Friday, March 27, 2015

Mobile Phones and Health: Australian Radiation Protection and and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA)

Joel's comments:  A careful review of the research is likely to find that the preponderance of peer-reviewed studies published during the last decade finds harmful bioeffects or health effects associated with exposure to RF radiation, especially research published since the IARC expert RF workgoup was convened in 2011.
What does the phrase, "There is no established scientific evidence ..." mean?  Must we wait 30 years for the conclusion of the industry-funded, long-term (cohort) studies, before we have "established scientific evidence"?  Since when is a two- to three-fold risk of brain cancer, which has been reported in three independent, case-control studies, a "weak association"?  What will it take for Australia and other governments to invoke the Precautionary Principle and adopt prudent measures to protect the population and the environment?
How much does the current stalemate regarding RF radiation parallel tobacco-related research and policy in the 1950's?


Mobile Phones and Health

Australian Radiation Protection and and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), Mar 26, 2015

There is no established scientific evidence that the use of mobile phones causes any health effects. However, some studies have shown a weak association between heavy mobile phone use and brain cancer.

Download Fact Sheet (PDF 434 kb)


Hand held mobile phones have transformed the telecommunications industry. These devices can be used to make telephone calls and connect to the internet from almost anywhere. Mobile phone handsets use low powered radio transmitters that emit radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic energy (EME) in order to communicate with a base station. Concerns have been raised about the level of RF emissions to which the brain is being exposed when using a mobile phone having potential health consequences, particularly brain cancer. 

Does using a mobile phone cause any health effects?

A large number of studies have been performed to investigate whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. It is the assessment of ARPANSA and other national and international health authorities, including the World Health Organization (WHO), that there is no established scientific evidence that the use of mobile phones causes any health effects. However the possibility of harm cannot be completely ruled out.
Although subtle biological effects caused by RF EME emitted from mobile phones have been reported in some scientific studies, there is no established evidence that these effects lead to adverse health outcomes. The epidemiological (population studies) evidence does not give clear or consistent results indicating mobile phone use causes disease in people. Some studies have shown an association between heavy mobile and cordless phone use and brain cancer. Based largely on this limited evidence the International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified RF fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans. More rigorous long-term studies are being coordinated by WHO and Australia is taking part in this research program. 

Are mobile phones regulated in Australia?

All mobile phones marketed in Australia must satisfy the regulatory requirements of the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). The ACMA’s regulatory arrangements require wireless devices like mobile phones to comply with the exposure limits in the ARPANSA RF Standard. The ARPANSA Standard is designed to protect people of all ages and health status against all known adverse health effects from exposure to RF EME. The ARPANSA Standard is based on scientific research that shows the levels at which harmful effects occur and it sets limits, based on international guidelines, well below these harmful levels.
The ARPANSA Standard specifies exposure limits to RF EME for mobile phone handsets in terms of the rate at which a mobile phone user absorbs energy from the handset, the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR). In the ARPANSA Standard the SAR limit for mobile phone handsets is 2 watts per kilogram of tissue. Mobile phone handset manufacturers usually include maximum SAR information in the product manuals, or in a separate brochure in the box, of new mobile phone models released in Australia.

Can I reduce my exposure to RF EME?

Although the currently available scientific research does not indicate that using a mobile phone is associated with harmful health effects there are things one can do to substantially reduce exposure if you are concerned.
The most effective way to reduce exposure is to increase the distance between the mobile phone and the user. This can be achieved by using a hands-free kit or speaker options. Users should pay attention to manufacturers’ advice regarding spacing from the body if phones are to be attached to belts or placed in pockets. Other things that can be done to reduce RF EME exposure from mobile phones include:
  • not using a mobile phone when a normal wired phone is available,
  • sending a text message instead of making a voice call,
  • limiting the duration of the calls, and
  • making calls where reception is good.
Currently there are a number of protective devices available on the market which claim to protect the mobile phone user from RF EME emissions. Scientific evidence does not indicate any need for such devices since their use cannot be justified on health grounds and their effectiveness in reducing exposure in everyday use is unproven.

Can my child use a mobile phone?

Concern has also been expressed with regard to mobile phone use by children. At present, there is insufficient scientific evidence to substantiate the hypothesis that children may be more vulnerable to RF EME emissions from mobile phones than adults. 
It’s recognised that parents provide mobile phones to their children for different reasons, including their child’s personal security as well as the assurance of their child being constantly contactable.
It is recommended that, due to the lack of sufficient data relating to children and their long term use of mobile phones, parents encourage their children to limit their exposure by reducing call time, by making calls where reception is good, by using hands-free devices or speaker options, or by texting. 

