Saturday, May 24, 2014

C4ST Response to Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 Myth Buster

C4ST Response to Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 Myth Buster


On Feb 20th, 2014 Health Canada quietly released a document entitled “Busting Myths on Safety Code 6”. This attempt to instill public confidence in safety exposure levels to wireless radiation is using false and unsubstantiated claims. This was again repeated on the newly released 60 day public consultation web page posted May 16th, 2014.
Gone are the days where the public will accept you are safe just because Health Canada says you are....Canadians and scientists want and deserve proof with an open and transparent review inclusive of the current evidence showing biological harm from wireless radiation.
C4ST and experts from around the world have come together to provide the real facts around the specific points Health Canada addresses in their Myth Buster document. Here it is:
Health CanadaEven a small child, following continuous exposure from multiple sources of RF energy, would not experience adverse health effects provided that the exposure limits set in Safety Code 6 are respected.
The TruthC4ST has found NO studies on children showing that radiofrequency/microwave radiation is safe and NO studies that prove continuous exposure is safe.

Children are not little adults, their skulls are thinner and the tissues of a child’s head, including the bone marrow and the eye, absorb significantly more energy than those in an adult head. A peer reviewed study by Gandhi et. al published in 2012, showed that radiation from a cell phone penetrated 10% of an adult head; 70% of the skull of a five year old.

Read More
Health CanadaA number of people have described an assortment of health symptoms that they attribute to exposure to electromagnetic fields. While the symptoms attributed to electro hypersensitivity conditions are real, scientific evidence has failed to demonstrate that they are caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields.
The TruthThere is scientific evidence to demonstrate that electromagnetic fields can cause physical symptoms. These authors conclude that they demonstrated the neurological syndrome "electromagnetic hypersensitivity" in the examined subject.

This scientific panel of International experts published a paper that recognizes that the body of evidence on EMF requires a new approach to protection of public health.

Canada: The Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) recognizes environmental sensitivities as a disability. CHRA’s medical perspective on environmental sensitivities states that “approximately 3% of Canadians have been diagnosed with environmental sensitivities and many more are somewhat sensitive to traces of chemicals and/or electromagnetic phenomena in the environment.”

Read More
Health CanadaThere is no evidence that children and teenagers are at increased risk when Safety Code 6 exposure limits are respected.
The TruthThere is very concerning evidence that children and teenagers are at an increased risk at exposure levels well below Safety Code 6. Manufacturers put warnings, some especially for children, in their manual that comes with their devices.
Cell phone manufacturers' cautionary statements:
Every major manufacturer of cell phones in the world issues warnings to keep their devices away from direct contact with the body.
Blackberry:Warns people to keep their phones an inch away from any part of your body when on “including the abdomen of pregnant women and the lower abdomen of teenagers.”
Apple:"…keep iPhone at least 15 mm (5/8th inch) away from the body, and only use carrying cases, belt clips or holsters that do not have metal parts and that maintain at least 15 mm (5/8th inch) separation between iPhone and the body."
Schools:The letter from the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) to the director of the Peel District school board (Ontario) strongly advised the Board to turn off the Wi-Fi and hardwire computers to avoid “a widespread public health hazard that the medical system is not yet prepared to address.”

Read More
Health CanadaCanada's limits are consistent with the science-based standards used in other parts of the world, including the United States, the European Union, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.
The Truth40% of the world’s population lives in countries with codes safer than Canada.

China, Russia, Italy and Switzerland have wireless radiation safety limits 100 times safer than Canada.

Read More
Health CanadaWhen developing the exposure limits in Safety Code 6, Health Canada scientists consider all peer-reviewed scientific studies and employ a weight-of-evidence approach.
The TruthHealth Canada ignores hundreds of studies showing adverse effects and has not divulged how the evaluation was conducted.

Health Canada never published its criteria, methodology or followed the international best practices associated with a proper evaluation of the scientific evidence for Safety Code 6.

As stated in an article by Dr. Anthony Miller, Professor Emeritus at the University of Toronto: “Still more problematic, was the panel's narrow scope which focused on established medical risks from radiofrequency waves rather than emerging research.”

Read More
Health CanadaHealth Canada scientists consider all peer-reviewed scientific studies and consider many different potential health effects including thermal, non-thermal and biological effects.
The TruthC4ST has identified over 300 peer-reviewed, studies published since 2009 that have not been considered by Health Canada’s recent analysis of Safety Code 6 that show harm from wireless radiation at levels significantly below Safety Code 6.

