Microwave - and other forms of electromagnetic - radiation are major (but conveniently disregarded, ignored, and overlooked) factors in many modern unexplained disease states. Insomnia, anxiety, vision problems, swollen lymph, headaches, extreme thirst, night sweats, fatigue, memory and concentration problems, muscle pain, weakened immunity, allergies, heart problems, and intestinal disturbances are all symptoms found in a disease process the Russians described in the 70's as Microwave Sickness.
I noticed they even suggest that 60 of the control subjects ought to "visit a qualified medical specialist":
Furthermore, 60 subjects from the controls (1,306 respondents out of 2,000) also met with these preliminary screening criteria, suggesting that 3.0–4.6% of the general public in Japan may be EHS individuals, even though none are currently diagnosed with SHS or MCS /EHS. In addition, significant differences were not observed in all scores between 60 subjects from the control group and self-selected EHS subjects (data not shown).
Based on the fact that only 1% of the population of Japan is aware of EHS, determined by a preliminary survey [Hojo and Tokiya, 2012], some of these 60 subjects may have some knowledge of EHS; however, the majority of them most probably have no knowledge of this condition. Thus, it is very important that these unsuspecting individuals, who may have developed EHS symptoms, visit a qualified medical specialist. ... Japanese self-selected EHS subjects have suffered greatly in their day-to-day life [Ito et al., 2012], making it imperative to have specialists who are familiar with EHS, as well as MCS and SHS.
I read your letter and am somewhat stunned at your position. I was not aware of the actions of Mr. Mottus. He lives in L.A. and I am in Portland, OR. Given your fear about disruption, it is not necessary that he come to the conference.
It was my intent to distribute paper materials that have already been delivered to the convention site, informing educators and others of the biological effects of wireless devices in schools and what is happening internationally as more scientists, educators, agencies and organizations become aware of the potentially devastating short and long term medical problems caused by chronic, pulsed microwave exposure. Your position that opposition to wireless devices in schools is a "danger to children" is utterly unsupportable. In fact, thehardcore, forefront science confirms that opposition to wireless is morally, ethically andlegally necessary. The position of Wireless Education Action and our agenda was never a secret. Jennifer Bradley, National PTA | Corporate AlliancesSpecialist, was informed in detail with regard to the educational service we have intended to provide at the conference. Thus, your sudden, untimelyobjection to our agenda is unwarranted. Moreover, you have not provided any defense of your decision to lock me and the agenda out of the conference. I have numerous emails to and from Ms. Bradley detailing our mission and have incurred considerable expense in relation to the convention that cannot be retrieved so I expect to be reimbursed for the cost of my plane ticket which was $465 and is unrefundable.
Our position on wireless devices in schools is informed bythousands of scientific studies, the latest of which, a definitive study that has already modified the positions of other US health and environmental agencies, was just completed last month by the US National Toxicology Program and is referenced below with a quote from the American Cancer Society just last month. Additionally years ago, Norbert Hankin of the Environmental Protection Agency was quoted in a letter sayingFCC standards do not protect against long term chronic exposure! (I suggest you read the entire document linked here)
It is extremely dangerous and potentially legally liable to adopt an uninformed position, when the safety of children is in question. Considering your influential position with the PTA, you are obligated to become informed of all matters of safety even if it challenges your beliefs. It is mandated throughout your mission statement. To ignore data or misinform parents and educators by omission has the potential to cause harm. Since microwave devices including wi-fi routers are categorized in the highest emerging risk category by Swiss Re, an insurance risk management company, the telecommunications industry can no longer get coverage for liability insurance. Liability will fall on school boards, administrators and organizations that have been informed of the risk but choose not to inform the public.
Personal opinions should never dictate policy that is solely informed by corporate salespeople, software and hardware companies and stakeholders whose lobbying efforts and advertising budgets determine the flow and content of information.
It is the high dutyof PTA officials, school boards, administrators and others in related organizations and agencies to be completely informed so as to do no harm to children that are under your jurisdiction. No telecommunication corporation or representatives thereof have ever made the claim that wi-fi and other wireless devices used in schools are safe. Do you feel comfortable with that? Wireless devices were never pre-market safety tested.
There have been numerous examples of environmental toxins that were considered safe until policy caught up with science. Tobacco, asbestos, plastics, pesticides (they used to spray DDT on school children to prove it's safety), thalidomide, artificial sweeteners and fructose to name just a few. Now we have children exposed to microwave radiation for 7 hours each day for 14+ years. There are at least a dozen studies that confirm 4 hours on a lap top can cause damage to men's sperm as well as damage to DNA.
