LE Magazine August 2007
The Hidden Dangers of Cell Phone Radiation
By Sue Kovach
Every day, we’re swimming in a sea of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) produced by electrical appliances, power lines, wiring in buildings, and a slew of other technologies that are part of modern life. From the dishwasher and microwave oven in the kitchen and the clock radio next to your bed, to the cellular phone you hold to your ear—sometimes for hours each day—exposure to EMR is growing and becoming a serious health threat.
But there’s a huge public health crisis looming from one particular threat: EMR from cellular phones—both the radiation from the handsets and from the tower-based antennas carrying the signals—which studies have linked to development of brain tumors, genetic damage, and other exposure-related conditions.1-9 Yet the government and a well-funded cell phone industry media machine continue to mislead the unwary public about the dangers of a product used by billions of people. Most recently, a Danish epidemiological study announced to great fanfare the inaccurate conclusion that cell phone use is completely safe.10
George Carlo, PhD, JD, is an epidemiologist and medical scientist who, from 1993 to 1999, headed the first telecommunications industry-backed studies into the dangers of cell phone use. That program remains the largest in the history of the issue. But he ran afoul of the very industry that hired him when his work revealed preventable health hazards associated with cell phone use.
In this article, we look at why cell phones are dangerous; Dr. Carlo’s years-long battle to bring the truth about cell phone dangers to the public; the industry’s campaign to discredit him and other scientists in the field; and what you can do to protect yourself now.
Cell Phones Reach the Market without Safety Testing
The cellular phone industry was born in the early 1980s, when communications technology that had been developed for the Department of Defense was put into commerce by companies focusing on profits. This group, with big ideas but limited resources, pressured government regulatory agencies—particularly the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—to allow cell phones to be sold without pre-market testing. The rationale, known as the “low power exclusion,” distinguished cell phones from dangerous microwave ovens based on the amount of power used to push the microwaves. At that time, the only health effect seen from microwaves involved high power strong enough to heat human tissue. The pressure worked, and cell phones were exempted from any type of regulatory oversight, an exemption that continues today. An eager public grabbed up the cell phones, but according to Dr. George Carlo, “Those phones were slowly prompting a host of health problems.”
Today there are more than two billion cell phone users being exposed every day to the dangers of electromagnetic radiation (EMR)—dangers government regulators and the cell phone industry refuse to admit exist. Included are: genetic damage, brain dysfunction, brain tumors, and other conditions such as sleep disorders and headaches.1-9 The amount of time spent on the phone is irrelevant, according to Dr. Carlo, as the danger mechanism is triggered within seconds. Researchers say if there is a safe level of exposure to EMR, it’s so low that we can’t detect it.
The cell phone industry is fully aware of the dangers. In fact, enough scientific evidence exists that some companies’ service contracts prohibit suing the cell phone manufacturer or service provider, or joining a class action lawsuit. Still, the public is largely ignorant of the dangers, while the media regularly trumpets new studies showing cell phones are completely safe to use. Yet, Dr. Carlo points out, “None of those studies can prove safety, no matter how well they’re conducted or who’s conducting them.” What’s going on here? While the answer in itself is simplistic, how we got to this point is complex.
Flawed Danish Study Reports Cell Phones are Safe
In December, 2006, an epidemiological study on cell phone dangers published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute sent the media into a frenzy.10 Newspaper headlines blared: “Danish Study Shows Cell Phone Use is Safe,” while TV newscasters proclaimed, “Go ahead and talk all you want—it’s safe!” The news seemed to be a holiday gift for cell phone users. But unfortunately, it’s a flawed study, funded by the cell phone industry and designed to bring a positive result. The industry’s public relations machine is working in overdrive to assure that the study get top-billing in the media worldwide.
According to Dr. George Carlo, the study, by its design, could not identify even a very large risk. Therefore, any claim that it proves there’s no risk from cell phones is a blatant misrepresentation of the data that will give consumers a very dangerous false sense of security.
“Epidemiological studies are targets for fixing the outcome because they’re observational in nature instead of experimental,” Dr. Carlo explains. “It’s possible to design studies with pre-determined outcomesthat still fall within the range of acceptable science. Thus, even highly flawed epidemiological studies can be published in peer-reviewed journals because they’re judged against a pragmatic set of standards that assume the highest integrity among the investigators.”
