Saturday, March 10, 2012



How Industry Suppresses – and Government Denies – the Overwhelming Evidence of Harm

Few people know that wireless devices are considered


If something is invented by and for the military, it is certain to be effective and lethal. And industrial capitalists invariably view such military gizmos as having great profit potential – particularly if they’re re-packaged and promoted as beneficial to the public. Hence, the science behind atom bombs dropped on Japan in World War II led soon after to cancer radiation therapy and mammography – two of the most lucrative practices in modern medicine. Similarly, biological warfare weapons such as DDT and chemotherapy proved to be enormously lucrative in their peace-time applications – their deadly properties being undiminished despite re-packaging. Originally, the military objected to the declassification of both, but industry interests prevailed.
Today, it’s World War II radar technology that has been harnessed to create a near universal addiction and worldwide dependence on telecommunications. Anything that facilitates and enhances the human ability to communicate plugs into a powerful primal urge.
We can say no to radiation and chemotherapy, and we can do perfectly well without pesticides – but we cannot do without telephones, the internet, or electricity.  Millions of people use cell phones as if they were an indispensable body part; thousands of households use microwave ovens daily, unaware that they are ruining the nutrients in their food; well-meaning parents irradiate their infants with baby monitors; and most of us are zapped continuously by smart meters. All things wireless have taken the world by storm, supposedly serving progress.
Very few people know that all these gadgets are allowed to proliferate on the basis of outright fraudulent research. Most don’t know that current safety standards are so completely at variance with genuine scientific evidence as to be truly absurd: in fact, our regulatory authorities are supporting the unfolding of a public health disaster. There simply is no research proving the safety of this technology as we know it. None at all. 

Wireless technology has undergone no genuine safety tests because existing standards only apply to anything above 2.4 gigahertz of the radio spectrum, and anything below that level was simply assumed safe when commercial standards were adopted in 1997. This rests on the assumption that non-thermal radiation is harmless; non-thermal means not-heat producing. Radio waves and microwaves do produce heat, but only at very high concentrations. At low concentrations they do not produce heat but, instead, cause other equally serious problems affecting all organs of the body.
This problem started with Hermann Schwan, inventor of the microwave oven. As a scientist who worked for the Nazi regime, he was brought to the U.S. in 1947 along with 1,400 others under “Operation Paperclip” which allowed them to escape war crime prosecution in return for employment with the U.S. government. Schwan became a professor in Pennsylvania and continued radar research. He believed that radio and microwaves could only be harmful at intensities above 100 microwatts per square centimeter when they produce heat. He added a safety factor of 10, and in 1953 announced the safety limit for humans at 10 microwatts per square centimeter (10 mW/cm2) which in 1965 was accepted as doctrine.
This “safe” level allowed the military to continue using radiation for their own purposes. This standard also saved the U.S. government untold millions in liability payments to injured soldiers and industrial workers from the war years and provided liability protection into the future. And real estate companies were delighted because the former restrictions on developing land too close to radiation facilities no longer applied. Had the already known facts about harm from non-thermal levels of radiation informed the making of this safety standard, some 498,000 acres of valuable real estate would have been lost to the market. (See Becker and Brodeur listed at end.)
Schwan and the scientists of his generation already knew of the “radiation sickness” reported by wartime radar technicians who often became blind from cataracts. Indeed, it was because of these reports that the discussion about a need for a safety standard began. At the very time that Schwan’s standard was developed, the Soviets were microwaving the U.S. embassy staff in  Moscow to see if this wartime radar/microwave technology could disrupt information, addle brains, and mess with behaviour among the embassy staff. It sure did. The U.S. government was fully aware of this Soviet espionage project, but kept silent for years – just to see what would happen. After all, it was a perfect science project (for the sake of which the glaring ethical inconsistency with the 1940s US-led Nuernberg trials was conveniently ignored). The Germans doing medical experiments on people was evil; this project, however, could be massaged to aid some greater good. The U.S. ambassador died of cancer and many staff members developed those forms of cancer, birth defects, infertility and more which are characteristic of non-thermal radiation exposure. Not until 1976 did this government betrayal of its own staff become the subject of congressional investigation.

