DEBATE: On July 3, 2014, an international team of doctors, scientific experts, and non-profit organizations called for pregnant women to limit exposure to wireless radiation from cell phones and other devices, by taking simple steps to protect themselves and their unborn children, writes Associate Professor Olle Johansson — whose article SvD (Svenska Dagbladet) and DN (Dagens Nyheter) refused to publish.
Already in 2010, after a consensus meeting 2009 in Seletun, Norway, myself and a group of scientists voiced strong warnings and recommendations about wireless dangers in the
Seletun report, which subsequently became the basis for the
Council of Europe’s resolution No. 1815in 2011.
A team of researchers in California conducted a major study of cell phone use among pregnant women. For one year the team looked at all the kids who were born in Denmark, and interviewed the mothers about their cell phone use during pregnancy, as well as the child’s later cell phone usage and behavior pattern. As it turned out, to the scientists’ surprise, the mothers who had the most frequent cell phone use during their pregnancy consequently had the greatest risk of having children with behavioral difficulties.
Fetuses are affected
Make no mistake, this is not limited to just children: even fetuses are significantly affected. A team of researchers, lead by Mr. Jing, of the Department of Public Health, Shandong University in China, has studied the effects of cell phone radiation on pregnant, rat’s fetuses.
[Jing J, Yuhua Z, Xiao-Qian Y, Rongping J, Dong-Mei G, Xi C, "The influence of microwave radiation from cellular phone on fetal rat brain", Biol Electromagn by 2012; Jan 23.].
The researchers measured changes in neuronal signal substances and effects on antioxidant enzyme which will protect our cells from oxidative stress. The conclusion was that cell phone radiation during pregnancy gave rise to damage in the fetus’ brains! The rat babies were already born with brain injuries. What parent would want that for its offspring?
Insects and animals are adversely affected: placebo effect is excluded
A survey carried out in 2011 in Lausanne, Switzerland, has shown that the signal from the cell phones may not only
confuse bees, but also cause their death. When researchers exposed beehives to cell phone radiation, the bees occupying the hive simply choose to move away and never return. This is exactly the behavior that beekeepers worldwide call CCD,
Colony Collapse Disorder, a phenomenon that involves an abrupt disappearance of bees from their hives. We do not know why this is happening, but the authorities have chosen to ignore the above research findings — as cell phones and wireless iPads surely cannot be called into question.
In order to achieve pollination, there are now on the market handheld electric pollinators which via high-frequency sound mimic the bee’s wing vibrations. Pollen is caught in a plastic cup and transferred to other flowers. Other companies are selling robotic bees, that is real “drones”, and little robot birds. In China, workers have been forced out in the fields with brushes in their hands to do the job that former natural pollinators have done for millennia. Is this the development that we want??
When a cell phone was place beneath the part of the ant home where the ant eggs were stored, the eggs were immediately moved diagonally as far away as possible — and the ants established their toilet area over where the cell phone was placed. The adult ants displayed obvious behavioral disorders, with more disruption in their daily activities and increasingly scanning of their local environment. It was clear that something concerned them.
French researchers, under the direction of
Alain Vian at the
Equipe de Recherche Transduction et Autosurveillance Cellulaire,
Universite Blaise Pascal in Aubière, have shown that tomato plants react to the damage from the relatively weak 900 MHz radiation from cell towers. The scientists believe they found an environmental factor that instantly impacts the genetic material in the tomato cells, which in turn resulted in the tomato plant cells reacting with a chemical damage sequence, involving the molecule
calmodulin. The effect was described as “exactly as if we had crushed them with a hammer,” by the scientists.”
It was enough to expose a few leaves of the plant for the entire plant to react. The damage was lessened however, on the parts of the plant that were shielded from the radiation
[Roux D, Vian A, Girard S, Bonnet P, Paladian F, Davies E, G Ledoigt, "High frequency (900 MHz) low amplitude (5 V/m) electromagnetic field: a genuine environmental stimulus that affects transcription, translation, calcium and energy charge in tomato", Planta 2008; 227: 883-891].
The interesting thing about tomatoes is that they cannot cheat or be swayed by emotions or expectations
They have no conscience.- They cannot move.
- They do not cheat the insurance company for money.
- They are not imagining things.
- The don’t blame their workplace problems on alleged “electrical over-sensitivity”.
- They don’t read newspapers (they can’t fall victim for media psychosis).
- They are instead very sensitive to their surrounding environment and are fussy when it comes to conditions for their survival.
Had the French tomato plants been able to escape, they obviously would have done so.
Gadgets, not essentials
What I discuss are basically toys – not life essentials such as clean water, clean air, food that you can eat without risk, nursing, care, love and respect. Children who do not receive these essentials will not make it. Children who do not receive wireless tablets and mobile phones will still grow up to become responsible and loving citizens – this you do not have to be worried about.
Today, various wireless devices are literally flooding our homes, schools and workplaces. And there is a lot to be concerned about. Common people are not at all sure that this radiation is harmless; they are not at all sure that wireless technology is without risk. To this we can add a massive number of studies and reports, expert opinions and statements which in summary say there is a “strong suspicion of possible damage”.