In a National Post article, April 15, 2014, Dr. Martin Blank, special lecturer in physiology and cellular biophysics at Columbia University, stated “If you’re making a scientific decision, a scientific decision must bring in all relevant data. They did not. They ignored the data. They deliberately put it off the table.” Dr. Blank is referring to the recent Royal Society panel hired by Health Canada that followed Health Canada’s guidelines on evaluating the scientific evidence. Dr. Blank also stated “The panel has not considered important developments in cell biology.”

Read More
Health CanadaCanadians are protected from the cumulative effects of RF energy when Safety Code 6 is respected.
The TruthSafety Code 6 does not take into account the total exposure from all sources of RF energy.

There is no government agency, federal, provincial or municipal that currently has the mandate, ability or resources to measure the cumulative effects of wireless radiation from multiple sources: at home, work or school with Wi-Fi, cell phones, portable phones, near a cell tower, nor with smart meters on the exterior building.

Read More
Health CanadaCanadians are protected from continuous exposure to multiple sources of RF energy when Safety Code 6 is respected.
The TruthSafety code 6 was first published in 1979. It has not had any major changes since then.

In 1979 there were no cell phones (no cell towers), WIFI was in a handful of places at work, smart meters did not exist and portable phones were a rare luxury.

Read More
Health CanadaThe International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) did not find a direct link between RF energy exposure and cancer.
The TruthThe classification to 2B, possible carcinogen is meant to prompt health agencies around the world to start to take precautionary steps to protect our health. Since the 2011 designation, peer-reviewed papers have been written to move wireless to the next harmful level, 2A, probably carcinogenic. Health Canada is failing Canadians by not taking any action to raise awareness or strengthen guidelines to reduce exposure to this possible carcinogen.

Read More
Health CanadaThe exposure limits recommended in Safety Code 6 protect the health of Canadians.
The TruthOver 100 Canadians and international scientists requested to and were not able to present at the public consultation on Oct. 28, 2013.

C4ST is encouraged by Health Canada’s commitment to consult further before finalizing Safety Code 6. We hope that this process will be open and transparent and follow international best practices of evaluating the scientific evidence.

Read More

Thursday, May 22, 2014

Readin’, Ritin’, Radiation

Readin’, Ritin’, Radiation

WiFi in school classrooms is the wave of the future, but critics warn that daylong exposure may not be the healthiest choice for our children