As part of my work as an advocate, I recently ran for city council in Portland OR as a single issue candidate. My platform was advocating for the replacement of wireless internet connections with wired connections and getting cell towers off of school grounds. Endorsing my campaign were; Dr. Devra Davis the Nobel Prize winning founder of the Environmental Health Trust, and a staunch advocate of getting microwave devices out of schools; Professor Barrie Trower, former microwave weapons specialist for the British MI5; Frank Clegg, former CEO of Microsoft Canada; Ellie Marks, President -- California Brain Tumor Association and Lloyd Morgan, Senior Research Scientistfor E.H.T. As a result of my candidacy I have been invited to present before the Portland City Council regarding the issue of wireless in schools. The incumbent I was running against, Amanda Fritz, a Cambridge educated psychiatric nurse, understands the risk after being informed during the campaign. I have also been working closely with our State Representative, Alissa Keny Guyer who invited a world renowned scientist, Dr. Martin Pall and a medical doctor, Dr. Paul Dart to give a half hour presentation before the Health Committee of the State House regarding the imminent public health emergency facing the most vulnerable--children and pregnant women. Dr. Martin Pall & Dr. Paul Dart Address the Health Committee of the Oregon State Legislature on the Dangers of Exposure to Microwaves from Wireless Technology and Wi Fi in Schools Feb. 24, 2014
As a result of that meeting Rep. Keny-Guyer introduced House Bill 3350 which would require that parents and teachers be informed of the fact that Classroom environments are a Class 2B Carcinogen as so designated by the World Health Organization in 2011. Schools teach about tobacco, drugs, alcohol and safe sex but do not inform children and their parents of the many potentially devastating health effects of microwave radiation from cell phones and other wireless devices. Wi-Fi Utilizes the Most Lethal Microwave Frequencies 0.95 and 2.45 GHz —Dr. Magda Havas, BSc, PhD
The resistance among educators and bureaucrats, is potentially harmful for students as they should be learning, in health classes, about the hazards of wireless devices and how to use them more safely since that is the world they are growing up in. The "debate" on safety, prolonged by industry propaganda (similar to that used by the tobacco industry many years ago), is now over as referenced in the statement by the American Cancer Society below. In other words, there is no longer a debate as to whether microwave emitting devices are potentially harmful as science now confirms that they are. Prior to the current study, the W.H.O. classified microwave radiation from all wireless devices as a Class 2B Carcinogen.
Your position statement (below), that advocating for the removal of wireless devices is contrary to the PTA mission can easily be challenged and cannot possibly be sustained by any science. It also conflicts with statements to the contrary by statewide PTA organizations (see other PTA statements re: wireless below).
Your statement: "The National PTA has determined that Wireless Education Action's positions that wireless classrooms are a danger to children, that the government is covering it up, that schools are microwave radiating children without real safety standards, and that wireless systems should be banned from schools and other locationswherechildren are exposed to them, are not consistent with National PTA'smission,position statements, resolutions orpolicies."
-- (Please see numerous PTA, and other organization and agency policy statements supporting our position at the end of this letter below).
Our children are mere pawns in this vast corporate feeding frenzy that is being enabled by those willfully ignorant and afraid to look beyond the crucible of corporate culture. Standing up for the safety of our children and their genetic integrity might be a logistical nightmare and aninconvenient truth but should be the first priority of any and all organizations advocating for the health and safety of children -- especially in school. The PTA has an obligation to students, parents, teachers and school staff to become informed on the challenges of wireless technology and update it's members:
Dr. Anthony Miller, World Health Organization Expert to MCPS Warns: “Wi-Fi networks in schools and cell towers on your school grounds could significantly increase the cancer risk in your community,” warns Read Dr. Martha Herberts Letter Read Dr. Anthony Miller’s Letter Read Dr. Lennart Hardells Letter . Read Dr. Carpenters Letter Read Dr. Olle Johanssons Lertter HERE. Read Cris Rowan, occupational therapist Letter Here Read Katie Singers Letter HERE. Read Cindy Sage and Trevor Marshals Letter Here Read Ellie Marks Letter Here Read Arthur Firstenbergs Letter HERE. Read Mikko Ahonen PhD, Lena Hedendahl MD and Tarmo Koppel MSc PhDs Letter
Thank you for your attention to this important issue.