Key problems with the study are:
There are few discernable differences between who was defined as cell phone users and who wasn’t. Thus, people defined as exposed to radiation were pretty much the same as those defined as not exposed to radiation. With few differences, it’s nearly impossible to find a risk.
Users were defined as anyone who made at least one phone call per week for six months between 1982 and 1995. So any person who made 26 calls was a cell phone user and therefore considered exposed to radiation. Those with less than 26 calls were non-users. In reality, the radiation exposure between users and non-users defined in this manner is not discernable.
The “exposed” people used ancient cell phone technology bearing little resemblance to cell phones used today. The results, even if reliable, have no relevance to the 2 billion cell phone users today.
From 1982 to 1995, cell phone minutes cost much more than today and people used their phones much less. Thus there was very little radiation exposure.
During the study’s time frame, people likely to use their cell phones the most were commercial subscribers. Yet this highest exposed group, in whom risk would most easily be identified, was specifically excluded from the study.
There were no biological hypotheses tested in the study. It was therefore only a numbers game. Ignored were mechanisms of disease found in other studies of cell phone radiation effects, including genetic damage, blood-brain barrier leakage, and disrupted intercellular communication. The study did not discuss any research supporting the notion that cell phones could cause problems in users.
The study itself was inconsistent with cancer statistics published worldwide addressing the Danish population. This study showed a low risk of cancer overall, when in fact Denmark has some of the highest cancer rates in the world. This inconsistency suggested that something in the data does not add up.
The cell phone industry constantly guards its financial interests, but unfortunately, an unwitting public can be harmed in the process, says Dr. Carlo. “Industry-funded studies in many cases now produce industry-desired outcomes. By tampering with the integrity of scientists, scientific systems and public information steps over the lines of propriety that are appropriate for protecting business interests—especially when the casualty of the interference is public health and safety.”
To learn more about the dangers of cell phones and to read Dr. George Carlo’s full formal analysis of the Danish cell phone study, visit the Safe Wireless Initiative website at www.safewireless.org.
Lawsuit Prompts Safety Studies
In 1993, the cell phone industry was pressured by Congress to invest $28 million into studying cell phone safety. The cause of this sudden concern was massive publicity about a lawsuit filed by Florida businessman David Reynard against cell phone manufacturer NEC. Reynard’s wife, Susan, died of a brain tumor, and he blamed cell phones for her death. Reynard revealed the suit to the public on the Larry King Live show, complete with dramatic x-rays showing the tumor close to where Susan held her cell phone to her head for hours each day.
The next day, telecommunications stocks took a big hit on Wall Street and the media had a field day. The industry trade association at the time, the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), went into crisis mode, claiming thousands of studies proved cell phones were safe and what Reynard and his attorney said was bunk. TIA reassured the public that the government had approved cell phones, so that meant they were safe. The media demanded to see the studies, but, says Dr. Carlo, “The industry had lied. The only studies in existence then were on microwave ovens. At that time, 15 million people were using cell phones, a product that had never been tested for safety.”
Cell Phone Radiation: What You Need to Know
Originally developed for the Department of Defense, cell phones devices were never tested for safety. They entered the marketplace due to a regulatory loophole.
Questions about cell phone safety arose in the early 1990s, when a businessman filed a lawsuit alleging that cell phones caused his wife’s death due to brain cancer.
To address the questions surrounding cell phone safety, the cell phone industry set up a non-profit organization, Wireless Technology Research (WTR). Dr. George Carlo was appointed to head WTR’s research efforts.
Under Dr. Carlo’s direction, scientists found that cell phone radiation caused DNA damage, impaired DNA repair, and interfered with cardiac pacemakers.
European research confirmed Dr. Carlo’s findings. Studies suggest that cell phone radiation contributes to brain dysfunction, tumors, and potentially to conditions such as autism, attention deficit disorder, neurodegenerative disease, and behavioral and psychological problems.
Dr. Carlo brought safety information about cell phones to the public through his book, Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age, and by creating the Safe Wireless Initiative and the Mobile Telephone Health Concerns Registry.