What about cordless phones?

Cordless phones range from low powered devices, transmitting signals over relatively short distances, to devices with power outputs similar to mobile phones. Both the handset and docking cradle are radio transmitting devices. Similarly to mobile phones, the weight of evidence doesn’t suggest that the use of cordless phones poses a health hazard although the possibility of harm cannot be ruled out.


There is no established scientific evidence that the use of mobile phones causes any health effects. However the possibility of a small risk cannot be ruled out. For those concerned about health effects, ARPANSA provides advice on how to minimise exposure. Due to the lack of sufficient evidence ARPANSA recommends parents encourage their children to use exposure-reduction measures such as those provided in this fact sheet.
ARPANSA will continue to review the research into potential health effects of RF EME emissions from mobile phones and other devices in order to provide accurate and up-to-date advice. 

Useful Links

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

News Releases:
Twitter:                 @berkeleyprc

The EMF Refugee™ Yahoo Group has been providing support for the increasing number of EMF Refugees around the World for almost ten years!

The EMF Refugee Yahoo Group has been providing support for the increasing number of EMF Refugees around the World for almost ten years!

Group Description

The world over, with the proliferation of cell phones, their towers, and other devices emitting electromagnetic radiation (EMR), we are seeing dramatic increases in a number of illnesses (chronic fatigue syndrome, autism, ADD, mental illnesses, suicides, bizarre crimes, cancers, brain tumors, leukemias, epilepsy - not to mention electrosensitivity [ES]).

Increasingly, people realize it is the electromagnetic (EM) and microwave (MW) radiation making them sick and have taken refuge in the few areas left that are free of microwave radiation. These are the EMF Refugees. There are at present EMF refuges in Sweden, France, Italy, Spain, Canada, the USA, and Japan.

Unfortunately, many people have a difficult time believing that EMR can cause so much damage - and even when confronted with the facts still choose to live in a state of denial. Yet, nothing deepens knowledge more than experience and for the people who have been able to realize what is making them sick and can actually FEEL the microwaves being emitted by cell phones and their towers, there can be no denying this fact.

This ML has been created with the intent of bringing refugees together in countries around the world to form their own EMF-free communities in natural environments where they can heal and create healing environments for the Earth and others.

It is only by coming and working together that we will be empowered to create positive change and healing for ourselves and others and counteract the negative effects caused by the proliferation of microwave and other harmful technologies.

By creating our own EMR-free (or -less) communities, we can draw attention to our plight and influence politics positively for an EMR-Safe Planet.

Planetary life is being threatened by this and other technologies. There is ample evidence to suggest that this EMR is a major factor in a number of illnesses, psychological problems, and environmental problems including the disappearance of birds, amphibians, and insects.

Group Information

  • 885
  • Support
  • Jan 25, 2006
  • English

Effects of electromagnetic fields exposure on plasma hormonal and inflammatory pathway biomarkers in male workers of a power plant

Effects of electromagnetic fields exposure on plasma hormonal and inflammatory pathway biomarkers in male workers of a power plant

Wang Z, Fei Y, Liu H, Zheng S, Ding Z, Jin W, Pan Y, Chen Z, Wang L, Chen G, Xu Z, Zhu Y, Yu Y. Effects of electromagnetic fields exposure on plasma hormonal and inflammatory pathway biomarkers in male workers of a power plant. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2015 Mar 26. [Epub ahead of print]


PURPOSE: The potential health risks of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) have currently raised considerable public concerns. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of EMF exposure on levels of plasma hormonal and inflammatory pathway biomarkers in male workers of an electric power plant.

METHODS: Seventy-seven male workers with high occupational EMF exposure and 77 male controls with low exposure, matched by age, were selected from a cross-sectional study. Moreover, high EMF exposure group was with walkie-talkies usage and exposed to power frequency EMF at the work places for a longer duration than control group. A questionnaire was applied to obtain relevant information, including sociodemographic characteristics, lifestyle factors, and EMF exposures. Plasma levels of testosterone, estradiol, melatonin, NF-κB, heat-shock protein (HSP) 70, HSP27, and TET1 were determined by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

RESULTS: EMF exposure group had statistically significantly lower levels of testosterone (β = -0.3 nmol/L, P = 0.015), testosterone/estradiol (T/E2) ratio (β = -15.6, P = 0.037), and NF-κB (β = -20.8 ng/L, P = 0.045) than control group. Moreover, joint effects between occupational EMF exposure and employment duration, mobile phone fees, years of mobile phone usage, and electric fees on levels of testosterone and T/E2 ratio were observed. Nevertheless, no statistically significant associations of EMF exposures with plasma estradiol, melatonin, HSP70, HSP27, and TET1 were found.