I applaud your for your efforts to raise awareness about the well researched dangers of wireless radiation in schools. The harm being done today by exposing children to powerful microwave radiation is likely to cause them long term health problems for the rest of their lives and cause early death for many. A list of those diseases and illnesses that may be expected is here: http://www.bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/ .
I find it disgusting that the National PTA would deny you the right to educate convention participants about the dangers their children face from wireless radiation and deny convention participants the opportunity to learn about the most dangerous situation that children have ever faced while attending school. The huge increase in mental health problems, depression and suicide amongst children has only occurred since they have been exposed to strong wireless radiation in their schools and homes etc.
This surely is a serious conflict of interest for the Nation PTA, as over sixty years of scientific evidence clearly shows serious biological effects are caused by exposure to microwave radiation. This partnership with a company that has a commercial interest in wireless devices, appears to put sales and profit over health and safety of children. It also seems to have tainted their thought and consideration process. They should reconsider their stance and place the health and safety of children first.
If the National PTA had any concern about the health and safety of children, not only would they allow you space at their convention, but they would not charge you any fee for your kind and excellent efforts to protect the young. They also have a responsibility to provide leadership and education to their membership on this critically important subject It is such an important subject for children and parents that it should be the top agenda item at the convention.
Dear
National PTA Executive Director Nathan Monell,
I am very concerned to read your letter sating that that the National PTA
has made a determination on the issue of the health risk
of wireless radiation to children. You state you are barring a health advocacy
organization from sharing information at a table at the National PTA Conference
in Florida because you determined the issue (educating on classroom technology
and school cell tower health and safety issues) is not in alignment with the
PTA's mission?
I did not realize that the issue was ever evaluated in a systematic way
by the National PTA. Was there a vote?
It
is my understanding that some PTAs are, in fact, asking for the schools
to be hardwired in order to be prudent, and protect the children from this
"possible carcinogen." Please note that Onteora Elementary School PTA has sent
letters to their school district calling for the removal of wireless.
You
can access that information here.
Other PTA's are halting plans for cell towers to be placed on their schools.
In
light of the scientific uncertainty, this certainly makes sense.
I am a member of the PTA in Montgomery County Maryland. As a social
worker I worked for years in the school system directing an intensive therapy
program in special education and am now at an ADHD clinic. I also have two
school aged daughters so this is a personal and professional issue for me
because it affects my clients well being, as well as my
family.
What information did the National PTA review to determine that health
concerns are not consistent with the National PTA's mission? As far as I know
there has been no dialogue on this. When was it brought to the table? Was there
a vote?
The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that children are more
vulnerable to this radiation. Please see the letter they wrote in 2012 to Congress and in 2013 to
the FCC.
I
got involved in this issue after I consulted a top pediatrician in regards to my
daughter's health who specifically told me to reduce exposure. It was his
words that helped me understand that credible evidence existed. His name is Dr.
Jerome Paulson. At the time he was Chair of the Environmental Health Committee
of the American Academy of Pediatrics and Director of the
Mid-Atlantic Center for Children’s Health & the Environment.
He told me " it seems prudent to limit children’s exposure to cell phone radiation through the use of hand’s free devices and by texting" when I asked about cell phones and children's health. Please see him quoted on this issue in this Time article "Pediatricians Say Cell Phone Radiation Standards Need Another Look."
Wireless, of course, exposes children to the same type of radiation (radio-frequency) but at full body exposure and more directly to reproductive organs. In classes in our district, children are told to place laptops on their laps in classrooms and children are on laptops in almost every class in some schools. I attached some scientific images that show how deeply the radiation is absorbed into children from a tablet and laptop.
I
understand that at first glance this issue seems incomprehensible but once you
take time to read the information from credible sources (not industry funded
science) you understand that this radiation is absorbed more deeply into
children's brains and bodies as stated by the International Agency for the
Research on Cancer. I do not believe in conspiracy theories but I
certainly understand how the tobacco companies and the lead paint industry have
protected their product. Harvard Press just
published a book on this very issue and talks about wireless networks in
schools specifically.
Scientists who have worked for the wireless companies are stating that
the companies they used to work for are protecting their products. I hope
you will consider hearing from scientists like George Carlo who was hired to
lead a 25 million dollar program in the 90's on radio-frequency radiation and of
course Dr. Franz Adlkofer, former Executive Director of the VERUM Foundation for Behavior and Environment to discuss his research showing radiofrequency (wireless) radiation damaged human cells who spoke at Harvard about his research recently.
