Cell tower radiation harmful to humans: study

Multiple radio signals enough to cause physical and psychological problems

CBC News Posted: Nov 05, 2010 3:58 PM ET Last Updated: Nov 05, 2010 4:30 PM ET

A newly published report draws some disturbing conclusions about radiation people are absorbing from cellphone towers and its effects on human health.

Cellphone towers have become part of the landscape, but a new report says the radiation coming from them poses a threat to human health. ((Dick Whipple/Associated Press))

"The bottom line is that these very chronic low-level intensities are not biologically inert," study author Blake Levitt told CBC News.

Levitt, a medical and science journalist, has been studying radio frequency exposures since the 1970s, and has written two books on the subject. Her latest article appeared online Friday in Envrionmental Reviews, a Canadian journal that publishes peer-reviewed papers summarizing previous scientific studies on environmental topics.

Levitt says the exponential growth of wireless use and the accompanying low-level signals are a concern. The paper notes there are now 5.5 billion cellphones in use worldwide. In addition to the cell signals, there are also Wi-Fi networks and Wi-Max, which began rolling out in the U.S. last year and uses lower frequencies with higher power densities.

Similar to cold war embassy bombardment

The results, according to Levitt, are conditions similar to the intentional irradiation of employees at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow starting in 1953 during the Cold War.

"We're getting a mirror effect now, because the exposures close to cell towers now are almost identical in frequency, in signalling characteristics and in long-term low-level chronic exposure duration as that early microwave sickness paper from the irradiation of the Moscow embassy."

In 1978, researchers at Johns Hopkins University published a study on the long-term effects of that radiation exposure and found it led to several serious health problems. Among them: eczema, psoriasis, allergic and inflammatory reactions, neurological and reproductive problems, tumours and mood disorders such as depression, irritability and lack of concentration.

Levitt says these symptoms have been reflected in other studies on long-term exposure and have been seen in real-world practice.

"It is being increasingly reported when anyone looks at the symptoms that are being reported in populations that live near cell towers or low-level infrastructure."

The medical and scientific community is very much at odds over the impact of cellphone radiation. Health Canada maintains there is no problem.

"Health Canada has reviewed this article and has noted that no new data is presented," the department said in a statement to CBC News. "As well, the conclusions made by the authors are not based on a full examination of the scientific evidence."

Many of the studies cited in the article claim biological or harmful health effects may occur at radiofrequency levels below Health Canada's exposure limits.

"As long as exposures respect the limits set in Health Canada's guidelines, the department has no scientific reason to consider exposure to low-level radiofrequency fields, such as those from cell towers, dangerous to the public," the statement added.

Environmental Reviews is published by Canadian Science Publishing. Before it became private in September, the online publication was overseen by the National Research Council.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/cell-tower-radiation-harmful-to-humans-study-1.958047

Is Cell Phone Radiation Bad For Your Eyes?

Is Cell Phone Radiation Bad For Your Eyes?

Posted by Lloyd on October 14, 2010 under Cell phone radiation danger | 

Our eyes are one of our most important assets.  For many of us a significant part of the information our brains receive comes through our eyes. 

Can electromagnetic field exposures (EMFs) from cell phones and the like cause damage to our eyes?

Yes they can. The use of cell phones has been linked to cancer of the eye by a German study.  Whats-more, using a cell phone may increase your chances of getting eye cancer by 300%, so the studies say.

Besides the development of eye cancer, cell phone radiation can also be responsible for the formation of cataracts.  Burning of the eyes, pain behind the eyes, ‘floaters’ (actually little bits of gel that detach themselves from the inside of the eye and float around), and a general deterioration of the vision are all hallmarks of damage caused by cell phone radiation.

Tips To Reduce Cell Phone Radiation Exposure To Your Eyes

1. Try whenever possible, to use a land line phone instead of a cell phone.  This will be easiest when you are at home, only using a cell phone when absolutely necessary will cut back on your exposure to this damaging radiation. Click here for my tips on reducing your exposure to cell phone radiation.

2. There are herbal products that offer protection from the effects of cell phone radiation and keep your eyes healthy.  Both bilberry and ginko biloba are powerful antioxidants.  These herbs are especially good at preventing and healing damage to the eyes, and bilberry can help to increase blood flow to the eye’s capillaries, which will help to heal any damage caused by radiation.  The ability to perform as an antioxidant is also important in cleaning up any abnormal cells that may result from cell phone use.

3. If you wear eyeglasses like me, make sure that the frames are plastic rather than wire, the metal in the wire frame can act as an antenna.  Like a radio or television antenna, this antenna can direct the cell phone radiation into your eyes and brain.