Today, the complete bibliography of more than 2,000 scientific reports on non-thermal radiation damage compiled before 1970 are available. They were declassified by the military in 1971 (see  
When cell phones hit the market in the early 1990’s and WiFi for computers was invented, it was already known what damage these products were capable of causing. Most importantly, that early literature, now supported by an ever-growing body of high-tech and epidemiological research, negates the assertion that just “some” people are “hypersensitive”. That same myth was used for decades to downplay Multiple Chemical Sensitivity as well. The profit from war gadgets, communication technology, and pesticides is simply too big to resist; better to blame those few weirdos who stand in the way of profit.
To put this “hypersensitivity” of the few into perspective, consider Swedish and American research published last fall which shows that within the coming decade we are likely to face a 25-fold increase of brain cancer incidence worldwide. There is no way that any government or insurance company can pay for this.  Not surprisingly, two of the world’s largest insurance companies, Lloyds and Swiss Re, have recommended exclusion clauses to the entire industry for damage from long-term use of such radiation-producing gadgets.

Researchers have found that cell phone use impairs DNA cellular repair, and has caused a sharp rise in brain cancer (documented from cell phone use over the past decade). The facts became so unavoidable that the usually arch-conservative World Health Organization had no choice last summer but to declare radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RE-EMF) produced by cell phones, Bluetooth, cordless phones, Smart Meters, baby monitors, and WiFi to be a Class B carcinogen (like asbestos and DDT).
True, the actual mechanism by which this low-level radiation caused harm was not understood in the 1940’s, even though the fact of harm was known and documented. Today, our understanding is so thorough, it exceeds the evidence we have of the harm done by DDT, asbestos, and smoking by far. Yet, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), established in 1992, continues to stick to Schwann’s standard and even deliberately misquotes, disguises, or ignores this enormous body of knowledge. It continues to provide guidelines to governments and industry based on research published before WiFi technology had even left the laboratory and become commercially available. To support these absurd guidelines, even fraudulent research projects were undertaken in the UK (see Mark Anslow).
In Canada an interesting case of suppression of evidence exists in the federal Report LTR-CS-98 of April 1973. It provided the evidence that microwave radiation is an “environmental pollutant” and a “threat to human health.” And yet Health Canada established its Code 6 by following ICNIRP guidelines for radio frequencies and publicly repeated the propaganda about non-thermal radiation being safe as recently as September 2010.
The many international resolutions presented by scientists to governments the world over demanding the public be protected from this technology are simply ignored, but their urgency is increasing. When cell phones first became available in the early 90’s, the Council of Europe, aware of the science since the 1930s about the dangers of radar to human health, requested that young people in particular be protected from such commercial devices. Last April, the Council did so again, in even stronger terms and armed with even more research. In February of this year, the Ontario Teachers’ Union came to the defense of their students’ safety and demanded a general WiFi blackout in schools. Some schools have done so already (Globe & Mail, Feb 13, 2012).
There is no doubt that we live in a time in which science consistently takes a back seat to industry interests and that governments consistently support industry, not public health or medical facts. If you suspect that government is selling us out, body and soul, to toxic industries for profit, you are not mistaken.
Just like the FDA’s Dr. David Graham, and Health Canada’s Shiv Chopra, the radiation industry too has its whistleblowers: Barrie Trower, as reported in the Toronto Star on August 26, 2010, is a former British Secret Service Microwave Weapons Specialist who recently spoke at the University of Toronto. He stated that Canada “is one of the world leaders in microwave radiation research,” having documented the first recognized symptoms of radiation sickness in 1932 in concert with the U.S. government. Canada shares 13 secret code names for this research which documents the damage. Trower also pointed out that “there isn’t a school in the world that hasn’t seen an increase in aggression [and other behavioural problems] when WiFi was introduced.” He stated: “By 1971 we knew everything that needed to be known. A 1976 document summarizing U.S. Defense Intelligence research is the saddest and most despicable document ever published in history.” The document lists all of the health hazards caused by wireless devices and concludes: “This should be kept secret to preserve industrial profit.” Trower also cited a 1950’s report stating: “If this paper becomes known around the world, it will threaten military and commercial interests.” He especially condemned Health Canada’s Code 6, stating that the science-based safety level published in the BioInitiative Report is 0.1 microwatts per cm2 – not Canada’s 600 to 1,000 mW/cm2!
Due to the determined suppression of the evidence over three quarters of a century, it is vitally important to get legal rulings that create a foundation for appropriate liability and the defense of public health through successful case law. That will force the invention of better technology. Last year the famous microwave activist Arthur Firstenberg brought a case regarding deployment of cell phone-related technology before the federal district court in New Mexico on the basis of the industry’s infringement of the Americans with Disability Act. The judge ruled “that the Telecommunica-tions Act preempts the Americans with Disabilities Act, even if such an interpretation would condemn a class of citizens to death because of their disabilities.” The judge also ruled that the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment was not applicable.
An appeal was launched on February 21. My hunch is that because of the denial of fundamental human rights, this legal action will now move out of the polarization between industry and science and into the territory of what lawyers call “first principles,” in this case liability law and established case law on harm done from whatever source.
Yes, the danger posed by EMF radiation is significant, but it is possible to save yourself and your loved ones. In Part 2 of this article, I will share the information and resources that I used to restore my health and make my home and workplace safe.  Put simply, the answer to bad technology is not no technology, but good technology, just as bad medicine is cured by good medicine.