I
have attached two documents for you to review. One is written by Dr. Cindy
Russell of the Santa Clara Medical Association and the other is a list of what
other countries are doing in regards to the health risks posed by this
radiation. Over a dozen countries are calling for reduced exposure to
children.
I also hope that you will take time to understand the important
results of the new study by the NIH National Toxicology Program confirms that
the safety limits we have in place are not protective. A very informative Q and A can be found at the Environmental Health Trust website. Dr. Paulson
sent me to this site ehtrust.org when I asked him his opinion on radio-frequency
radiation and children's health four years ago.
I was so thankful to hear that this issue was going to be shared at the
National PTA Conference and I am deeply troubled to hear that Mr. Morrison and
fellow Oregon parents at Wireless Education Action are not being allowed to
share such important information. Most PTA's and most parents are unaware of the
issue and it would serve them to learn more so they can make informed opinions.
I would
also add that I am concerned about the risk to pregnant staff and students as
the Chief of Obstetrics at Yale, Dr. Hugh Taylor, is recommending pregnant women reduce exposure to wireless and cell
phone radiation. See the recommendations of the BabySafe Project signed onto by
Dr. Taylor and 100 physicians here. This makes sense as pregnant women are perhaps the most vulnerable.
Dr. Taylor's own research showed brain damage (poor memory and increased
hyperactivity) from exposures. This was presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies Conference
a few months ago and I attended the Symposium at the Baltimore Convention
Center. See
the press conference here that has slides of the presentations by Harvard
and Yale doctors.
I am very much in support of technology in the classroom but would
advocate for wired computers. This is the simple, practical solution and
eliminates the children and staff's exposure to radio frequency radiation. I
think the PTA could best serve the community by opening up a dialogue on this so
parents and teachers can have all the facts.
Please let me know when the National PTA reviewed this issue
and what materials were reviewed and how the current opinion was
determined. Was there a vote on this issue and I somehow missed it?
In May 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), declared cell phones a Group 2B 'Possible Carcinogen,' meaning a "possible cancer-causing agent," based on the available research. According to the press release:1
"Dr. Jonathan Samet ... Chairman of the Working Group, indicated that 'the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification ... and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk.'
'Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings,' said IARC Director Christopher Wild, Ph.D., 'it is important that additional research be conducted into the long‐term, heavy use of mobile phones.
Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands‐free devices or texting.'"
Since 2011, there has been an accumulating body of scientific evidence suggesting the IARC classification should be upgraded. For example, leading brain tumor researcher, Dr. Lennart Hardell in Sweden, in December 2014, called for an upgrade to a Group 1 Carcinogen, saying:2
An increased risk for acoustic neuroma associated with use of wireless phones was published by our research group after the meeting giving pooled results of our study periods 1997 to 2003 and 2007 to 2009.
Using these viewpoints our summary was that RF-EMF exposure should be a Group 1 carcinogen according to IARC criteria. There is now a petition to support that notion aiming at alerting IARC to classify such exposure to cause human cancer."
Latest Radiofrequency Study — A Wake Up Call for Cell Phone Hazard Deniers?
Despite such findings, cell phones have become increasingly pervasive and such a common part of our daily lives that most people never think twice about using them and carrying them on their body all day long.
Some do exercise caution, using speakerphone or texting, for instance, instead of holding the phone up to their ear (and right next to their brain), but many still refuse to believe the risks are real.
Alas, researchers have demonstrated that wireless phones and other gadgets have the potential to cause all sorts of health problems, from headaches to brain tumors, with young children being at greatest risk.
Sure, some studies have also found no effects, but most of these were industry-funded, which tends to render the results less reliable.
In fact, 72 percent of industry-funded studies have failed to discern any biological effect from cell phone radiation exposure, whereas 67 percent of independent studies (those not funded by industry) did find biological effects.3
For example, by 1990, before there even was a consumer cell phone industry, at least two dozen epidemiological studies on humans indicated a link between electromagnetic fields (EMF) and/or radio frequencies (RF) and serious health problems, including childhood leukemia.
And in 1977, there was a Senate hearing on the subject of radiofrequency radiation and brain tumors. The link between brain cancer and cell phone use has been a particularly persistent one, and mounting research has only made this association stronger.