CONCLUSIONS: The findings showed that chronic exposure to EMF could decrease male plasma testosterone and T/E2 ratio, and it might possibly affect reproductive functions in males. No significant associations of EMF exposure with inflammatory pathway biomarkers were found.
mobile phone fees = “How much is your monthly mobile phone fee on average?”
electric fees = “How much is your monthly electrical fee on average?


Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

News Releases:
Twitter:                 @berkeleyprc

The California Medical Association Wireless Resolution

The California Medical Association Wireless Resolution

California Medical AssociationHouse of Delegates Resolution Wireless Standards Reevaluation 2014PASSED

                               CMA 2014   HOD Resolutions Adopted

                                                 Resolution 107- 14

                                          Date Adopted Dec 7, 2014

Resolved 1    That CMA supports efforts to reevaluate microwave safety exposure levels associated with wireless communication devices, including consideration of adverse non-thermal biologic and health effects from non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation used in wireless communications; and be it further
Resolved 2    That CMA support efforts to implement new safety exposure limits for wireless devices to levels that do not cause human or environmental harm based on scientific research.
Wireless Communications Public Safety Standards Reevaluation
Introduced by Cindy Lee Russell, M.D. AND Ken Yew, M.D.  
Whereas there are over 6 billion active cell phones worldwide and dependence of wireless communication networks is rapidly expanding including cell phones, cell towers, wireless routers for home use, medical devices and utility smart meters; and (1)
Whereas scientists are increasingly identifying EMF from wireless devices as a new form of environmental pollution with a growing body of peer reviewed scientific evidence finding significant adverse health and biologic effects on living organisms with exposure to low levels of non-ionizing microwaves currently approved and used in wireless communication, and
Whereas peer reviewed research has demonstrated adverse biological effects of wireless EMF including single and double stranded DNA breaks, creation of reactive oxygen species, immune dysfunction, cognitive processing effects, stress protein synthesis in the brain, altered brain development, sleep and memory disturbances, ADHD, abnormal behavior, sperm dysfunction, and brain tumors; and  (2-55)
Whereas there is a long latency period of years to decades to study and identify adverse health effects such as brain cancer, neurodegenerative damage and autism; and
Whereas children’s brains are developmentally immature until adolescence, their skulls are thinner and the brain is considerably more vulnerable to toxin exposure , and (23,24)
Whereas the World Health Organization in 2011 designated wireless communications including cell phones to be a possible carcinogenic, and (63)
Whereas many scientists, researchers, public health officials and agencies conclude that wireless electromagnetic frequency (EMF) standards established by the Federal Communications Commission are outdated as they are based only on heat effects which damage to the organism and not biological effects of non –ionizing EMF microwave radiation which are scientifically demonstrated at levels hundreds of times less than current safety exposure limits and thus current standards are  inadequate to protect public health; and (49-51)(57)
Whereas the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2013 has asked for reassessment of  exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields limits and policies  that  protect children’s health and well-being  throughout their lifetimes and reflect current use patterns (58)
RESOLVED; that the CMA understands that  existing public safety limits for microwave EMF devices are outdated and inadequate to protect public health  thus endorses efforts of the Federal Communications Commission to reevaluate its safety standards to include consideration of adverse non thermal biologic and health effects from non ionizing electromagnetic radiation used in wireless communications; and be it further
RESOLVED; that the CMA supports efforts to implement microwave safety exposure limits to levels that do not cause human or environmental harm based on scientific research, and be it further
RESOLVED; that the CMA set up a task force to determine adequate precautionary recommendations for the use of cell phones and wireless devices for schools and children
References Wireless Communications Public Safety Standards Reevaluation
1)           More People Have Cell Phones Than Toilets, U.N. Study Shows. Time. March 25, 2013.