Last Dec. 10, the Troy City School District Board of Education approved an $8.4 million technology initiative that includes installing wireless Internet in 250 classrooms. The move echoed a $10 million initiative at Shenendehowa School District in 2012. With the new Common Core State Standards Initiative being implemented in at least 35 states (including New York) this year, it could be inevitable that all schools, including those here in the Capital Region, will eventually implement Wi-Fi.
An excerpt from a story on Common Core technology standards by Andrew Hermeling reads, “To meet these minimum requirements [of Common Core], district leaders are going to have to assess their bandwidth capabilities, their operating systems, the speed and number of machines required for testing, the quality and coverage of their wireless network, and both student and faculty familiarity with software and the digital testing environment.”
And it does seem like New York state is moving forward with the Wi-Fi in public schools. Here is an excerpt from a Power Point presentation at the April 8 Stillwater Board of Education meeting regarding Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s Smart Schools bond referendum.
“The state will hold a public vote in November for permission to borrow $2 billion for school technology infrastructure, broadband or wireless connectivity, pre-kindergarten instructional space, and/or replacement of classroom trailers. Stillwater would receive approximately $856,000 from the bond. To receive these funds, the district would have to develop a detailed improvement plan and then put the proposal up for a local vote.”
Stillwater School District, which has been using Wi-Fi for years now, is getting new I-pads and/or Chromebooks (which require Wi-Fi for any online use). In March, Stillwater technology director Christopher Lynch spoke with The Express Newspaper of Mechanicville about the benefits of the technology in the classroom.
“Being able to capture text, music and pictures, the student becomes an authentic published visionary and creator of work. Moving stories inspire a deeper thought, and commitment to the work at hand. For example one minute of published movie a student may have over ten hours or more invested in research, creative thought, planning, and design. For many students this time invested is completely internally motivated.”
For the Stillwater board, Lynch demonstrated “augmented reality” by moving an I-pad screen around like a “virtual window” to examine a 3D model of the Mars rover Curiosity from different angles. It was a unique demonstration that must be seen to be appreciated, and it clearly requires Wi-Fi to work efficiently.
The push to embrace technology and implement Wi-Fi throughout our schools has gained such momentum that districts resisting the rush, such as the Waterford-Halfmoon Union Free School District, are barely noticed.
And that, according UAlbany Professor David Carpenter, director of the university’s Institute for Health and the Environment, is cause for concern.
“I’ve been sort of a spokesperson for this issue [of Wi-Fi health implications],” Carpenter says. “I can’t seem to escape it. I testified to the President’s [Obama’s] cancer panel three years ago, and I testified to the House of Representatives.” The professor also is outspoken on the subjects of fracking, electromagnetic fields from appliances and waste sites, wind turbines, and other environmental health topics.
He’s been studying radiation effects on children since the 1980s. “We confirmed the previous observations that children who live in homes that are very close to power lines are more likely to have leukemia,” he says. “There are now appearing studies of leukemia around cell phone towers and around radio transmission towers.”
Carpenter thinks that cell phone and Wi-Fi radiation are similar. “The exposure that you get from using Wi-Fi is exactly the same. I have Wi-Fi in my home; it’s not like I am vehemently opposed to Wi-Fi in all circumstances. But the issue with schools is that in an electronic computer room in a school where every kid has a wireless laptop, you are going to have a hotbed of radio frequency radiation. Every child in that room is going to get radio frequency radiation that at some level probably will be approaching that which they would get if they were on a cell phone.”
He does not think that tablets or Chromebooks are a good idea for Stillwater’s classrooms. “If they are going to be spending this kind of money on tablets, and five years from now it becomes very clear that there is a danger to the health of people using tablets instead of wired laptops, then they are going to have to spend all that money all over again.”
Carpenter believes that school administrators are in the dark on this topic. “They want to be contemporary with technology, and I don’t disagree with that at all,” he says. “I think it’s just not responsible for school administrators to implement a program that may put students at risk both of developing diseases like cancer and impairing their ability to learn, when there are alternatives [namely wired Internet] that don’t do that.”
Ray Pealer, a community health advocate living in Vermont who runs, notes that while Wi-Fi advocates reference that school Wi-Fi routers function within FCC (Federal Communications Commission) safety standards, he thinks that those standards are inadequate. “They do not recognize any biological effects other than heat, despite thousands of peer-reviewed studies showing a myriad of other effects,” he says.
Former U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) has criticized the FCC on what he sees as a revolving door between the industry and regulators. For example, the current FCC head, Tom Wheeler, is a former cell-phone industry lobbyist.
In 2012, Kucinich endorsed a bill requiring cell phones to have warnings similar to those on cigarette packs. “It’s not going to be easy to make the legislative process work in this case because of the enormous financial resources the industry has at its disposal,” he said in September 2012.
Radiation studies go back to at least 1932, when “microwave or radio sickness” was reported by the British NAVY as fatigue, insomnia, headaches, high susceptibility to infection and general anxiety. Carpenter adds that these concerns are amplified for kids. “There are reports of reduced ability for kids to learn, there appear to be some people that are particularly sensitive to radiation and respond by having headaches, fatigue, ringing in their ears.”
The World Health Organization has been studying the radiation effects on children since 2009; however it has no official recommended safety level for any age group. Pealer adds, “There is evidence, it’s growing that if you are younger then the risk is even greater than if you are older. That is a concern because these days every kid has a cell phone.”
Pealer references a Yale School of Medicine study indicating that wireless exposure causes ADD (attention deficit disorder) in mice. According to YaleNews, “Their conclusion was that exposure to radiation from cell phones during pregnancy effects the brain development of offspring, potentially leading to hyperactivity.” Another 2008 study at the University of California-Los Angeles, titled “Prenatal and Postnatal Exposure,” linked cell phone exposure with hyperactivity.
Not every study draws the conclusion that wireless is potentially dangerous to humans, including a recently released study in New Zealand indicating that Wi-Fi exposure to children is relatively harmless.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization officially classifies Wi-Fi radiation as a “possible carcinogen.” Carpenter explains that means Wi-Fi gets a three on a one-to-five scale. “Known is the strongest, then probable, then possible, then not, and finally unclassifiable.” Other IARC possible carcinogens include asbestos, lead, paint, and DDT.
“It means that the evidence is suggestive but not absolutely definitive,” says Carpenter. “There is evidence that people exposed to high radio frequency fields are more likely to develop cancer. But they can’t quite say that the cancer was caused by those fields because that evidence is still being looked at. And that evidence is primarily from studying cell phones.”
The professor further compares cell phone studies to Wi-Fi. “The difference is that most people don’t stay on a cell phone more than 10 minutes, maybe. Sitting in a classroom, you can be there all day. What we are concerned about is both the intensity and the duration.” He notes that school Wi-Fi routers are advertised as “industrial strength,” stronger than home routers because they service more computers.
A report in 1971 by the U.S. Naval Medical Research Institute, obtained through the Freedom of Information Law, suggests that the wireless industry may be withholding information about potential danger. An excerpt reads, “If the more advanced nations of the West are strict in enforcement of stringent exposure standards, there could be unfavorable effects an industrial output and military functions.” The NMRI documented more than 2,300 research articles citing more than 120 illnesses associated with non-ionizing (non-heating) microwave radiation.
Carpenter says that the most practical solution is to use cables. “No one is going to deny that kids should be using technology and the Internet. A wired computer lab gives you no exposure whatsoever to radio frequency radiation. From my judgment, there is just no reason to go to a wireless school computer lab.”
Pealer says that we can use hands-free devices for our cell phones, and use line phones instead of DECT (digital enhanced cordless telecommunications) cordless phones, which emit radiation even when not in use. He also recommends that people who are regularly exposed to these technologies take supplements such as vitamin C, ginseng and antioxidants to counter radiation effects.
More government regulation might be a hard sell in the United States, but some European nations have taken steps to ban or limit cell phone use among children, and the Council of Europe has recommended that Wi-Fi be banned from all schools in Europe. San Francisco is considering putting warning labels (like those proposed by Kucinich) on cell phones.
Carpenter warns against becoming too paranoid. “I think that one has to have some perspective, as one cannot avoid all the different things that could be dangerous. If you can do things that decrease your exposure that are not expensive, that are not terribly difficult, even if the evidence for how dangerous it is still somewhat debatable. It’s still stupid not to do that.”
Pealer counters that some of us aren’t paranoid enough. “A lot of people, when they hear the term ‘research,’ they disqualify themselves. Also because wireless technology is so popular, people are so addicted to it, that they don’t really want to look at the issue.”
“My public responsibility is to protect people from getting sick even if we don’t have all of the answers of what the mechanism is,” concludes Carpenter, “In this situation, I think it is extremely unsafe to go to Wi-Fi in schools. Of all places, schools should be the last.”