Most recently, partial results of a large U.S. federal government funded animal study suggests wireless radiation from mobile phones increased the risk of heart and brain tumors in male mice.4,5,6,7,8
Heart and Brain Tumors Found in Rats Exposed to Cell Phone Radiation
The study was done by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), an interagency research program started by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 1978 and now housed at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS).
To evaluate the impact of RF on the rats, the animals were placed in special chambers in which they were exposed to various levels of cell phone radiation for a total of nine hours a day, seven days a week, from birth to the age of 2 (basically the full lifespan of a rat).
Both Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) and Global System for Mobile (GSM) modulations were used.
A control group lived out their lives without exposure. Of the exposed rats, 2 to 3 percent of the males developed malignant gliomas (a form of brain cancer). None in the control group developed cancer.
Interestingly, exposed female rats had far lower cancer rates than the males — nearly three-quarters lower — but gender differences are not an unusual finding in research, according to experts.
Of the male rats exposed to the highest levels of cell phone radiation, 5 to 7 percent also developed schwannomas (nerve cell tumors) in their hearts. None in the control group developed this problem.
According to the authors, these brain and heart cancers were likely caused by whole-body exposure to the cell phone radiation. No statistically significant difference in the numbers of tumors was noted between CDMA versus GSM modulations.
(Note that other research has shown even greater risk for brain tumors from newer 3G phones or Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS), despite the power being significantly lower. This suggests a similar animal study, such as the NTP study, using 3G technology, might show even greater tumor risk.)
Disagreements Over Test Results Abound
The study has been criticized for its anomalies however, which include an increased death rate among the controls, and the fact that none of the controls developed cancer. In other studies performed by the NTP, an average of 2 percent of controls tends to develop gliomas.
Still, the authors warn that even if the risk is very small, it should not be discounted. Moreover, the results do indicate a dose-dependent relationship between exposure and cancer risk, meaning the longer the rats were exposed the greater the risk.
"Given the extremely large number of people who use wireless communication devices, even a very small increase in the incidence of disease resulting from exposure to the RFR (radio-frequency radiation) generated by those devices would have broad implications for public health," they say.
Dr. Otis Brawley, Chief Medical Officer of the American Cancer Society also noted that "the NTP report linking RFR to two types of cancer marks a paradigm shift in our understanding of radiation and cancer risk." This was an about-face for the American Cancer Society, which has long been a denier of risk.
Christopher Portier, Ph.D., retired head of the NTP who was involved in the launch of the study, also insists the differences between the sexes means it's not an associated finding, but rather a clear and causative relationship between exposure to GSM and CDMA radiation and cancer among the male rats.
"I would call it a causative study, absolutely," he told Scientific American.9 "They controlled everything in the study. It's [the cancer] because of the exposure." Previous research certainly supports these findings. In one, those who began using cell phones heavily before age 20 had four to five times more brain cancer by their late 20s, compared to those whose exposure was minimal.10,11
How Does RF Cause Cellular Damage?
RF is a non-ionizing type of radiation, meaning it does not break chemical bonds. Within current FCC exposure guidelines, it is generally believed to not produce sufficient heat to cause damage tissue. There is some research12 showing non-uniform absorption of RF and temperatures as high as 6 degrees higher in the hotspots, which refutes this assumption.
It is on this fact that most safety claims are hinged. However, RF appears to be able to cause damage in other ways. In a recent Scientific American interview, Jerry Phillips, Ph.D., a biochemist and Director of the Excel Science Center at the University of Colorado explained how living cells react to RF radiation:13
"The signal couples with those cells, although nobody really knows what the nature of that coupling is. Some effects of that reaction can be things like movement of calcium across membranes, the production of free radicals or a change in the expression of genes in the cell.
Suddenly important proteins are being expressed at times and places and in amounts that they shouldn't be, and that has a dramatic effect on the function of the cells. And some of these changes are consistent with what's seen when cells undergo conversion from normal to malignant."
When you consider the fact that your body is bioelectric, it's easier to understand how and why biological damage from wireless phones might occur.14 For starters, your body uses electrons to communicate, and inside every cell are mitochondria, the power plants of the cell, and these mitochondria can be adversely impacted by electromagnetic fields, resulting in cellular dysfunction. Other mechanisms of harm have also been discovered in recent years.