2)     Acute low-intensity microwave exposure increases DNA single-strand breaks in rat brain cells.  Lai H, Singh, NP Bioelectomagnetics 1995;16(3):207-10   WEB
3)     Behavioral Effects of Microwaves . Neurobehavioral Toxicology: 1980
Spring;2(1): 49-58 Sern S. WEB
4)     Microwave Radiation Absorption: Behavioral Effects.  Health Physiology: 1991
5)     Nerve Cell Damage in Mammalian Brain after Exposure to Microwaves from GSM Mobile Phones.  Safford L. Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 111, Number 7, June 2003   WEB
6)     The effects of broad-band electromagnetic field exposure on mice (Mus musculus). Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A: Toxic/Hazardous Substances and Environmental Engineering. Volume 35, Issue 3, 2000.
7)     Electromagnetic Fields and DNA Damage.  Phillips J.  Pathophysiology 16 (2009) 79-88.
8)     Single- and double-strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells after acute exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation.  Lai H, Singh NP,  Int J Radiat Biol 69(4):513-521, 1996.
9)     DNA Strand Breaks in Rat Brain Cells Exposed to Low level Microwave Radiation. Behari J.
10)  Long Term Exposure to Microwave Radiation Provokes Cancer Growth:  Evidences from Radars and Mobile Communication Systems.  Kyrylenko S  . Experimental Oncology. March 2011.
11)  ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS: Conference, Hearing Call Up Cell Phone Use.  Environ Health Perspect. Nov 2009; 117(11): A486.
12)  EMF’s and DNA Effects: Potential Mechanism Elucidated-Science Selections.  Hood E. Environmental Health Perspectives, May 2004.
13)    Association between vestibular schwannomas and mobile phone use. Moon S. Tumour Biol. Jan 2014; 35(1): 581–587.
14)  Long-term use of cellular phones and brain tumors: increased risk associated with use for > or =10 years. Hardell L, Carlsberg M. Occupational Environmental Medicine 2007, Sept; 64(9):626-32
15)    Meta-analysis of long-term mobile phone use and the association with brain tumors.  Hardell L  International Journal of Oncology. May 2008 vol 32 Number 5.
16)    Cell phone Use and Acoustic Neuroma: The Need for Standardized Questionaires and access to Industry Data. Surgical Neurology. Volume 72, issue 3, pages 216-222 (Sept 2009) Yueh-Ying Han.
17)    Exposure to Wireless Phone Emissions and Serum Bets-Trace Proteins.  Hardell L. Soderqvist F. International Journal Molecular Medicine. 2010 August; 26(2):301-306.
18)  Mobile Phone Use and the Risk for Malignant Brain Tumors: A Case Control Study on Deceased Cases and Controls . Hardell L, Carlsberg M, Neuroepidemiology: 2010 June 15;35(2): 109-114.
19)  Case-control study of the association between malignant brain tumours diagnosed between 2007 and 2009 and mobile and cordless phone use.  Hardell L .  Int J Oncol.  2013 Dec;43(6):1833-45.
20)  Mobile Phones, Cordless Phones and the Risk for Brain Tumors.  Hardell L, Carlberg M. International Journal of Oncology, 2009 Jul;35(1):5-17 PMID: 19513546
21)  Oxidative damage in chemical teratogenesis.  Wells PG .  Mutat Res.  1997 Dec 12;396(1-2):65-78.
22)  Swedish review strengthens grounds for concluding that radiation from cellular and cordless phones is a probable human carcinogen. Dr. Devra Davis.   Pathophysiology.  Volume 20, issue 2,  Pages 123–129, April 2013
23)  Critical periods of vulnerability for the developing nervous system: evidence from humans and animal models. Environ Health Perspect.  Rice D.   108(suppl 3):511–533 (2000).
24)  Critical periods of vulnerability for the developing nervous system: evidence from humans and animal models. Environ Health Perspect.  Rice D.   108(suppl 3):511–533 (2000).
25)  Electromagnetic noise inhibits radiofrequency radiation-induced DNA damage and reactive oxygen species increase in human lens epithelial cells.  Yao K .  Mol Vis.  2008 May 19;14:964-9.
26)  Neuronal Death and Oxidative Stress in the Developing Brain.  Chrysanthy Ikonomidou.  ANTIOXIDANTS & REDOX SIGNALING Volume 00, Number 0, 2011.
27)  Reactive oxygen species elevation and recovery in Drosophila bodies and ovaries following short-term and long-term exposure to DECT base EMF.  Manta AK .  Electromagn Biol Med.  2014 Jun;33(2):118-31.
28)  Protective effects of melatonin and caffeic acid phenethyl ester against retinal oxidative stress in long-term use of mobile phone: a comparative study.   Ozguner F .  Mol Cell Biochem.  2006 Jan;282(1-2):83-8.
29)  Autism-relevant social abnormalities in mice exposed perinatally to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields.
30)  Drosophila oogenesis as a bio-marker responding to EMF sources.  Margaritis LH .  Electromagn Biol Med.  2014 Sep;33(3):165-89.
31)  Exposure to 1800 MHz radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation induces oxidative DNA base damage in a mouse spermatocyte-derived cell line.   Liu C .  Toxicol Lett.  2013 Mar 27;218(1):2-9.