4. The mineral zinc has many beneficial uses for the body in general and can be particularly helpful in maintaining high levels of antioxidants in the eyes.  I don’t advocate taking supplements on a long term basis, but taking zinc can be beneficial.

5. Increase your melatonin levels. You can take melatonin supplements but better still, help your body create the conditions so a natural supply of melatonin is assured. 

There are those that advocate using EMF “chips”, “neutralizers” and “harmonizers” to gain protection from EMF radiation.  Some of these devices are meant to be worn others you plug into your electrical supply, to supposedly protect yourself from cell phone radiation and other forms of EMF pollution. I DO NOT view these kinds of devices as a solution – some of them can be dangerous.

Take the necessary action to protect you and your family against the devastating effects of cell phone radiation and other EMFs on your eyes.  Everyone, even if you do not personally use a cell phone, is exposed to EMFs whether it be from computer screens, wifi, cell phone towers, electrical wiring etc.

Take action now, protect your eyes from EMFs.

http://www.electricsense.com/1140/is-cell-phone-radiation-bad-for-your-eyes/

Warning: Your Cell Phone May Be Hazardous to Your Health

Warning:
Your Cell Phone May Be Hazardous to Your Health

Ever worry that that gadget you spend hours holding next to your head might be damaging your brain? Well, the evidence is starting to pour in, and it's not pretty. So why isn't anyone in America doing anything about it?

By Christopher Ketcham










Photograph by Tom Schierlitz




Earlier this winter, I met an investment banker who was diagnosed with a brain tumor five years ago. He's a managing director at a top Wall Street firm, and I was put in touch with him through a colleague who knew I was writing a story about the potential dangers of cell-phone radiation. He agreed to talk with me only if his name wasn't used, so I'll call him Jim. He explained that the tumor was located just behind his right ear and was not immediately fatal—the five-year survival rate is about 70 percent. He was 35 years old at the time of his diagnosis and immediately suspected it was the result of his intense cell-phone usage. "Not for nothing," he said, "but in investment banking we've been using cell phones since 1992, back when they were the Gordon-Gekko-on-the-beach kind of phone." When Jim asked his neurosurgeon, who was on the staff of a major medical center in Manhattan, about the possibility of a cell-phone-induced tumor, the doctor responded that in fact he was seeing more and more of such cases—young, relatively healthy businessmen who had long used their phones obsessively. He said he believed the industry had discredited studies showing there is a risk from cell phones. "I got a sense that he was pissed off," Jim told me. A handful of Jim's colleagues had already died from brain cancer; the more reports he encountered of young finance guys developing tumors, the more certain he felt that it wasn't a coincidence. "I knew four or five people just at my firm who got tumors," Jim says. "Each time, people ask the question. I hear it in the hallways."

It's hard to talk about the dangers of cell-phone radiation without sounding like a conspiracy theorist. This is especially true in the United States, where non-industry-funded studies are rare, where legislation protecting the wireless industry from legal challenges has long been in place, and where our lives have been so thoroughly integrated with wireless technology that to suggest it might be a problem—maybe, eventually, a very big public-health problem—is like saying our shoes might be killing us.

Except our shoes don't send microwaves directly into our brains. And cell phones do—a fact that has increasingly alarmed the rest of the world. Consider, for instance, the following headlines that have appeared in highly reputable international newspapers and journals over the past few years. From summer 2006, in the Hamburg Morgenpost: are we telephoning ourselves to death? That fall, in the Danish journal Dagens Medicin: mobile phones affect the brain's metabolism. December 2007, from Agence France-Presse: israeli study says regular mobile use increases tumour risk. January 2008, in London's Independent: mobile phone radiation wrecks your sleep. September 2008, in Australia's The Age: scientists warn of mobile phone cancer risk.

Though the scientific debate is heated and far from resolved, there are multiple reports, mostly out of Europe's premier research institutions, of cell-phone and PDA use being linked to "brain aging," brain damage, early-onset Alz­heimer's, senility, DNA damage, and even sperm die-offs (many men, after all, keep their cell phones in their pants pockets or attached at the hip). In September 2007, the European Union's environmental watchdog, the European Environment Agency, warned that cell-phone technology "could lead to a health crisis similar to those caused by asbestos, smoking, and lead in petrol."

Perhaps most worrisome, though, are the preliminary results of the multinational Interphone study sponsored by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, in Lyon, France. (Scientists from thirteen countries took part in the study, the United States conspicuously not among them.) Interphone researchers reported in 2008 that after a decade of cell-phone use, the chance of getting a brain tumor—specifically on the side of the head where you use the phone—goes up as much as 40 percent for adults. Interphone researchers in Israel have found that cell phones can cause tumors of the parotid gland (the salivary gland in the cheek), and an independent study in Sweden last year concluded that people who started using a cell phone before the age of 20 were five times as likely to develop a brain tumor. Another Interphone study reported a nearly 300 percent increased risk of acoustic neuroma, a tumor of the acoustic nerve.