Electromagnetic Fields Can Damage Cells and DNA Via Cellular Stress Responses
Research by Martin Blank, Ph.D., a Special Lecturer and retired Associate Professor at Columbia University in the Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics and former president of the Bioelectromagnetics Society,15 explains that electromagnetic fields (EMF) damage your cells and DNA by inducing a cellular stress response.
He gave an informative speech at the November 18, 2010 Commonwealth Club of California program, "The Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields," co-sponsored by ElectromagneticHealth.org (embedded above for your convenience).
According to Blank, the coiled structure of DNA is very vulnerable to electromagnetic fields. It possesses the same structural characteristics of a fractal antenna (electronic conduction and self-symmetry), and these two properties allow for greater reactivity of DNA to EMF than other tissues. Moreover, no heat is required for this DNA damage to occur.
Blank believes the potential harm of wireless technologies can be significant, and that there's plenty of peer-reviewed research to back up such suspicions. For example, a 2009 review16 of 11 long-term epidemiologic studies revealed using a cell phone for 10 years or longer doubles your risk of being diagnosed with a brain tumor on the same side of the head where the cell phone is typically held.
Thousands of studies showing biological effects from low-intensity EMF were also synthesized and summarized in the BioInitiative Report17 (2007 and 2012), including immune system effects, neurological effects, cognitive effects and much more.
Another important study,18,19 funded by the U.S. government, was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 2011. Using a positron emission tomography or PET scan capable of detecting alterations in glucose, the researchers determined that cell phone radiation triggers your brain cells to metabolize glucose at an increased rate.
Glucose metabolism equates to cell activation, so the findings indicate that radiation from your cell phone has a well-defined measureable influence on your brain. Essentially, each time you put a cell phone up to your ear, you're artificially activating your brain cells. That said, it's still unclear whether this excess glucose production is directly harmful, or can cause a cascade of problems down the line, but there is no question there are biological effects from the radiation.
Voltage Gated Calcium Channels a Master Mechanism?
More recently, Dr. Martin Pall, professor emeritus of biochemistry and basic medical sciences at Washington State University, has built a case that Voltage-Gated Calcium Channel (VGCC) activation in cells from low-intensity EMFs, such as those emitted by cell phones, wireless devices and wireless infrastructure, is a primary mechanism of biological dysfunction.
He believes the VGCC activation in cells can explain long-reported association between electromagnetic fields and a wide range of biological changes and health effects, including neuropsychiatric, hormonal, and cardiac effects, chromosomal breaks, lowered fertility, oxidative stress, changes in calcium signaling, cellular DNA damage, breakdown of the blood-brain barrier, melatonin depletion and sleep disruption, and cancer. According to Pall:
"We're clearly at a point where we can confidently debunk the industry's argument of more than 20 years that there cannot be a biological mechanism of action from these low-intensity EMFs. According to industry, the forces electromagnetic fields place on electrically charged groups in the cell are too weak to produce biological effects.
However, the unique structural properties of the VGCC protein can, it turns out, explain why the force on a cell's voltage sensor from low intensity EMFs are millions of times stronger than are the forces on singly charged groups elsewhere in the cell.
They may be low-intensity but with regard to the VGCCs can have a tremendously powerful impact on the cell. Furthermore, published studies showing calcium channel blocker drugs block or greatly lower biological effects from electromagnetic fields, confirming there is a voltage gated calcium channel mechanism that is occurring."
Epidemiologist Calls for Revised Cell Phone Standards
Devra Davis, Ph.D., an epidemiologist and author of the book, "Disconnect," has been an outspoken proponent of improved cell phone standards and regulations. At present, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) bases its standards on a model that overwhelmingly does not apply to the population at large. As explained in a recent article by STAT:20
"[T]he current FCC standards are unrealistic because they're based on ... a creature called Standard Anthropomorphic Man, or SAM — that's larger than the average person, and, therefore, able to withstand more radiation exposure than most people. 'SAM is not an ordinary guy,' Davis wrote.
'He ranked in size and mass at the top 10 percent of all military recruits in 1989, weighing more than 200 pounds, with an 11-pound head, and standing about 6 feet 2 inches tall.
SAM was not especially talkative, as he was assumed to use a cell phone for no more than six minutes.' On Friday [May 27, 2016], Davis reiterated her call for revised FCC standards that would be based on the average person ... 'Every parent who thinks it's so cute to give their kids a little cell phone should ask themselves if they would give them a glass of whiskey or a gun,' she said."