The best protection against cell phone radiation is keeping a safe distance.
Always use a headset to minimize exposure to harmful cell phone radiation.
Dr. Carlo Heads Cell Phone Research
Forced to take action, the cell phone industry set up a non-profit organization, Wireless Technology Research (WTR), to perform the study. Dr. Carlo developed the program outline and was asked to head the research. Oversight of the issue was charged to the FDA, though it could have and probably should have gone to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which fought hard for jurisdiction. But the industry had enough influence in Washington to get whatever overseer it wanted. It simply didn’t want to tangle with EPA because, says Dr. Carlo, “… the EPA is tough.”
“Anything that’s ever made a difference in terms of public health has come from the EPA,” he says. “But safety issues that are covered in corruption and questions seem to always have a connection to the FDA, which has been manipulated by pharmaceutical companies since it was born.”
When called to help with the cell phone issue, Dr. Carlo was working with the FDA on silicone breast implant research. The choice of Dr. Carlo to head WTR seemed unusual to industry observers. An epidemiologist whose expertise was in public health and how epidemic diseases affect the population, he appeared to lack any experience in researching the effects of EMR on human biology. Based on this, a premature conclusion was drawn by many: Dr. Carlo was an “expert” handpicked by the cell phone industry, and therefore his conclusions would only back up the industry’s claim that cell phones are safe.
Dr. Carlo, however, refused to be an easy target. He quickly recruited a group of prominent scientists to work with him, bulletproof experts owning long lists of credentials and reputations that would negate any perception that the research was predestined to be a sham. He also created a Peer Review Board chaired by Harvard University School of Public Health’s Dr. John Graham, something that made FDA officials more comfortable since, at the time, the agency was making negative headlines due to the breast implant controversy. In total, more than 200 doctors and scientists were involved in the project.
Strict Study Guidelines
Once all involved agreed on what was to be done, Dr. Carlo presented the study’s stakeholders in the industry, the government, and the public with a strict list of criteria for moving forward.
“The money had to be independent of the industry—they had to put the money in trust and couldn’t control who got the funds,” he says. “Second, everything had to be peer reviewed before it went public, so if we did find problems after peer review, we could use that information publicly to recommend interventions.”
A third requirement was for the FDA to create a formal interagency working group to oversee the work and provide input. The purpose of this was to alleviate any perception that the industry was paying for a result, not for the research itself. But the fourth and last requirement was considered by Dr. Carlo to be highly critical: “Everything needed to be done in sunlight. The media had to have access to everything we did.”
The Research Begins
The program began, but Dr. Carlo soon discovered that everyone involved had underlying motives.“The industry wanted an insurance policy and to have the government come out and say everything was fine. The FDA, which looked bad because it didn’t require pre-market testing, could be seen as taking steps to remedy that. By ordering the study, law makers appeared to be doing something. Everyone had a chance to wear a white hat.”
Dr. Carlo and his team developed new exposure systems that could mimic head-only exposure to EMR in people, as those were the only systems that could approximate what really happened with cell phone exposure. Those exposure systems were then used for both in vitro (laboratory) and in vivo (animal) studies. The in vitro studies used human blood and lymph tissue in test tubes and petri dishes that were exposed to EMR. These studies identified the micronuclei in human blood, for example, associated with cell phone near-field radiation. The in vivo studies used head only exposure systems and laboratory rats. These studies identified DNA damage and other genetic markers.
Says Dr. Carlo: “We also conducted four different epidemiological studies on groups of people who used cell phones, and we did clinical intervention studies. For example, studies of people with implanted cardiac pacemakers were instrumental in our making recommendations to prevent interference between cell phones and pacemakers. In all, we conducted more than fifty studies that were peer-reviewed and published in a number of medical and scientific journals.”
Industry Seeks to Discredit Findings, Scientists
But manipulation by the industry had begun almost immediately at the start of research. While Dr. Carlo and his team had never defined their research as being done to prove the safety of cell phones, the industry internally defined it as an insurance policy to prove that phones were safe. From the outset, what was being said by the cell phone industry in public was different from what was being said by the scientists behind closed doors.