Resistance to Smart Meters continues

Resistance to Smart Meters continues

Tens of thousands of British Columbians continue to hold out against the imposition by BC Hydro of so-called smart meters at their homes and businesses.

“In my Comox Valley community the exact number of holdouts is known only to the utility itself”, says Kel Kelly, a Merville resident and smart meter opponent, but he suspects the number is in the hundreds. The number on Vancouver Island and the surrounding islands is likely in the thousands.

Kelly is spearheading a campaign to bring all of those people together to identify themselves to each other and to build their legal strength in numbers.

“Right now, Hydro knows exactly who has a smart meter and who doesn’t”, he says. “That leaves the ordinary citizen in a position of not knowing just how big the movement against smart meters is. We need to change that.”

“Hydro is using all manner of intimidation to force people to accept this technology even though there is very valid concern that it is not safe”, he says. “Many people are worried that a personal health threat is being forced into their lives.”

“Then there are those of us who are simply fed up with being bullied by government and its agencies”, he says. “Hydro instituted its smart meter program with absolutely no consultation with the citizens it is supposed to be serving”, he says. “Many of us are fighting this program because it is undemocratic and likely illegal. When citizens roll over and allow governments and their agents to push their way into our private lives, those forces will come as far as we allow them.”

A great number of smart meter resisters are challenging Hydro’s legal right to trespass on their private property to change the meters. Most of those people’s meters have been left alone, though Hydro is now billing them a “legacy meter fee” of $32.50 per month.