32)  [Metabolic changes in cells under electromagnetic radiation of mobile communication systems].  Iakimenko. IL. Ukr Biokhim Zh. 2011 Mar-Apr;83(2):20-8.
33)  Non-thermal activation of the hsp27/p38MAPK stress pathway by mobile phone radiation in human endothelial cells: molecular mechanism for cancer- and blood-brain barrier-related effects.  Leszczynski D .  Differentiation.  2002 May;70(2-3):120-9.
34)  Effect of 900 MHz radiofrequency radiation on oxidative stress in rat brain and serum.  Bilgici B .  Electromagn Biol Med. 2013 Mar;32(1):20-9.
35)  Behavior and memory evaluation of Wistar rats exposed to 1·8 GHz radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. Júnior LC .  Neurol Res.  2014 Sep;36(9):800-3.
36)  Effect of radio-frequency electromagnetic radiations (RF-EMR) on passive avoidance behaviour and hippocampal morphology in Wistar rats.  Narayanan SN .  Ups J Med Sci.  2010 May;115(2):91-6.
37)  Analysis of emotionality and locomotion in radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation exposed rats.  Narayanan SN . Neurol Sci.  2013 Jul;34(7):1117-24.
38)  Evaluation of oxidant stress and antioxidant defense in discrete brain regions of rats exposed to 900 MHz radiation. Bratisl Lek Listy.  2014;115(5):260-6.
39)  Fetal Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure From 800-1900 Mhz-Rated Cellular Telephones Affects Neurodevelopment and Behavior in Mice.  Aldid, T.Nature.  Scientific Reports  2, Article number: 312. Feb 18, 2013.
40)  Cell phone radiation exposure on brain and associated biological systems.  Kesari KK .  Indian J Exp Biol.  2013 Mar;51(3):187-200.
41)  Disturbance of the immune system by electromagnetic fields-A potentially underlying cause for cellular damage and tissue repair reduction which could lead to disease and impairment.  Johansson O .   Pathophysiology.  2009 Aug;16(2-3):157-77. Epub 2009 Apr 23.
42)  Cell phone use and behavioural problems in young children.  Divan HA , . J Epidemiol  Community Health.  2012 Jun;66(6):524-9.
43)  Prenatal and postnatal exposure to cell phone use and behavioral problems in children.  Divan HA . Epidemiology.  2008 Jul;19(4):523-9.
44)  Maternal cell phone and cordless phone use during pregnancy and behaviour problems in 5-year-old children. Guxens M .   J Epidemiol  Community Health.  2013 May;67(5):432-8.
45)  Radio frequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) from GSM (0.9/1.8GHz) mobile phones induces oxidative stress and reduces sperm motility in rats.  Mailankot M .  Clinics (Sao Paulo).  2009;64(6):561-5.
46)  Effects of the exposure to mobile phones on male reproduction: a review of the literature.  La Vignera S .  J Androl.  2012 May-Jun;33(3):350-6.
47)  Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic waves (RF-EMW) from cellular phones on human ejaculated semen: an in vitro pilot study.  Agarwal A .  Fertil Steril.  2009 Oct;92(4):1318-25.
48)  Bioinitiative 2012.
49)  Autism and EMF/RFR?  Plausibility of a Pathophysiological Link-Part I.   Pathophysiology   Volume 20, Issue 3 , 191-209, June 2013.  Herbert M, Sage C (2013) .
50)  Autism and EMF/RFR?  Plausibility of a Pathophysiological Link-Part II.   Pathophysiology   Volume 20, Issue 3 , 211-234, June 2013.  Herbert M, Sage C (2013)
51)    BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for Biologically-based Public Exposure Standards for Electromagnetic Radiation. December 31, 2012. BioInitiative Working Group, Cindy Sage and David O. Carpenter.
52)    Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk from Mobile Phone Base Stations.
International Journal of Occupational Environmental Health: 16-3, Jul/Sep 2010, p263-267. Khurana V, Hardell L .
53)  Shallow Minds: How the Internet and Wi–Fi in Schools Can Affect Learning.  Cindy Lee Russell, MD. Oct 2013 issue SCCMA Bulletin.  or for full references
54)  Autism Rising Part 1. Dr. Cindy Russell. May/June SCCMA Bulletin 2014
56)  Scientific panel on electromagnetic field health risks: consensus points, recommendations, and rationales.  Fragopoulou A . Rev Environ Health.  2010 Oct-Dec;25(4):307-17.
57)  Letter American Academy of Pediatrics to FDA on  “Reassessment of Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields Limits and Policies” published in the Federal Register on June 4,  2013.
58)  Wired vs Wireless in Classrooms.  Letter to Los Angeles Unified School District. Feb 2013 from Martha Herbert, Assistant Professor Pediatric Neurology,  Harvard Medical School.
59)  The precautionary principle in environmental science.  D Kriebel .  Environ Health Perspect. Sep 2001; 109(9): 871–876.
60)  Environmental Working Group Cell Phone Report
61)  WiFi in schools proven dangerous.
62)  Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones.

