Skin Cancer FM
In the 1950s many countries began to see a dramatic increase in the skin cancer melanoma. Professors Örgan Hallberg and Olle Johansson,* noted that the sharp upsurge of skin cancer had begun in 1955, around six years before flying off for a holiday in the sun became popular, and looked for other possible causes. Previous research suggested a link between the risk of developing melanoma and the distance people lived from FM radio transmitters, so they decided to research the link in more depth. [1]
Analysing data from Sweden, Norway, Denmark and the US, they found roughly similar experiences in all four countries:
- The rolling out of FM transmitter towers led to the same increase in melanoma skin cancer after the same delay
- The more FM transmitter towers in a country, the higher the levels of melanoma skin cancer
This finding was echoed in Australia, where a significant increase in melanoma skin cancer deaths between 1964 and 1967 corresponded with the introduction of high power TV antenna masts.
Örgan and Olle’s 2004 and 2005 studies confirmed these findings. [2,3] Focusing this time on melanoma skin cancer and what happened in the separate counties within Sweden, they discovered the same strong links. They also concluded that:
- there was a stronger link between developing melanoma and exposure to electromagnetic waves from FM transmitter towers than with exposure to ultraviolet radiation
- continuous disturbance of cell repair mechanisms by electromagnetic fields seemed to amplify the carcinogenic cell damage caused by other factors like ultraviolet radiation
Örgan and Olle also looked at the data for all cancer deaths in Sweden since 1912. This showed that:
- rates started to increase in 1920 when medium wave radio was introduced
- the rate of increase jumped significantly in 1955 when Sweden got FM radio and TV1
- the rate jumped again in 1969-70 when TV2 and colour TV were brought in
- the rate dropped sharply in 1978 when the use of the old AM broadcasting transmitter towers declined and
- the rate started to increase again about 4-5 years later
They also noted a strong geographical relationship between transmitter towers and clusters of skin cancer and lung, breast and colon cancer.
Ed.- (i) As further evidence that the human body is affected by radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF), Örgan and Olle cited1 the fascinating work by Augustsson and Stierner. [2,3] They recorded the locations of moles and melanoma on the bodies of hundreds of volunteers, then combined the results in a ‘dot density map’ and discovered that some locations were more popular than others. They then drew on the lines of the tiny electric currents generated in the body by exposure to RF and noted a strong overlap, suggesting a link.
Augustsson and Stierner also noted that the highest mole densities were found in areas that were not normally exposed to sunshine.
A copy of this article may be downloaded free of charge from websitewww.acnem.org/journal/211_april_2002/cancer_trends.htm
* from the Karolinska Institute’s Department of Neuroscience in Stockholm, Sweden
[1] Hallberg,Ö and Johansson,O.
Archives of Environmental Health 2002;57(1):32-40
[2] Hallberg,Ö and Johansson,O.
Medical Science Monitor 2004;10 (7):336-340
[3] Hallberg,Ö and Johansson,O.
Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 2005;24:1-8
Archives of Environmental Health 2002;57(1):32-40
[2] Hallberg,Ö and Johansson,O.
Medical Science Monitor 2004;10 (7):336-340
[3] Hallberg,Ö and Johansson,O.
Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 2005;24:1-8
(11665) Nick Anderson. Green Health Watch
Many of the box-shaped ‘microcell mobile phone base stations’ mounted on walls and lamposts continuously irradiate the public with as high levels of microwaves as the free-standing antennae mounted on church spires and school roofs (macrocell base stations). These ‘microcell’ base stations are typically positioned between three and six metres above the ground and are often disguised, e.g. as burglar alarms.
An NRPB (National Radiation Protection Board*) survey found that many of the microcell masts they tested exposed the public to microwave fields as strong as 5Volts per metre (5V/m). Their report also noted that “around 6% were radiating more than 5 watts”. The mobile network operators have also sometimes installed high-power ‘macrocell’ base stations at microcell sites. Their antennae often face domestic bedrooms and living rooms just across the street, causing the highest microwave irradiation of people: often between three and ten volts per metre.
Because ‘Microcell base stations’ blend in with the street and are less than ten metres above the ground, they do not require any planning permission or council consultation thanks to a ‘de minimus’ loophole in planning law. The term ‘de minimis’ comes from the Latin legal phrase ‘De minimis non curat lex’, which means ‘The law does not care about very small matters’. This shows official contempt for the widespread public concern about the potential adverse health effects. For most of us, being irradiated is not “a very small matter”. The mobile network operators have taken full advantage of the loophole. In one square quarter-of-a-mile in Soho, for instance, there are now 150 mobile phone base stations, 94 of which are less than 10 metres above the ground. The antennae often face bedrooms and living rooms just across the street continually irradiating people with far higher levels of microwaves than needed for the operation of a mobile phone network.
Although the UK Government has agreed to a precautionary approach in this matter but the maximum safe exposure levels they permit are nearly a hundred times higher than the 0.6 V/m precautionary principle ceiling recommended by Austria’s 1998 Salzburg Resolution nearly fifty and the 1.2 - 2.5V/m limits adopted in Paris. ‘Volts per metre’ is not a unit with which most people are familiar. If the Salzburg precautionary ceiling of 0.6V/m is seen in terms of risk as the ‘equivalent to’ a 30mph vehicle speed limit in residential areas, the Government 58V/m limit is obviously not at all precautionary - the equivalent to doing 2847 miles per hour in a residential area. Reckless might be a better description. Exposures from microcell base stations recorded in the survey show that many city dwellers are being continually exposed to risks equivalent of cars driving 147 to 500mph in built up areas.
Ed.- (i) Powerwatch has devised an index which gives a quick rule-of-thumb means of assessing base stations to check that the radiation is as low as possible. Visit website: www.powerwatch.org.uk/gen/lpamasts.asp
(ii) The mobile service operators had registered 5,008 such base stations by the end of 2004. There were almost certainly many more unregistered stations at that time ( they did not and still do not require planning permission), and there will certainly be considerably more (registered and unregistered) by now.
* On 1 April 2005 the National Radiological Protection Board merged with the UK’s Health Protection Agency, forming its new Radiation Protection Division. The Division continues to operate from the old NRPB headquarters at Chilton in Oxfordshire. Its contact details are now:
Health Protection Agency, Radiation Protection Division, Chilton, Didcot OX11 0RQ % 01235 831600
(11462) Alasdair Philips. Powerwatch U.K.
In 2000, the Swedish health authorities recognised electromagnetic hypersensitivity (‘electrosensitivity’ or ES for short) as a physical illness, where exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) can severely disrupt health. They estimate that 3% of their population is affected. The UK’s Radiation Protection Division has finally agreed to research the issue.
There is now ample evidence that exposure to EMFs can cause biological changes in the human body. Electrosensitivity expert associate professor Olle Johansson at Stockholm’s Karolinska Institute, for instance, has shown that it increases the number of mast cells near the surface of the skin, the same as occurs after exposure to radioactivity.
Electrosensitive people are likely to be affected by mobile phones and phone masts.
(11572) Nic Fleming. Daily Telegraph
No comments:
Post a Comment