“Most people are not paying this fee, as they believe it to be an illegal charge”, says Kelly, “but ultimately this will have to be tested in court. That’s where a united coalition of smart meter resisters comes in. None of us can win this fight alone, politically or financially. We need to get organized. ”

There will be a meeting of anyone interested in learning more about this campaign at 2727 Merville Road (near the Merville Store) on Thursday, May 29 beginning at 7 p.m. sharp. All are welcome.

For more information contact: Kel Kelly at 250 337 8348 or

Virtual Academy Cell Phone Tower Radiation Hazards and Solutions; Girish Kumar; II

Virtual Academy Cell Phone Tower Radiation Hazards and Solutions; Girish Kumar; II

CSIRO scientist Dr. David McDonald speaks about his electrosensitivity

CSIRO scientist Dr. David McDonald speaks about his electrosensitivity

On 28 February 2013, a decision in the Australian Federal Court’s Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAAT)]awarded compensation to CSIRO research scientist Dr. David McDonald for his ill health (headaches, nausea and dizziness) as a result of exposure to Wi-Fi and computer work in his office. A news article about this case was published in September 29, 2013 (Link Here)
Now Dr. McDonald has spoken out about his experience with electrosensitivity in a Youtube video. The link is here:

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

World's biggest study into how mobiles affect young brains: £1m investigation will examine if memory and attention are affected by radiation from devices

World's biggest study into how mobiles affect young brains: £1m investigation will examine if memory and attention are affected by radiation from devices 

  • £1m investigation will involve 2,500 children aged 11 and 12
  • Will examine memory, attention and other thinking skills are affected
  • Findings will be used to update current guidelines on usage
  • Estimated 70 per cent of children aged 11 and 12 in UK now own a mobile

A £1million investigation in to the affects of mobile phone on the attention span and memory of young people has been launched by scientists (library image)
A £1million investigation in to the affects of mobile phone on the attention span and memory of young people has been launched by scientists (library image)
The world’s largest ever study into whether mobile phones are interfering with children’s brains has been launched by British scientists.

The £1million investigation will examine whether memory, attention and other thinking skills are affected by radiation from the devices.

The findings of the study, which will involve 2,500 children aged 11 and 12, will help update advice to parents about safe levels of use. Current guidelines are a decade old.
An estimated 70 per cent of 11- to 12-year-olds in the UK now own a mobile phone. By age 14, the figure is 90 per cent.

There is no conclusive evidence that mobile phones damage adult health.

But a study earlier this month suggested those who talk on their mobile for more than 15 hours a month – or half an hour a day – are three times more likely to develop brain cancer.

It is thought children may be more vulnerable to any damage due to their developing nervous systems and thinner skulls, which may absorb higher levels of energy.
Paul Elliott, a professor in environment and health at Imperial College London, is helping lead the study.

He said the front and temporal lobes of the brain were close to where a mobile phone was used. He added: ‘When children get to secondary school their brains are still developing, particularly the frontal lobe which deals with reasoning and working memory and the temporal lobe which deals with speech.’

The research team says   exposure to radio waves is lower with later phones and varies between models.
    Professor Elliott said: ‘Evidence available to date is reassuring and shows no association between exposure to radio frequency waves from mobile phone use and brain cancer in adults in the short term.

    ‘But the evidence available regarding long-term heavy use and children’s use is limited and less clear. This is new technology and it is widespread –  it is responsible to investigate whether it is having an effect.’

    An estimated 70 per cent of 11- to 12-year-olds in the UK now own a mobile phone. By age 14, the figure is 90 per cent, data suggests (library image)
    An estimated 70 per cent of 11- to 12-year-olds in the UK now own a mobile phone. By age 14, the figure is 90 per cent, data suggests (library image)

    More than 160 secondary schools in the outer London area will today receive invitations to enroll pupils aged 11 and 12 into the study.

    Parents will be asked to give permission for their children to take part in online assessments of their cognitive skills, and provide information jointly about their lifestyle and level of mobile use, including data from mobile phone firms.

    Some children will wear monitors to check their level of exposure to radio waves.
    At the end of the three-year study, children will undergo another battery of tests.

    'This will be the largest study in the world to date'
    Dr Mireille Toledano
    The study will not contain a group of children for comparison who do not use mobile phones, partly because it would be impossible to recruit a specific set of non-users. However, some children within the study may not have a phone.

    Researchers will attempt to attribute any significant changes to mobile phone use or other influences. The findings of the study, commissioned by the Department of Health, are expected in 2018. The cost of Scamp – the Study of Cognition, Adolescents and Mobile Phones – will be split between mobile phone firms and health agencies.

