page has links to content that requires a .pdf reader such as Adobe Adobe Acrobat Reader

Archived News

» 27/10/2011 - Children and mobile phones - a loaded gun?
» 27/10/2011 - Smart Meters - not such a smart idea
» 30/09/2011 - Pylons running rampant
» 13/09/2011 - Magnetic fields and asthma - startling results
» 21/06/2011 - Yet another study linking mobile phone use and brain tumours
» 27/05/2011 - Russian children protected better than young people in the UK
» 19/05/2011 - Council of Europe wants lower levels of EMF and RF exposure in homes and schools
» 04/05/2011 - Increasing concerns about mobile phone effects on fertility
» 23/03/2011 - Department of Health recommends caution when using your mobile
» 09/03/2011 - Vatican Radio to pay compensation for causing child cancer
» 11/02/2011 - New study links brain tumours with electromagnetic field exposure living near to powerlines and at work
» 03/02/2011 - Seletun Scientific Panel proposals
» 06/01/2011 - Watch blood cells clump together during a mobile phone call
» 09/12/2010 - Bad behaviour due to mobile phone exposure
» 29/11/2010 - Smart Meters
» 15/10/2010 - Update on the EHS 'safe haven' in France
» 08/10/2010 - Powerlines responsible for increased cancer risk
» 22/09/2010 - Two recent research papers
» 15/09/2010 - Italy creates the second EHS refuge zone in Europe
» 09/09/2010 - Further update of the French ES village
» 08/09/2010 - French ES village, Dunedin Council, and Acoustimeter
» 27/08/2010 - Hardell increases evidence of phone brain tumour risk
» 20/07/2010 - Children using mobile phones - mixed messages
» 15/06/2010 - Mobile Phones and Brain Tumours, Interphone revisited
» 05/05/2010 - Powerlines and childhood leukaemia
» 16/04/2010 - Powerlines to be moved away from school to protect children
» 07/04/2010 - EHS is not all in the mind
» 31/03/2010 - New study shows mobile phone use reduces fertility
» 08/03/2010 - Two new studies on EHS published
» 11/02/2010 - Spanish children and teachers made ill by phone mast
» 20/01/2010 - German GPs know about EMFs causing health problems
» 29/12/2009 - Progress in the new French no radiation refuge
» 15/12/2009 - Link between EMF exposure and brain tumours confirmed
» 04/12/2009 - France leads the way in reducing RF exposure
» 13/11/2009 - French believe effects of RF exposure beyond doubt
» 26/10/2009 - Austrian research shows DECT phones are the worst
» 28/08/2009 - Mobile phone masts more of a problem than phones
» 21/08/2009 - Living near powerlines again linked to cancer
» 07/08/2009 - Liechtenstein and Switzerland are to reduce exposure guidelines
» 08/07/2009 - Alarm Bells about WiFi and DECT
» 03/07/2009 - Presentation on EMFs and Health on Monday 7th July
» 25/06/2009 - Dressed for the occasion
» 06/06/2009 - EU Parliament votes 559 to 22 to adopt EMF report
» 15/05/2009 - Electromagnetic Awareness Month
» 20/03/2009 - Breast cancer and night work
» 11/03/2009 - Exposing children to wireless in schools is criminal
» 11/02/2009 - A new RF-free village in the South of France
» 16/01/2009 - Melatonin helps protect the liver
» 17/12/2008 - Genetic Susceptibility to Powerfrequency

Tuesday, November 08, 2011

Click here to save Fukushima's children!
Fukushima's brave mothers have taken to the streets to get their children out of highly contaminated areas, but the government is failing to provide evacuation assistance. Only a massive national outcry can persuade the Prime Minister to protect Fukushima City's children. Sign this urgent petition:

Dr Andrew Goldsworthy on WI-FI in Schools

Dr Andrew Goldsworthy on WI-FI in Schools

Wi-Fi in Schools Nov 2011 Dr Andrew Goldsworthy
Most of the damage done by digital telecommunications is not due to heating but by the electrical effect their pulsating signals have on living tissues, which occurs at much lower energy levels.
The human body can act as an antenna and the signals make electric currents flow through it in time with the pulsations. It is this that does the bulk of the damage by destabilising the delicate membranes that surround each cell and also divide it into internal compartment such as mitochondria (the energy factories of the cell) and the lysosomes (the cell’s recycling factories).
All of these membranes are just two molecules thick and have a similar basic structure. They are liquid crystals, made largely of negatively charged molecules (which repel one another) stabilised by divalent positive ions (mostly calcium) that sit in between them by mutual attraction and hold them together like mortar holds together the bricks in a wall.
It was first shown by Bawin et. al. in the 1970s that weak amplitude modulated radio waves, where the strength of the signal rises and falls at low frequencies, could remove some of this calcium from brain cell membranes. This destabilises them and make them more likely to leak. The low frequency pulsations of Wi-Fi and mobile phone signals can be expected to behave in much the same way. – This is important in the brain because the normal function of brain cells depends on the controlled passage of specific ions through their membranes. When these membranes leak, ions flow through them in a relatively uncontrolled way, which results in brain hyperactivity and may cause attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in some people. When this occurs in the brain of a foetus or very young child it prevents normal brain development, which may result in autism (see ) . Wi-Fi should therefore be considered as an impediment rather than an aid to learning and may be particularly hazardous for pregnant teachers.
Effects on the peripheral nervous system are equally damaging since hyperactivity here causes false sensations such as pain, heat, cold, and pins and needles in some people (i.e. symptoms of electromagnetic hypersensitivity). Hyperactivity in the cells of the inner ear can cause tinnitus and affect the sense of balance causing dizziness and symptoms of motion sickness, including nausea. Pupils showing any of these symptoms should be treated with sympathy and the Wi-Fi switched off.
Many other effects on health can be attributed to membrane leakage, including damage to DNA due to the release of reactive oxygen species (ROS) from mitochondria, and digestive enzymes from lysosomes. Such DNA damage can cause a loss of fertility and an increased risk of getting cancer.
Membrane leakage can also open the blood-brain barrier, leading to Alzheimer’s disease and early dementia. There are similar barriers protecting all of our body surfaces from foreign chemicals. Damage to these can cause or exacerbate a variety of illnesses, including asthma, multiple allergies and autoimmune disorders such as multiple sclerosis. More on these, including references, can be found at
Fortunately, because of genetic variability, not everyone will suffer the same symptoms and many may suffer none at all but, for the sake of those that do suffer, Wi-Fi is not a good idea in schools or anywhere else for that matter.