• M. Anslow, “The Gathering Brainstorm”, The Ecologist, April 25, 2008
• R. Baan et al. “carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields”, The Lancet, vol. 12, issue 7, July 2011
• BioInitiative Report 2007 (via google)
• P. Brodeur, “The Zapping of America – Microwaves, their Deadly Risk and the Cover-up”, Norton, 1977
• EM-Radiation Research Trust: Smart Meters-Smarter Practices: Solving Emerging Problems: UK: Dr. I. Jamieson, 2008
• R. O. Becker MD & G. Selden, The Body Electric – Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life, Quill, 1985
• Canada Report LTR-CS-98, April 1973: Environmental Pollution by Microwave Radiation – A Potential Threat to Human Health, by J.A. Tanner et al., Dept of Anatomy, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario
• Canadian Human Rights Commission, The Medical Perspectives of Environmental Sensitivities, May 2007. Google.
• Council of Europe April 11, 2011, - full report to EU Parliament
• D. Davis, Disconnect, Dutton, 2010
• H. Ferrie, The Damaging Effects of Electropollution, Vitality, April 2011
• A. Firstenberg, Microwaving Our Planet: The Environmental Impact of the Wireless Revolution, Cellular Phone Task Force, 1997
• T. Gutschi et al. “Impact on cell phone use on men’s semen parameters”, Andrologia, May 19, 2011
• O. Hallberg & L. L. Morgan, “The potential impact of mobile phone use on trends in brain and CNS tumors, Neurology & Neurophysiology, S5-003, 2011, Open Access Journal
• S. Milham MD, Dirty Electricity – Electrification and the Diseases of Civilization, iUniverse 2010
• L. Morgan, “High frequency transitions on electrical wiring: A missing link in increasing diabetes and asthma?” presented at the 39th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine
• Non-Thermal Effects and Mechanisms of Interaction Between Electromagnetic Fields and Living Matter – ICEMS Monograph of the European Journal of Oncology, Vol. 5, 2010 (via google)
• Royal Society Report for Health Canada, 1999:
• C.W. Smith & S. Best, Electromagnetic Man, J. M. Dent & Sons, 1989
• A. Terpstra, Concerned Parents Protest as Telecom Invades Schools, Vitality, October 2010
• B. Trower, Secret Report on Cell Phone Dangers and TETRA (Report for Police Federation of England and Wales), Nov. 25, 2004 (