The pacemaker studies were a harbinger of bad things to come. Results showed that cell phones do indeed interfere with pacemakers, but moving the phone away from the pacemaker would correct the problem. Amazingly, the industry was extremely upset with the report, complaining that the researchers went off target. When Dr. Carlo and his colleagues published their findings in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1997,11 the industry promptly cut off funding for the overall program. It took nine months for the FDA and the industry to agree on a scaled-down version of the program to continue going forward. Dr. Carlo had volunteered to step down, since he was clearly not seeing eye-to-eye with the industry, but his contract was extended instead, as no one wanted to look bad from a public relations standpoint.
The research continued, and what it uncovered would be a dire warning to cell phone users and the industry’s worst nightmare. When the findings were ready for release in 1998, the scientists were suddenly confronted with another challenge: the industry wanted to take over public dissemination of the information, and it tried everything it could to do so. It was faced with disaster and had a lot to lose.
Fearing the industry would selectively release research results at best, or hold them back at worst, Dr. Carlo and his colleagues took the information public on their own, creating a highly visible war between the scientists and the industry. An ABC News expose on the subject increased the wrath of the industry.
According to Dr. Carlo, “The industry played dirty. It actually hired people to put negative things about me and the other scientists who found problems on the internet, while it tried to distance itself from the program. Auditors were brought in to say we misspent money, but none of that ever held up. They tried every angle possible.”
This included discussions with Dr. Carlo’s ex-wife to try to figure out ways to put pressure on him, he says. Threats to his career came from all directions, and Dr. Carlo learned from Congressional insiders that the word around Washington was that he was “unstable.” But all the character assassination paled in comparison to what happened next.
Toward the end of 1998, Dr. Carlo’s house mysteriously burned down. Public records show that authorities determined the cause of the blaze was arson, but the case was never solved. Dr. Carlo refuses to discuss the incident and will only confirm that it happened. By this time, enough was enough. Dr. Carlo soon went “underground,” shunning the public eye and purposely making himself difficult to find.
Why Cell Phones are Dangerous
A cellular phone is basically a radio that sends signals on waves to a base station. The carrier signal generates two types of radiation fields: a near-field plume and a far-field plume. Living organisms, too, generate electromagnetic fields at the cellular, tissue, organ, and organism level; this is called the biofield. Both the near-field and far-field plumes from cell phones and in the environment can wreak havoc with the human biofield, and when the biofield is compromised in any way, says Dr. Carlo, so is metabolism and physiology.
“The near field plume is the one we’re most concerned with. This plume that’s generated within five or six inches of the center of a cell phone’s antenna is determined by the amount of power necessary to carry the signal to the base station,” he explains. “The more power there is, the farther the plume radiates the dangerous information-carrying radio waves.”
A carrier wave oscillates at 1900 megahertz (MHz) in most phones, which is mostly invisible to our biological tissue and doesn’t do damage. The information-carrying secondary wave necessary to interpret voice or data is the problem, says Dr. Carlo. That wave cycles in a hertz (Hz) range familiar to the body. Your heart, for example, beats at two cycles per second, or two Hz. Our bodies recognize the information-carrying wave as an “invader,” setting in place protective biochemical reactions that alter physiology and cause biological problems that include intracellular free-radical buildup, leakage in the blood-brain barrier, genetic damage, disruption of intercellular communication, and an increase in the risk of tumors. The health dangers of recognizing the signal, therefore, aren’t from direct damage, but rather are due to the biochemical responses in the cell.
Here’s what happens:
Cellular energy is now used for protection rather than metabolism. Cell membranes harden, keeping nutrients out and waste products in.
Waste accumulating inside the cells creates a higher concentration of free radicals, leading to both disruption of DNA repair (micronuclei) and cellular dysfunction.
Unwanted cell death occurs, releasing the micronuclei from the disrupted DNA repair into the fluid between cells (interstitial fluid), where they are free to replicate and proliferate. This, says Dr. Carlo, is the most likely mechanism that contributes to cancer.
Damage occurs to proteins on the cell membrane, resulting in disruption of intercellular communication. When cells can’t communicate with each other, the result is impaired tissue, organ, and organism function. In the blood-brain barrier, for example, cells can’t keep dangerous chemicals from reaching the brain tissue, which results in damage.