As more results of the Interphone study trickled out, I called Louis Slesin, who has a doctorate in environmental policy from MIT and in 1980 founded an investigative newsletter called Microwave News. "No one in this country cared!" Slesin said of the findings. "It wasn't news!" He suggested that much of the comfort of our modern lives depends on not caring, on refusing to recognize the dangers of microwave radiation. "We love our cell phones. The paradigm that there's no danger here is part of a worldview that had to be put into place," he said. "Americans are not asking the questions, maybe because they don't want the answers. So what will it take?"

To understand how radiation from cell phones and wireless transmitters affects the human brain, and to get some sense of why the concerns raised in so many studies outside the U.S. are not being seriously raised here, it's necessary to go back fifty years, long before the advent of the cell phone, to the research of a young neuroscientist named Allan Frey.


Read More

http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-radiation#ixzz0n7bkSznh

Marin Voice: Talking about cellphone radiation

Marin Voice: Talking about cellphone radiation

By Mark Leno

POSTED:   05/02/2010 01:09:34 AM MDT

EVERYWHERE you look, from schoolyards to the halls of government, people are glued to their cellphones. An estimated 4.6 billion people worldwide use cellphones - 300 million of them in the U.S.

The average American spends more than 14 hours a month on a cellphone, far more than the residents of any other nation. With the emergence of smart phones and apps for everything from making dinner reservations to locating public restrooms, many people can't imagine modern life without them.

Neither can I. But new technology brings new risks. Using a cell- phone while driving is distracting and dangerous, which has led states across the country, including California, to pass hands-free laws. Now, although the science is far from settled, concerns have been raised about the possible health risks of cellphone radiation.

Cellphones emit low levels of radiation. This radio-frequency radiation, measured by specific absorption rate (SAR), is how the phone communicates with the wireless network - but the radiation enters your head or body at the same time it travels toward the cell phone tower. Emitted radiation levels vary not only by make and model but also by the distance to the nearest cell tower, type of network and other conditions.

While studies cited by industry groups and the Federal Communications Commission show no correlation between cellphone use and negative health impacts, the scientific literature on the potential harm caused by cellphone radiation is far from unanimous.

Recent peer-reviewed, independent studies from around the world have found that long-term, heavy cell phone use increases the risk of brain, salivary and acoustic nerve tumors as well as decreased sperm count.

Of particular concern is the use of cellphones by children. The FCC's recommended safe levels haven't been updated since 1996, when cellphones were an expensive luxury for adults. Now cellphones are marketed to children whose heads are smaller and skulls are thinner, making them more susceptible to radiation, even at low levels. The European Parliament and health agencies in six nations (Switzerland, Germany, Israel, France, the UK and Finland) have recommended reducing children's exposures to cellphone radiation.

The FCC has posted guidelines for reducing potential risks associated with wireless devices.

The precautions include using an earpiece or headset, keeping wireless devices away from the body when they are turned on, using the cellphone speaker, texting rather than talking and buying a wireless device with a lower SAR.

While manufacturers must report SAR values to the FCC, this information is not currently given directly to consumers. Radiation levels are listed on the FCC website, but finding that information requires a difficult and tedious search.

The Environmental Working Group, the sponsor of SB 1212, has published a user-friendly radiation guide (www.ewg.org/cellphone-radiation) that shows the radiation levels of today's best-selling smart phones are pushing the limits recommended by the FCC.

It is time to start a national dialogue regarding cellphone radiation. We don't want to look back and ask why we ignored the warning signs.

That's why I have introduced Senate Bill 1212, a consumer right to know measure, which requires cell phone companies in California to list cellphone radiation levels alongside the price at the point of purchase so consumers can make better and informed choices.

In San Francisco, Mayor Gavin Newsom has introduced similar local legislation.

As we wait for the science to become more conclusive on the potential risks of cellphone radiation, it is common sense that we make this information easily accessible to consumers. As the saying goes, better safe than sorry.

Mark Leno, a San Francisco Democrat, has represented Marin in the state Senate since 2008.

http://www.eptrail.com/ci_15002176

Government must inform us of cell phone risk

On Cell Phone Radiation

Joel M. Moskowitz

Published 4:00 am, Wednesday, April 28, 2010

A huge, 30-year study called COSMOS has been launched in Europe to determine whether cell phones cause cancer and other health problems. Meanwhile, policymakers in Sacramento are considering legislation to ensure people know how much radiation their cell phones emit. The wireless industry vigorously opposes such legislation. It argues that its phones comply with regulations, and there is no consensus about risks so people don't need to know this. Our research review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found alarming results to the contrary.