    Guidelines dating back to 2000 – and barely changed in 2005 – say children under 16 should be encouraged to use mobiles for essential calls only.

    Where possible children should use a hands-free kit or stick to text messages. When they have to make calls, they are advised to keep them short.

    Scamp’s principal investigator Dr Mireille Toledano, of Imperial College, said: ‘This will be the largest study in the world to date. We will be able to look at “brain training” from frequent use of mobile phones and any health effects such as headaches and sleep disturbances from using mobile phones late at night.’

    Frontiers in Radiation and Health: The Grand Challenge

    Frontiers in Radiation and Health: The Grand Challenge

    The ‘Radiation and Health‘, a specialty of the ‘Frontiers in Public Health‘ published its first article:
    In Frontiers’ journals, publication of the Grand Challenge article is a sign that the specialty is formally open for the submission of manuscripts.
    The Editorial board of the ‘Radiation and Health’ currently consists of 15 scientists:
    Chief Editor
    Associate Editors

    UK industry group looks the other way on EMR and mobile phone safety

    UK industry group looks the other way on EMR and mobile phone safety

    As more evidence emerges of a link between mobile phone use and glioma brain tumours, a group representing the UK engineering and technology profession has issued a report entirely at odds with the new evidence. The report takes the usual industry line that harm from mobile phones is limited to heating effects, and concludes that low-frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are perfectly safe.

    Link between heavy mobile phone use and brain tumours

    The results of CERENAT, a French case-control study on mobile phone usage, were recently published online in Occupational and Environmental Medicine. The study gathered data from 253 patients with gliomas and 194 with meningiomas, matched with 892 control subjects, using a detailed questionnaire. The authors reported “a possible association between heavy mobile phone use and brain tumours”, echoing previous warnings. The authors concluded that glioma risk was greater for the heaviest users “when considering life-long cumulative duration and number of calls.  Risks were higher for gliomas, temporal tumours, occupational and urban mobile phone use”. The latter finding is particularly interesting, since it may point to an interactive or additive effect between widespread ‘electrosmog’ or other city-specific factors — perhaps even psychosocial stress — and mobile phone use.

    ‘Independent’ industry group: low-level EMF exposure not harmful

    Meanwhile, the UK Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) – “the largest multidisciplinary professional engineering institution in the world” according to Wikipedia – has published the latest findings of its Biological Effects Policy Advisory Group (BEPAG).  BEPAG concludes: “The balance of scientific evidence to date does not indicate that harmful effects occur in humans due to low-level exposure to EMFs”.
    BEPAG’s dismissal of concerns appears flippant and unconvincing when one considers the wealth of evidence for harm detailed in the comprehensive BioInitiative 2012 report, authored by 29 independent scientists with specialisms in the field.  BioInitiative 2012informs us that effects of low-level EMF exposure specifically on cell DNA were recorded in no less than 27 studies, e.g. Ahuja et al, 1999.  Even a mobile telephone company patent application from 2003 acknowledged the cancer risk from wi-fi communications.

    Mobile phones: no persuasive evidence, says ‘independent’ industry report

    On mobile phones, which have now been around for about 20 years, BEPAG concludes:  “The existing data do not provide persuasive evidence that harmful health effects exist”.  But studies such as CERENAT and those of Dr Lennart Hardell, highlighted by BioInitiative, suggest otherwise.  BEPAG even dismisses concerns about health effects in children, which are being taken very seriously elsewhere.  The whimsically named SCAMP – Study of Cognition, Adolescents and Mobile Phones – study, funded by government and industry and run by Imperial College London, will investigate the effects of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) on the mental development of 2,500 children. It’s worth noting that funding for such studies does not materialise when there is scientific certainty of zero risk as proposed by BEPAG and others.