With the background levels of information-carrying radio waves dramatically increasing because of the widespread use of cell phones,Wi-Fi, and other wireless communication, the effects from the near and far-fields are very similar. Overall, says Dr. Carlo, almost all of the acute and chronic symptoms seen in electrosensitive patients can be explained in some part by disrupted intercellular communication. These symptoms of electrosensitivity include inability to sleep, general malaise, and headaches. Could this explain the increase in recent years of conditions such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, and anxiety disorder?
“One thing all these conditions have in common is a disruption, to varying degrees, of intercellular communication. When we were growing up, TV antennas were on top of our houses and such waves were up in the sky. Cell phones and Wi-Fi have brought those things down to the street, integrated them into the environment, and that’s absolutely new. The recognition mechanism, where protein vibration sensors on the cell membrane pick up a signal and interpret it as an invader, only works because the body recognizes something it’s never seen before.”
As to increases in brain tumors tied to cell phone use, it’s too early to tell due to a lack of hard data, says Dr. Carlo. “We’re never going to see that in time to have it matter. Here in the US, we’re six years behind in getting the brain tumor database completed, and currently the best data are from 1999. By the time you see any data showing an increase, the ticking time bomb is set.”
Epidemic curve projections, however, indicate that in 2006, we can expect to see 40,000 to 50,000 cases of brain and eye cancer. This is based on published peer-reviewed studies that allow calculation of risk and construction of epidemic curves. By 2010, says Dr. Carlo, expect that number to be between 400,000 and 500,000 new cases worldwide.
“This means we’re on the beginning curve of an epidemic, with epidemic defined as a change in the occurrence of a disease that is so dramatic in its increase that it portends serious public health consequences,” says Dr. Carlo. “This is what’s not being told to the public. One of the things that I suggest to people who use a cell phone is to use an air tube headset. If you use a wired headset, the current moving through the wire of the headset attracts ambient informational carrying radio waves and thereby increases your exposure.”
Gauss Meters: Detecting Electromagnetic Radiation
Invisible electromagnetic radiation surrounds us each day, emanating from diverse sources such as power lines, home wiring, computers, televisions, microwave ovens, photocopy machines, and cell phones.
While undetectable to the eye, scientists have proposed that electromagnetic radiation may pose serious health effects, ranging from childhood leukemia to brain tumors.
As scientists continue to unravel the precise health dangers of electromagnetic radiation, it makes good sense to avoid these potentially dangerous frequencies as much as possible. A gauss meter is a useful tool you can use to measure electromagnetic radiation in your home and work environments.
Using the gauss meter at varied locations, you can easily detect electromagnetic radiation “hot spots” where exposure to these ominous frequencies is the greatest. Armed with this crucial information, you can then avoid these areas, re-arranging furniture or electronic devices as needed in order to avoid unnecessary exposure to electromagnetic radiation.
Dr. Carlo’s Continuing Work
Following the loss of his home, Dr. Carlo collaborated with Washington columnist Martin Schram—who in the course of the work did his own research to corroborate Dr. Carlo’s view on things—to write Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age (Carroll & Graf, 2001). He wrote his book as what he thought would be a last volley at the cell phone industry.
“I needed to tell the whole story in one place. I didn’t have the resources or the manpower to match what the cell phone industry was doing to try to discredit the work,” says Dr. Carlo. “Based on the book, a number of lawsuits were brought against the industry, and insurance carriers began excluding cell phone-related health risks in their coverage. It created a very difficult situation in the industry and for myself. I was worn out fighting that battle. In 2002, after I’d done my book tour, I just decided to take a break for a couple of years.”
Instead of taking a break, however, Dr. Carlo ended up working behind the scenes, setting up an organization and a registry for the benefit of consumers. It was a creative solution as part of the settlement of a lawsuit brought by a Illinois citizen against the cell phone industry, WTR, and Dr. Carlo personally. The lawsuit alleged that the cell phone industry, WTR, and Dr. Carlo were conspiring to hide the dangers of cell phones. Dr. Carlo was offered a way out of the suit because his book had made it clear he wasn’t on the same page as the industry.