About the Author

Helke Ferrie is the owner and director of KOS Publishing, devoted to the politics of medicine. For more information, visit

How Corporations Corrupt Science at the Public’s Expense

How Corporations Corrupt Science at the Public’s Expense

From the Union of Concerned Scientists:
Federal decision makers need access to the best available science in order to craft policies that protect our health, safety, and environment.
Unfortunately, censorship of scientists and the manipulation, distortion, and suppression of scientific information have threatened federal science in recent years. This problem has sparked much debate, but few have identified the key driver of political interference in federal science: the inappropriate influence of companies with a financial stake in the outcome.
A new UCS report, Heads They Win, Tails We Lose, shows how corporations influence the use of science in federal decision making to serve their own interests.
Methods of Abuse
The report describes five basic methods that corporations use to influence the scientific and policy-making processes:
Corrupting the Science. Corporations suppress research, intimidate scientists, manipulate study designs, ghostwrite scientific articles, and selectively publish results that suit their interests.
Shaping Public Perception. Private interests downplay evidence, exaggerate uncertainty, vilify scientists, hide behind front groups, and feed the media slanted news stories.

Restricting Agency Effectiveness.
 Companies attack the science behind agency policy, hinder the regulatory process, corrupt advisory panels, exploit the “revolving door” between corporate and government employment, censor scientists, and withhold information from the public.

Influencing Congress
. By spending billions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions, corporate interests gain undue access to members of Congress, encouraging them to challenge scientific consensus, delay action on critical problems, and shape the use of science in policy making.

Exploiting Judicial Pathways.
 Corporate interests have expanded their influence on the judicial system, used the courts to undermine science, and exploited judicial processes to bully and silence scientists.
Progress Made (and Still To Be Made)
In his 2009 inaugural address, President Obama promised to “restore science to its rightful place.” His administration has made progress toward that goal on several important fronts—elevating the role of science in government, ordering agencies to develop scientific integrity policies, improving transparency, and strengthening conflict-of-interest policies.
Despite these positive steps, much remains to be done. The report identifies five key areas where further federal commitments to protect science from undue corporate influence are needed: protecting government scientists from retaliation and intimidation; making government more transparent and accountable; reforming the regulatory process; strengthening scientific advice to government; and strengthening monitoring and enforcement.
Beyond Government
Corporations, nonprofits, academic institutions, scientific societies, and the media also have critical roles to play in reducing abuses of science in federal decision making. These institutions should:
* promote honest scientific investigation and open discussion of research results;
* refrain from actual or perceived acts of scientific misconduct;
* embrace transparency and avoid conflicts of interest.
Inappropriate corporate interference in science extends its tentacles into every aspect of federal science-based policy-making. Addressing this interference will require overcoming high hurdles, but they are not insurmountable. With strong leadership and a sustained commitment, both the federal government and the private sector can rise to the challenge.
Free Download: Heads They Win, Tails We Lose: Full Report | Heads They Win, Tails We Lose: Executive Summary

CHINGFORD: Concern over phone mast near school

CHINGFORD: Concern over phone mast near school

Angelo Montalto and MP Iain Duncan Smith outside the Bull on the GreenAngelo Montalto and MP Iain Duncan Smith outside the Bull on the Green
PARENTS fear for their children’s health if a phone mast is erected on a listed building near a primary school.
Vodafone and Telefonica hope to install the mast on top of the Bull on the Green pub in Chingford, but parents are planning to campaign against the move.
There is no conclusive evidence that phone masts cause health problems, but reports of illnesses associated with them continue.
But if approved the mast will be between 50 and 60 metres away from St Mary’s Catholic Primary School in Station Road and parents believe their children could be vulnerable to the low levels of radiation omitted from the mast.
Speaking on behalf of concerned parents, father-of-four Angelo Montalto, 40, of Connaught Avenue, said: 
“There’s enough suspect cases to mean us parents fear for our children’s safety. And it’s a potential eyesore on a beautiful building. It’s horrible to think we’ll have phone masts spoiling the view.”
Councils are unable to refuse phone mast applications on health grounds, but the applicant must consult extensively if the mast is near a school. As the pub is listed the mast would be contained within plastic covers painted to match the building’s brickwork.
Residents met with Chingford MP Iain Duncan Smith on Friday (February 2) to discuss the issue.
He said: “I always worry if they’re near schools. The health case is unproven but young brains are much more vulnerable to microwave signals. We should treat [the application] with caution.
A spokeswoman for Vodafone and Telefonica said: “Without radio base stations, mobile phones will not be able to work.
"All of our base stations are designed, built and operated in accordance with stringent international guidelines laid down by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection.
"Typical public exposures from our base stations will be many hundreds, if not thousands, of times below these guidelines.”