The Precautionary Principle and market-matched guidelines
Our “safety” agencies ignore thousands of published studies – and use thisinstead.
These texts also point out the urgent need to use the “Precautionary Principle” — and even more so since 2011 when the WHO has classified “radiofrequency electromagnetic fields” as a possible carcinogen (2B). So, we can immediately exclude that all of this technology is safe, since the WHO does not believe so either. (There is a classification for such exposures;
“Class 4 – proven non-human-carcinogen”.) The question is: just how big is the risk, and what do we believe this risk may cost us in the form of medical care, disability and premature death.
In biomedical research, we could very quickly find that the current limits do not meet the requirements for protection of the population. The current “limits” are solely based on “acute thermal effects” and conducted in laboratories with “phantom heads”, i.e. fluid-filled plastic dummy heads.
At a meeting in London in 2008 at the venerable Royal Society (the world’s premier scientific society) professor Paolo Vecchia, head of the ICNIRP, the body that launched these recommended “limits”, said that they were never intended as medical or health safety limits.
He said what the “exposure guidelines” are not, and I quote:
“They are not mandatory prescriptions for safety”…
“They are not the last word on the issue”…
“They are not defensive walls for industry or others.”
It is a shame that the world’s radiation protection authorities, health authorities, parliaments and governments do not understand this simple and clear answer, but persist to refer to the ICNIRP technical recommendations when alleging “safety”.
Biologically adapted regulation codes are non-existent
We scientists have — since long ago — demanded biological-based regulatory codes and regulations, and I also demanded an investigation into the safe exposure limitations (i.e. actual safety guidelines). One could equally early say that “low-intensity (non-thermal) bio-effects and adverse health effects do occur at levels significantly below the existing safety limits“. And that “the current recommendations for the general population are inadequate and obsolete with respect to prolonged low-intensity exposures.”
We also demanded that the Precautionary Principle must be adopted to protect life, this foremost for our children. Should it, on the other hand, have appeared that this principle had been abundantly applied, no harm would have been made. (On the contrary, one dare not even think of the opposite scenario.) And please note, I do not suggest that food is taken from the children, nor their drinking water or the air they breathe — only that we should be cautious in dealing with strong radiation sources.
“The precautionary principle should be applied when scientific evaluation does not allow the risk to be determined with sufficient certainty. Given the context of growing exposure of the population, in particular that of vulnerable groups such as young people and children, there could be extremely high human and economic costs if early warnings are neglected.”
The resolution goes on to say:
“…for children in general, and particularly in schools and classrooms, give preference to the wired Internet connections, and strictly regulate the use of mobile phones by school children on school premises.”
Various so-called “official expert reports” have been presented. These conclude that there is no cause for concern. It makes me very worried. This would mean that all the thousands of papers published on very serious side-effects of electromagnetic radiation fields — in fully accredited scientific journals — must then all be wrong. Can this be true?
Unlikely that all cautionary scientists are wrong
That 10 separate research results are wrong has a probability factor of less than 1/10,000,000,000. That everyone is wrong has such a small probability range that we even lack an everyday math term for it — but the different “expert groups” do not pay attention to this fact. They have instead rejected all of the science produced by all of these publishers, reviewers, and hard-working scientists.
I would welcome a public examination where each rejected publication is accounted for and explained, bit-by-bit, line-by-line, where the risk deniers show us all exactly where and in what way the scientist teams have made a mistake. (A few years ago, I asked the then respective Swedish ministers responsible to send me such a briefing, paper-by-paper. However, I received no information back, whatsoever.)
I am extremely concerned by the fact that critically-examining research rarely receives grants anymore. Since the so-called “experts” claim there is zero risk, it is reasonable to expect this claim to withstand scrutiny. In research, all roads leads to Rome – so in that case, will eventually all researchers then, including the so-called ‘ whistleblowers ‘, conclude that it is safe to live your entire life with a 24-hours-per-day, full-body radiation exposure wherever you are?
Until the scientific community comes to truth, we must be aware and vigilant. We are exposed to radiation a million billion (1,000,000,000,000,000) times (or more!) stronger than our natural background radiation. And the results published in the biomedical literature are, in many cases, extremely scary. It is obvious that bees and ants understand this and therefore flee when exposed. But why do not us humans do the same? Why do we just stay put, talking about it?
Children are the most important resource to every generation. We all have a shared responsibility to protect children. We also have an equal responsibility for all ants, bees and tomato plants — now and in the future. No one can renounce his or her personal responsibility. One cannot refer to various official reports or set up so-called “defensive walls”, and believe that this would protect from present or future moral-ethical responsibility. Never!
Every man and woman must stand up for life. If we do not, the consequences can be dire. Things are moving quickly, for it seems that bees and ants have already given up. It is serious. We need them. And we need to protect all life.
6,796
he information campaign entitled 
A Belgian-Swedish study on ants 