Parents Nationwide are Questioning the Safety of Wireless Radiation in Schools

Parents Nationwide are Questioning the Safety of Wireless Radiation in Schools

Home  /  Breaking News  /  Current Page
A recent Washington, DC WUSA-9 News Report showcasing a concerned parent group and the newly introduced Oregon Education Bill informing parents of the potential health risks of Wi-Fi speak to this emerging issue. 
As many school systems continue to roll out wireless to younger and younger students, parents are questioning their safety. From coast to coast, parent and teacher groups are raising concerns to school officials about the health risks from the wireless radiation of tablets, laptops and routers. They are calling for safer technology solutions.
A recent WUSA-9 News Report featured local parents expressing concerns for their children’s health. These parents are part of a statewide group advocating for wired (not wireless) Ethernet technology networks in schools. The group Safe Tech for Schools Maryland was founded after a Montgomery County, MD parent requested a report on the radio frequency (wireless) radiation levels at her child’s school and found the levels higher than radiation thresholds set by the Los Angeles Unified School District.
According to the Environmental Health Trust (EHT), wireless devices expose students and staff to microwave radiation that can impede learning and overall health. Studies have shown that microwave radiation can damage reproductive systems, impact the immune system, alter brain functioning, and may increase cancer risk.  Tablets have up to 5 antennae that are constantly emitting short intense bursts of radiation even when not connected to the Internet. Wireless devices in classrooms thus result in multiple sources of wireless radiation exposure.
In Oregon, Rep Alissa Keny-Guyer introduced House Bill 3350, which directs the Department of Education to prepare a statement that would disclose the potential health risks of wireless technology to staff and parents. It also declares an “Emergency,” stating the Act is “necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety.”
Parents are concerned that school districts across the country are quickly moving to install wireless technology systems despite scientists’ recommendations that wireless exposures be reduced to children and pregnant women in light of the adverse health effects linked to wireless radiation.
According to the California Medical Association’s House of Delegates Wireless Standards Reevaluation Resolution 107-14 passed December 2014, “Scientists are increasingly identifying EMF from wireless devices as a new form of environmental pollution” and “peer reviewed research has demonstrated adverse biological effects of wireless EMF including single and double stranded DNA breaks, creation of reactive oxygen species, immune dysfunction, cognitive processing effects, stress protein synthesis in the brain, altered brain development, sleep and memory disturbances, ADHD, abnormal behavior, sperm dysfunction, and brain tumors.”
Actions in other states to raise awareness of these risks include a math teacher, Shelley McDonald, who started an effort to stop the WiFi installation in North Kingstown, Rhode Island schools. Parents raising concerns in Kirkwood, Missouri prompted a radiation assessment. In 2011, a Portland Oregon parent, David Morrison, filed a lawsuit   arguing that Wi-Fi exposed children to unacceptable levels of radiation. U.S. District Judge Michael Mosman did not rule on the merit of the case but dismissed the case because it challenged the FCC safety standards. Worldwide, a dozen countries have taken various precautionary action. Most recently, France banned Wi-Fi in nursery schools and directs elementary schools to keep the WiFi off unless needed. The European Union recommends decreased exposures to children.
EHT has issued a briefing on schools and wireless radiation documenting the potential health risks and detailing the public policy efforts worldwide to reduce exposures to children. In addition to these immediate health concerns, EHT is also sharing those of psychologist Catherine Steiner-Adair, author of The Big Disconnectwho warns that,” Kids can learn anything from tech, but tech won’t embody your values, or love your child, or be thoughtful about the pace at which your child explores the world.”
About Environmental Health Trust
Environmental Health Trust (EHT) educates individuals, health professionals and communities about controllable environmental health risks and policy changes needed to reduce those risks. Currently EHT is raising health concerns about wireless in schools and recommending safe hardwired internet connection installations. The foundation’s website is the go-to place for clear, science-based information to prevent disease. For more information or to get involved in the numerous special projects spearheaded by EHT, please visit Find EHT on Facebook
The WUSA news report

New studies demonstrate that microwave radiation from cellphones and other devices constitutes a (Group 2A) probable human carcinogen

New studies demonstrate that microwave radiation from cellphones and other devices constitutes a (Group 2A) probable human carcinogen