Neighbours voice horror over 'hideous' phone mast put up outside their homes

NEIGHBOURS say they are horrified that a giant phone mast has been put up outside their homes.
The 20-metre structure was erected this week on a grass verge along Elvaston Lane, Alvaston, even though a planning application has yet to be determined.
Everything Everywhere Ltd – a network operator for Orange and T-mobile – can legally have the mast in place for six months without consent.
The company wants it in place for longer and is seeking planning permission from Derby City Council to have it on the verge for three years.
The mast is a replacement for an existing one that is on top of a block of flats in Durley Close. It has to be taken down so the block can be demolished and make way for new low-cost housing.
With no building for the new mast to be placed on, a 20-metre structure has been built to ensure a strong signal is achieved by the antennas.
There was strong opposition from residents when the mast application went in and 140 of them signed a petition opposing the plans. They feared the mast would be an "eyesore" and potentially pose a threat to their health.
Bungalow owner Rob Barker, of Elvaston Lane, will be among those speaking out against the application when councillors determine the mast's long-term fate on Thursday.
He said he was furious the mast was already in place.
"I've always felt that once it's up, it will stay up," he said. "It's higher than the church and detracts from the surrounding area. It's a giant, galvanised piece of metal in the sky.
"They say there's no proof that these masts are harmful to people's health but there also isn't any proof that they don't.
"There's lots of other sites, away from people's houses, where it could have gone."
Fellow bungalow owner Sylvia Walley, 87, said: "When the new homes are built, who is going to want to live in them with this mast right outside?"
Church Street resident David Gale also gave his assessment of the new mast.
He said: "The visual impact of the mast is hideous. It is less than 25 metres from people's lounge windows.
"It is utterly reprehensible that the viable alternatives referred to in the petition signed by 140 residents have not been addressed."
The city council's director of housing, Brian Frisby, said Everything Everywhere was permitted to install the mast, without consent, for six months because of "development rights".
None of the Alvaston councillors has opposed the mast.
Councillor Linda Winter said: "Whilst all the ward councillors understand the concerns of the residents, moving the mast a short distance from its current location on the top of Yarmouth House to the verge seems a small price to pay to get rid of eyesore flats and build much-needed homes."
Everything Everywhere did not comment.

UNPOPULAR plans for a phone mast near to homes and four Solihull schools have resurfaced.

UNPOPULAR plans for a phone mast near to homes and four Solihull schools have resurfaced.

Telefonica previously had planning permission refused for a 15metre high telecommunications pole at the junction of Blossomfield Road and Dingle Lane.
However, new plans for the mobile phone radio mast have now been submitted to planning chiefs, causing outcry from neighbours - with fears over the impact it could have on their health.
Coun Andrew Hodgson (Lib Dem, Shirley South) spoke against the plans when they last went before the council and pledged to support residents’ fight once again.
“Telefonica are being forced to move their existing mast from Solihull College complex by the college and they claim to have done a survey and found Blossomfield to be the best site,” he said.
“I suggested an alternative site away from schools and homes on edge of Tudor Grange Park which is closer to their former mast than where they’re proposing but they’ve discounted it saying it’s not in the right area.
“I think they’re choosing this site because it better addresses a gap in service provision between Solihull town centre and Stratford Road.”
“We’ve got strong arguments against it.”
Fellow ward councillor Peter Doyle (Con) said at least 50 residents had already spoken out again the plans.
“All the Shirley councillors are against it, we have to stick up for residents, that’s our job.
“It’s been turned down before so I see no reason why it should go through this time.”
Trevor Eames, of the Solihull Ratepayers’ added: “We were very disappointed at the resubmission given the considerable objections and will be examining the application in detail before making formal objections.”
The application is thought to be going before councillors at the end of the month.