Camilla Rees of ElectromagneticHealth.org says there is also question as to whether the FCC is enforcing its own thermal guidelines. She says:
"While we know the FCC SAR limits are only intended to protect from potential heating effects, and do not consider low-intensity biological effects which are equally important, questions exist about the FCC's effectiveness at regulating the thermal risks they do acknowledge. Some believe a great number of phones on the market today are well over the FCC limit, and greater surveillance to protect the public is needed."
1 in 4 Car Accidents Caused by Cell Phones
It's not just the RF that makes cell phones dangerous. They also play a significant role in car accidents caused by distracted drivers, which took the life of nearly 3,330 people in 2012 and injured 421,000.21 Last year, the National Safety Council (NSC) reported that cell phone use is responsible for 26 percent of all car accidents in the U.S.22
Surprisingly, only 5 percent were related specifically to texting, suggesting talking on the phone is just as risky, if not more. Among teen drivers, the influence of cell phones on accident rates is much higher however. According to a recent report by the American Automobile Association (AAA), 60 percent of car crashes involving teenagers are due to talking, texting and other distractions.23
Aside from cell phone usage, other distractions for teens causing them to be involved in car accidents included talking to passengers and looking at something inside the car.
Overall, using your cell phone in any manner while driving increases your chances of an accident, as it takes your attention off the task at hand, which is to keep your eyes on the road, your hands on the wheel, and your mind on safe driving. Indeed, research24has shown that driving performance is equally affected while using either a handheld or hands-free phone, leading to effects such as increased reaction time.
This warning is especially relevant for American drivers, as a study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that talking, texting and reading e-mail on the phone while driving are far more prevalent in the U.S. than in Europe.
In the U.S., 69 percent of drivers between the ages of 18 and 64 reported talking on their cell phone while driving within the last 30 days. One-third of U.S. drivers also read or sent text messages or emails while driving — twice the rate of texting and emailing drivers in Spain.
A little more than 30 percent of U.S. drivers report never using a cell phone while driving, compared to nearly 80 percent of drivers in the U.K and about 60 percent of drivers in Germany, France and Spain.
Also on the rise are pedestrian injuries from cell phones, which are up 35 percent since 2010. It's estimated that 10 percent of the 78,000 US pedestrian injuries in 2012 were the result of "mobile device distraction."25 In this case, research has shown that textingis significantly more dangerous than talking on a cell phone while walking.26 To make the roads safer for everyone, the CDC offers the following commonsense recommendations:
Model safe behavior behind the wheel — never text and drive.
Always stay focused and alert when driving.
Take the pledge — commit to distraction-free driving.
Speak out if the driver in your car is distracted.
Encourage your friends and family to designate their cars a "no phone" zone when driving.
Beware of Industry Bias
It is important to note potential conflicts of interest in the media, and know the values of the people at publications from whom you receive your information.
While many publications wrote responsibly about the recent NTP rat study, such as The Wall Street Journal,27 Scientific American,28 Mother Jones, Science,29 Consumer Reports,30 and several others globally, The New York Times downplayed the findings, and also put out a video on the subject that contrasted sharply with the video of the Wall Street Journal's Ryan Knudson.
When one looks into who owns The New York Times, it is not surprising to learn that billionaire telecom magnate Carlos Slim, who owns wireless assets globally, and who is Chairman and Chief Executive of telecommunications companies Telmex and América Móvil, is a major shareholder.31
Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D. of U.C. Berkeley has created a table, "Spin vs Fact: National Toxicology Program on Cancer Risk from Cell Phone Radiation,"32 to illuminate some of the ways parties have downplayed the recent rat study, contrasting the spin with facts. The flurry of media coverage on this topic has highlighted biases at a number of publications, so remember to not take anything on face value alone, but instead always dig into the facts and learn which publications have an industry slant.
How to Protect Your Health From Cell Phone Radiation
Last year, I was interviewed for a New York Times33 article about the health concerns associated with wearable technologies. As usual, I was criticized for raising concerns, and after the fact the editor even noted that I shouldn't have been used as a source due to being "widely criticized by experts for his claims about disease risks and treatments."
Nevertheless, as the years pass, more and more studies keep coming to the conclusion I formed several years ago, which is that the risks of RF are real, and that we need to invoke the precautionary principle with regards to the use of cell phones and other wireless technologies.
It's important to note that researchers are in general agreement that there's a latency period of about 10 years or more before the damage shows up, which places children at greatest risk, since their exposures are earlier in life and longer.