    Mobile phone harm not limited to heating effects

    BEPAG adopts the flawed premise that the only way that radiofrequency (RF)-EMR exposure can damage health is through a heating effect on tissues – the official line of the UK Health Protection Agency (HPA) and the Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation (AGNIR).
    However, the conclusions of the BioInitiative 2012 report include: “It appears it is the information conveyed by electromagnetic radiation (rather than heat) that causes biological changes – some of these biological changes may lead to loss of wellbeing, disease and even death”.  What’s more, “There may be no lower limit at which exposures do not affect is unwise from a public health perspective to continue “business-as-usual” deploying new technologies that increase ELF and RF exposures”.
    BEPAG expresses concern about the “scientific robustness” of research suggesting health issues associated with EMR, particularly a lack of “independent replication” of initial studies, and bemoans the prominence of such reports in the media. We think it’s no surprise that experimental replication may be slow in emerging, given the lack of research funding in the area. But BEPAG’s apparent distress also rings hollow when one considers its own ‘examination’ of the scientific literature is entirely unreferenced. Even a brief position paper such as this should find space to show us how it reached its conclusions.
    If not a whitewash, then BEPAG’s report is at least a considered ‘toeing of the line’ that bolsters the position of the UK government and scientific establishment. Until such time as industry and government alike take on board a full and comprehensive analysis of the available evidence, it is up to us to take the steps necessary to avoid harm from our gadgets and mobile phones.

    Apple iPhone take on EMFs

    If you’ve got an iPhone, have you ever read the Legal notice that’s tucked away in the Settings? Got to Settings > General > About > Legal > RF Exposure.
    Following is an excerpt: “To reduce exposure to RF [radio frequency] energy, use a hands-free option, such as the built-in speakerphone, the supplied headphones, or other similar accessories. Carry iPhone at least 10 mm away from your body to ensure exposure levels remain at or below as-tested levels.”
    And how many people really know not to put their phone to their head or not to carry it in their pocket?
    With such advice buried so deep in the iPhone’s menu system, it sounds to us like the manufacturers well understand their need to protect themselves from future litigation by brain cancer victims.

    How to protect yourself

    • Turn off mobile phone devices when not in use, or switch to 'Airplane Mode', switch off Wi-Fi connectivity (for both open networks and your provider network if you can independently control them), 3G, 4G and Bluetooth when not in use  
    • Turn off wireless connectivity to your personal computers, laptops, tablets, media players, when not using the Internet and especially overnight. Use hardwired Internet connections where possible. If you use a wireless Internet router, then speak to your service provider about how best to turn it off when not in use, since simply switching it off can sometimes reduce the efficiency of your Broadband connection. Be aware of other closed and open networks in the vicinity, and give yourself time away from these where possible 
    • Be aware that when the signal is poor your phone will 'hunt' more intensively for a signal. Avoid using mobile phone devices when signal is poor, when travelling at high speed, or when surrounded by metal, such as in aircraft, lifts, trains and other vehicles. Even when Wi-Fi is provided, and being used, the phone will still be searching for a signal
    • Avoid holding the phone in contact with your ear or body at any time. Use the speakerphone, an 'airtube' or use sufficient volume or speakerphone so you can hear the phone when it is at least 10 mm away from your ear. 
    • Avoid carrying your mobile phone in your pocket, on your belt or close to your body. Keeping the phone more than 10-30 mm away from your body greatly reduces the amount of RF radiation to which you are exposed.
    • Reduce the time you spend in places where many people are using mobile phones in close proximity to one another  
    • Use a wired land line phone where possible, and avoid talking on your mobile phone for longer than absolutely necessary. Use speaker phone or text if possible
    • Be particularly careful about your RG exposure if you feel you are hypersensitive to RF radiation, are planning for a baby, or if pregnant 
    • Avoid using wired headsets, which act as antennas. Use an airtube headset, with or without ferrite beads, which may offer additional protection
    • Avoid use of cordless phones and Smart meters, where possible
    • When buying a mobile phone, first check the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR). The lower, the better
    • Be especially aware of and reduce children’s exposure. Discourage use of mobile phones, tablets and wireless technology as much as possible, particularly whilst they are very young. Use hardwired networks where possible. If possible, turn wi-fi off on devices being used by kids. Campaign with other parents to use hardwired networks in schools that are still using wireless Internet routers. Help educate children to use the technology safely, and to be EMR savvy, in the same way as you would teach them to cross the road safely  
    • If you suspect you have EMS symptoms, then keep a diary of your EMR exposure and when your symptoms appear, to check for correlation. Show and discuss this with your doctor or healthcare provider
    • Express any concerns you have about EMR and EMS to your elected representatives, and ask them what is being done to make the technology safer
    • For further information and suggestions, please visit our Electro-Magnetic Radiation campaign page 
    Updated: 21 May 2014