Thursday, March 26, 2015



Does Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR) emitted from your cellphone  scramble your brain? If  your answer is that is not possible, why then are drivers having up to ten times more accidents after they end their calls?  Evidence, decades old, appears to point to brain malfunction induced by wireless radiation as the unspoken cause of higher rates of car accidents.
-Walt McGinnis
It has been 18 years since a major study appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine called Association between Cellular-Telephone Calls and and Motor Vehicle Collisions.(1) The study showed, not too surprisingly, that there was evidence that cell phone use was associated with higher rates of automobile accidents. In the conclusion of their study  the authors were vague as to what was the cause of the increased accidents but driver distraction was what the media  decided was the cause.
Since then dozens of industry funded studies about cellphone use and driver distraction have been published. Almost all of the studies reported that the driver was too busy talking on the phone to drive properly. It seemed researchers hardly ever discussed data that pointed towards other possible causes. Their conclusions focused instead on the main stream paradigm that the drivers mind was not on the business of driving while they talked on the cellphone. This made a lot of sense and it is probably a factor but it did not explain the sheer number of accidents occurring.
Reports stating that automobile accidents were caused by cellphone use were not unexpected. However in the late 90’s the real reason as to why the drivers had more accidents had the potential to cause a tremendous shock wave and prove to be of enormous importance, not only for the wireless industry, but also for the health and safety of billions of people who were about to start using wireless devices daily.
It appeared that many industry funded researchers did not notice that the data they provided in their research indicated that the cause of the accidents was not primarily driver distraction but something much more profoundly disturbing. The evidence from the Redelmeier Study as well as subsequent studies have shown that RFR emitted from cellphones was inhibiting brain function and possibly causing car accidents.(2)
Needless to say the ramifications of this revelation, if proven to be true, were enormous, especially because back in 1998 the wireless industry was about to explode into one of the largest and most profitable industries in the world. The idea that the RFR emitted from wireless devices was dangerous and a health threat was an inconvenient truth that stood between the industry and hundreds of billions of dollars in profits.
Had the truth emerged then and was acted upon I think that it would not be a stretch to say the course of history would have been changed with hundreds of thousands of lives saved and millions of illnesses avoided. But it would not be so. It is eighteen years later and it seems the wireless industry has effectively kept a lid on the evidence. How they did it and why they were successful is the topic of another very important discussion.
The Redelmeier Study was well constructed and the data meticulously recorded. Risk factors were carefully evaluated and there were a large number of drivers involved. Everything was set up to generate good data.
However the conclusions in the study seemed to ignore a key factor. I contacted Dr Redelmeier and in an email asked him how could the researchers conclude that the cause of the accidents was driver distraction when the driver was not on a cellphone for at least 76% of the accidents in this study? He replied saying the study did not address that issue but he speculated that the drivers were possibly distracted by thinking about what was said in the call.
Was it possible that the memory of a cell phone call, no matter how distracting, could make the driver up to 4 times as likely to be in a car accident and 6 times as likely to have an accident after using hands free technology? On top of that, young drivers in this study were having 10 times as many accidents after using a cell phone. It just did not make any sense.
It was widely known that brainwaves  could be influenced by RFR from cellphones.  If so it seemed logical to conclude that the driver’s brain function was being diminished when exposed to radio frequency radiation from the cellphone which led to a higher possibility of being involved in a crash. Several scientific studies published between 1998 and 2000 would show that RFR exposure to the brain inhibited brain function.(3)
With RFR induced brain malfunction now a  prime suspect of the cause of the accidents examine Table 2 in the abstract of the Redelmeier study. It lays out the time of the car accidents, the time when the cellphone call had ended and the length of the call. This table shows  an astonishing trend. The driver was most likely to have a crash right after the cellphone call ended and as time went by he became less and less likely to have an accident. Moreover there appeared to be a dose /response relationship. Below is a  graph depicting the data from the  from the  Redelmeier  Study.
No one is talking on a cell phone when these  these crashes occurred.   This graph clearly shows the shorter the time between the end of the call and the accident, the higher the risk factor of having an accident. There is a clear and consistent pattern. The driver is 4 times as likely to crash just after the cellphone call was ended, 3 times as likely 10 minutes after the call was ended, and 1.5 times more likely to crash 20 minutes after the call ended. This  is strong evidence that something was impeding the person’s brain function as a result of using a cellphone and it had a lingering effect.