Friday, March 09, 2012

EMR Testimonials Before the Canadian Parliament in Ottawa (Dr. Dimitris Panagopoulos)

EMR Testimonials Before the Canadian Parliament in Ottawa (Dr. Dimitris Panagopoulos)

Dr. Dimitris Panagopoulos:

Hello. Thanks for inviting me. I shall try to describe, within a few lines, 10 basic conclusions from our experimental and theoretical work at the University of Athens over the last 11 years on the biological effects of mobile telephone radiation.

Conclusion number one is that GSM radiation between 900 and 1,800 megahertz, from mobile phone handsets, is found to reduce insect reproduction by up to 60%. The insects were exposed for six minutes daily during the first five days of their adult lives. Both males and females were found to be affected.

Second, the reduction of insect reproductive capacity was found to be due to cell death induction in reproductive cells. In the papers distributed to the committee members, we can see pictures of eggs from insects. In the first picture, we see eggs from a non-exposed insect. In the second picture, we see eggs from an insect exposed to radiation from a mobile phone handset. We can see the characteristic fluorescence denoting DNA fragmentation and cell death. You have more pictures like this.

Third, the effect of short-term exposure is evident at radiation intensities down to one microwatt per square centimetre. This radiation intensity is found at a distance of about one metre from a cell phone or 100 metres from a corresponding base station antenna. This radiation intensity is 450 times and 900 times lower than the limits set by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, ICNIRP, at 900 and 1,800 megahertz, respectively.

It is possible that for long-term exposure durations of weeks or months or years, the effect would be evident at even longer distances or at even lower intensities. For this, a safety factor should be introduced in the above value, of one microwatt per square centimetre. By introducing a safety factor of 10, the above value becomes 0.1 microwatts per square centimetre, which is the limit proposed by the BioInitiative Report.

Fourth, the effect is strongest for intensities higher than 200 microwatts per square centimetre; this is when we have a cell phone very close to our heads. Within that so-called window, around the intensity value of 10 microwatts per square centimetre, the effect becomes even stronger. This intensity value of 10 microwatts per square centimetre corresponds to a distance of about 20 to 30 centimetres from a mobile phone handset or 20 to 30 metres from a base station antenna.

Fifth, the effect increases with increasing daily duration of exposure in terms of short-term exposures of one minute to 21 minutes daily.

Sixth, the effect is non-thermal. There are no temperature increases during the exposures.

Seventh, the effect at the cellular level is most likely due to the irregular gating of ion channels on cell membranes, which is caused by the electromagnetic fields. This leads to disruption of the cell's electrochemical balance and function. This mechanism is a non-thermal one.

Eighth, although we cannot simply extrapolate the above results from insects to humans, similar effects on humans cannot be excluded. On the contrary, they are possible, first because insects are, in general, much more resistant to radiation than mammals, and second, because the presented findings are in agreement with the results of other experimenters who are reporting DNA damage in mammalian cells or mammalian and human infertility. There are many references for these findings in papers also distributed to the committee.+ -(0930)

Ninth, reported observations during the last years regarding the diminishing of insect populations, especially bees, can be explained by a decrease in their reproductive capacity, as I described.

Our tenth and last conclusion is that symptoms referred to as "microwave syndrome", like headaches, sleep disturbances, fatigue, etc., among people residing around base station antennas, can possibly be explained by cellular stress induction on brain cells or even cell death induction on a number of brain cells.