We reviewed 23 case-control studies that examined tumor risk due to cell phone use. Although as a whole the data varied, among the 10 higher quality studies, we found a harmful association between phone use and tumor risk. The lower quality studies, which failed to meet scientific best practices, were primarily industry funded.

The 13 studies that investigated cell phone use for 10 or more years found a significant harmful association with tumor risk, especially for brain tumors, giving us ample reason for concern about long-term use.

Do federal regulations adequately protect the public? The 1996 Federal Communications Commission regulations are based upon the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), a measure of heat generated by six minutes of cell phone exposure in an artificial model that represents a 200-pound man's brain. Although every cell phone model has a SAR, the industry doesn't make it easy to find it. Moreover, children, and adults who weigh less than 200 pounds, are exposed to more radiation than our government deems "safe."

It is time to revamp the FCC regulations. Laboratory scientists have found harmful effects from cell phones that emit less radiation than the FCC standard. Moreover, some scientists believe that cell phones' heat transfer is not what we should fear. These researchers have found that variation in the frequencies emitted by cell phones may be hazardous.

We should address this issue proactively even if we do not fully understand its magnitude. Our government has faced similar public health threats in the past. In 1965, although there was no scientific consensus about the harmful effects of cigarettes, Congress required a precautionary warning label on cigarette packages: "Cigarette Smoking May Be Hazardous to Your Health." More specific warnings were not required until 1984: "Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy."

Should we have waited 19 years until absolutely certain before we informed the public about these risks?

Although more research on cell phone radiation is needed, we cannot afford to wait. There are 285 million cell phones in use in this country, and two-thirds of children over the age of seven use them. Manufacturers bury the SAR within their owner's manuals, along with safety instructions to keep your phone up to an inch away from your body.

Nine nations have issued precautionary warnings. It is time for our government to require health warnings and publicize simple steps to reduce the health risks of cell phone use.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Government-must-inform-us-of-cell-phone-risk-3190907.php#ixzz2SUBCEjO6

Hypersensitivity Diseases and Environmental Causes

MPs to hear arguments on microwave exposure levels

Experts concerned about health effects and industry witnesses who maintain WiFi, cellphones are safe set to appear Tuesday

Gloria Galloway

Ottawa — From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
Published on Monday, Apr. 26, 2010 7:46PM EDT

Last updated on Tuesday, Apr. 27, 2010 12:16AM EDT


Cellphone towers, cordless telephones and the wireless networks that link home computers send out microwaves that pose myriad human health risks, say witnesses who will tell federal politicians Tuesday that existing exposure limits are too high.

Magda Havas, a professor of environmental and resource studies at Trent University in Peterborough, Ont., works with people she says are “electrically sensitive.”

“When they are exposed to this microwave energy from an ordinary cordless phone, their heart goes crazy,” said Dr. Havas, who will appear at a meeting of the Commons health committee. “They simply cannot survive in our normal urban environment any more. They either seclude themselves in their homes [where] they have special paint that they put on their walls and fabric for their windows to keep the radiation out,” or they move to rural areas.

Microwaves have also been linked to cancer, an inability to control diabetes, sleeping disorders and a range of neurological ailments. Dr. Havas and others who fear the effects of electromagnetic energy want the allowable exposure levels reduced, and they want the government to publicize the dangers they perceive in the communication devices that exist in most Canadian homes.

But for every study that says the waves are dangerous, there is another that says they are perfectly safe.

Health Canada, which sets the guidelines for microwave exposure, says that as long as the recommended limits are respected, the department has no scientific reason to consider exposure to low-level radiofrequency fields, such as those from cell towers, dangerous to the public.

Bernard Lord, the former New Brunswick premier who is now the president of the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, will also appear before the Commons Health committee on Tuesday.

“The wireless industry fully complies with the regulations that are in place,” Mr. Lord said. “Not only do they fully comply, the members also believe that they are safe. We are all users of this technology. Not only do we use it on a day-to-day basis with our own wireless devices in our hands, but many of us have WiFi networks at home. And you have Internet cafés with WiFi waves. It’s all around you. It’s everywhere.”

François Therrien, a spokesman for Save Our Children From Microwaves who will also appear before the committee, said the members of his group understand that cellphones are here to stay.

“But we want to make them safer,” Mr. Therrien said. “We want warnings on cellphones and we want the cellphone companies to stop selling these products to children.”