Other results in the study showed even higher risk factors for some sub groups. The research showed that hands free drivers were 50% more accident prone than hand-held cell phone users.When a driver uses a hands free device in a motor vehicle the cellphone company is allowed to boost the signal because the antenna is not close to the users head. If the driver is using a wired headset the wire itself can deliver an even larger dose of radiation to the brain with the ear bud inserted in the ear. As well some vehicles have  wireless networks in the vehicle that links to a second wireless network which relays the signal to the nearest cellphone transmitter. All of these features increase the signal strength inside the vehicle and thus the RFR exposure to the brain. This would help to explain why hands free drivers had 50% more accidents than drivers who held the cellphone in their hand.
The Redelmeier study also showed that young drivers were up to 10 times more likely to have a crash if they had used a cellphone. Research shows that younger people’s physiology makes them the most vulnerable group to the harmful effects of RFR exposure. Young people have thinner skulls and the radiation from the cellphone penetrates further into the brain which could cause even more disruption of their cognitive abilities than adults.(4)
To conclude this study showed .
  1.  Brain function of the driver was diminished after talking on a cellphone.
  2. The driver was most likely to crash just after the call ended and less and less likely to crash as time elapsed after the call.
  3. Hands free drivers had more accidents than hand held cellphone users.  They were also exposed to more RFR.
  4. Younger drivers had the most accidents after using a cellphone. Cellphone radiation has the greatest negative impact on those with thinner skulls and with not fully developed physiology.
These factors all combined  strongly indicate  that RFR exposure to the brain of the driver impaired his ability to drive and consequently he had an elevated risk of having a car accident.
This evidence gleaned from the Redelmeier study held the keys to the solution of this problem, in my opinion. The incongruity between the data and the conclusions in the study was the stimulus for further investigation that led to what I think is the real cause of the elevated risks of having a car accident after using a cellphone. This was a well-constructed study and even though my conclusions are very different than Dr Redelmeier this work must be commended for its accuracy.
It appears to take about 30 minutes between when a cellphone call has ended and when there  is  no longer any elevated accident risk. Much like drinkers, users of wireless technologies should wait until their wireless buzz has worn off before they operate a motor vehicle. What happens to  the  brain in the long run as a result of RFR exposure is the topic of another article.
Walt McGinnis is an Electromagnetic Radiation Tester and Electrician living in Victoria BC.
(1): Association between Cellular-Telephone Calls and Motor Vehicle Collisions. DONALD A. REDELMEIER, M.D., AND ROBERT J. TIBSHIRANI, PH.D
(2): Cell Phone Radiation alters brain function: acknowledgments to a great mentor, now deceased, Dr Neil Cherry.
For years the cell phone companies and government authorities have assured us that cell phone are perfectly safe. They state that the particular set of radiation parameter associated with cell phones are not the same as any other radio signal and therefore earlier research does not apply. They also mount biased review teams who falsely dismiss any results that indicate adverse biological and health effects and the flawed pre-assumption that the only possible effect is tissue heating. There is a very large body of scientific research that challenges this view. Now we have published research, primarily funded by governments and industry that shows that cell phone radiation causes the following effects:- Dr Neil Cherry
 Probable Health Effects associated with cell phone towers.
  • Alters human reaction times, Preece et al. (1999),
  • Induced potentials, Eulitz et al. (1998),
  • Slow brain potentials, Freude et al. (1998),
  • Response and speed of switching attention (need for car driving) significantly worse, Hladky et al. (1999).
  • Alters brain activity including EEG, Von Klitzing (1995), Mann and Roschkle (1996), Krause et al. (2000).
  • Disturbs sleep, Mann and Roschkle (1996), Bordely et al. (1999)
  • Altered reaction times and working memory function (positive), Koivisto et al. (2000), Krause et al. (2000).
(4): THE BIOINITIATIVE REPORT 2012 -A Rationale for Biologically-based Public Exposure Standards for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF), Conclusion
  • Weakens the blood brain barrier, BBB (p<0 .0001="" 0.0025w="" 1.5="" 10="" 2="" a.="" a="" above="" and="" b.r.r.="" brun="" dose="" exposure="" font="" for="" j="" kg.="" kg:="" kg="" l.g.="" minute="" minutes="" persson="" salford="" sar="" the="" w="" with="">
  • A Fifteen-minute exposure, increased auditory brainstem response and hearing deficiency in 2 kHz to 10 kHz range, Kellenyi et al. (1999).
  • While driving, with 50 minutes per month with a cell phone, a highly significant 5.6-fold increase in accident risk, Violanti et al. (1996); a 2-fold increase in fatal accidents. with cell phone in car, Violanti et al. (1998); impairs cognitive load and detection thresholds, Lamble et al. (1999).
  • Significant changes in local temperature, and in physiologic parameters of the CNS and cardiovascular system, Khdnisskii, Moshkarev and Fomenko (1999).
  • Causes memory loss, concentration difficulties, fatigue, and headache, in a dose response manner, (Mild et al. (1998)). Headache, discomfort, nausea, Hocking (1998).