International EMF scientists from 39 countries last May issued the International EMF Scientist Appeal to the United Nations calling for precautionary action, announced by spokesperson Dr. Martin Blank (see video above).34 Until the industry and regulators start taking this matter seriously, the responsibility to keep children safe falls on the parents and schools. To minimize the risk to your brain, and that of your child, I recommend paying heed to the following common-sense advice:
Don't let your child use a cell phone
Barring a life-threatening emergency, children should not use a cell phone, or a wireless device of any type. Children are far more vulnerable to cell phone radiation than adults due to having thinner skull bones, and developing immune systems and brains.
Keep your cell phone use to a minimum
Turn your cell phone off more often. Reserve it for emergencies or important matters. As long as your cell phone is on, it emits radiation intermittently, even when you are not actually making a call. Use a landline phone at home and at work, and if you use a cell phone, develop a practice of forwarding it to a landline whenever possible.
Reduce or eliminate your use of other wireless devices
Just as with cell phones, it is important to ask yourself whether or not you really need to routinely use wireless devices. A hard-wired Ethernet internet connection for computers, printers and peripherals is not only safer for your health, but significantly faster and more secure. Reconsider any wearable tech, like smart watches, which emit extremely high levels of radiation. Wireless on the body is extremely misguided.
Opt for older portable home phones
If you must use a portable home phone, use the older kind that operates at 900 MHz. They are no safer during calls, but at least some of them do not continuously broadcast when not in use. Note the only way to truly be sure if your cordless phone is emitting radiation is to use an electrosmog meter, and it must be one that goes up to the frequency of your portable phone. (I recommend looking for an RF meter that goes up to 8 Gigahertz to cover most phones).
You can find RF meters at www.emfsafetystore.com. Even without an RF meter, you can be fairly certain your portable phone is problematic if the technology is labeled DECT, which stands for "digitally enhanced cordless technology." Alternatively, be careful with the base station placement as that causes the bulk of the problem since it transmits signals 24/7, even when you aren't talking.
Try keeping the base station at least three rooms away from where you spend most of your time, especially your bedroom. Ideally, it would be beneficial to turn off or disconnect your base station at night before you go to bed. Or, better yet, just have it on hand for times when portability is essential and use a corded landline phone the majority of time.
Limit cell phone use to areas with excellent reception
The weaker the reception, the more power your phone must use to transmit, and the more power it uses the more radiation it emits. Ideally, only use your phone with full bars and good reception.
Avoid carrying your cell phone on your body, and do not sleep with it below your pillow or near your head
Ideally put it in your purse or carrying bag. Placing a cell phone in your bra or in a shirt pocket over your heart is asking for trouble, as is placing it in a man's pocket if he seeks to preserve his fertility.
There's no such thing as a "safe" cell phone. A specific absorption rate (SAR) value for a phone only addresses one form of risk, the thermal effects, comparing one phone to another, and it is not a measure of biological safety. Frequencies, peaks, pulsing and other signal characteristics are also biologically active. The longer one is exposed the greater the risk. If you want to be safe, use hard-wired connections.
Respect others; many are highly sensitive to EMF/RF
Some people who have become sensitive can feel the effects of others' cell phones in the same room, even when it is on but not being used. If you are in a meeting, on public transportation, in a courtroom or other public places, keep your cell phone turned off out of consideration for the "second hand radiation" effects. Children are also more vulnerable, so please avoid using your cell phone near children.
Use a well-shielded wired headset
Wired headsets will certainly allow you to keep the cell phone farther away from your body. However, if a wired headset is not well-shielded — and most of them are not — the wire itself can act as an antenna attracting and transmitting radiation directly to your brain.
So make sure the wire used to transmit the signal to your ear is shielded. Better headsets use a combination of shielded wire and air-tube. These operate like a stethoscope, transmitting the sound to your head as an actual sound wave. Although there are wires that still must be shielded, there is no wire that goes all the way up to your head.
Be a role model
Set limits on how people can communicate with you to minimize cell phone and wireless radiation exposures. The instant gratification one may get from being in constant contact is not worth the serious risks of radiation exposures. Take a stand for yourself and be a role model for your children.
Help educate your children's schools
Bring evidence of risk from cell phone and wireless technologies to schools and teachers unions. Protective change is not going to happen soon enough at the federal level, thus grassroots action to educate people responsible for the lives of vulnerable populations is essential. Follow this topic at Campaign for Radiation Free Schools on Facebook.