“I wanted to make sure the litigation brought at least some value to consumers. We created the Safe Wireless Initiative (www.safewireless.org) for disseminating information on the dangers and on prevention, and the Mobile Telephone Health Concerns Registry (www.health-concerns.org) to track information voluntarily provided by cell phone users, particularly those who believe they’re experiencing health effects. Post-market surveillance hadn’t been done before, and the registry does that. It will help direct future research of potential health effects related to cell phone use. In the end, we did the best we could to get some benefit for consumers.”
PROTECTION IS KEY
To repair damage and build the body’s defenses against the onslaught of EMR, supplements—along with dietary changes, stress reduction, weight control and exercise—make you stronger, more balanced, and better able to face the assaults of EMR. Antioxidant supplements that fight free radicals are especially desirable.
Says Dr. Carlo: “You as a human being are put under siege by the electromagnetic soup we’re swimming in, and this isn’t hyperbole, it’s true. When you answer your cell phone, radio signals are around you. Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not there. Our general ability to compensate for those insults is becoming compromised by the ever-increasing background of EMR.”
Taking as many precautions as you can goes a long way to reducing the risks. However, Dr. Carlo cautions that there is no silver bullet solution. “It’s a complicated problem, and while we tend to look for a quick fix, there is none here. Over the next decade, I hope we figure out how to change the way signals are transmitted. A thousand years from now we will have evolved, but that’s not helping us now. This will take time, but consumers have to be empowered to help themselves in the interim.”
European Research Confirms Cell Phone Dangers
The industry took its tricks elsewhere—to Europe, which had picked up the ball and began funding independent research to corroborate or confirm the work of Dr. Carlo and his team. The work was completed in mid-2004 and when it was released,12 it not only provided independent scientific corroboration of the work done by Dr. Carlo’s group, but also took the work a step further and showed how the problems were occurring mechanistically. This information formed a biologically plausible hypothesis for how cell phone radiation could be related to so many diseases.
Dr. Carlo noted, “The industry exerted pressure on the scientists who conducted the work, including renowned German scientist Dr. Franz Adlkofer. It first tried to change the conclusions of the work, then to delay its public release. Then Dr. Adlkofer, the lead scientist, was attacked in the media and threatened privately with no more research money, a ruined reputation—similar to what we experienced in the WTR. But this situation attracted the attention of a German documentary filmmaker, who decided to do a film on the cell phone issue.”
It was enough to bring Dr. Carlo into view again, as he was asked to participate. The film, The Boiling Frog Principle, by Klaus Scheidsteger, builds on information from his first film, The Cell Phone War, and will be released in 2007. Its intent is to integrate the latest political and scientific evidence from around the world, and bring forth to consumers important information on cell phone dangers that was previously withheld.
Economic Implications
Currently in the US, there are seven class action lawsuits moving forward against the cell phone industry, says Dr. Carlo, and nine other cases that are personal injury cases brought by people with brain cancer. In the past two years, two workers compensation awards were given to people with brain tumors based on a link between their tumors and their cell phone use in the workplace. Both of these cases occurred in California.
“What we have now is a major litigation burden, a vulnerability the cell phone industry has never before been under,” Dr. Carlo says. “They’re uninsured for these health risk claims and are already positioning themselves for a congressional bailout, like the Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s. They’ll lose a couple of these lawsuits and once they do, there’ll be an onslaught of new litigation against them.”
The country can’t afford for the cell phone industry to go under, Dr. Carlo says, as it would have a disastrous impact on the entire economy—some estimates say over 30% of investment stocks in retirement funds are tied to telecommunications shares. That’s why Congress will figure out a way to bail out the industry.
“The industry thinks they can afford to continue on with this institutional arrogance, endangering millions of men, women and children because, at the end of the day, they believe they’ll not be held accountable. They think they can continue to manipulate consumers.”
A Looming Health Crisis
It’s been nearly 12 years since the WTR was funded. Despite Dr. Carlo’s revealing research and the corroborating research of other scientists from around the world that continue to follow, a search of media reports today on the subject of cell phone dangers tends to suggest one of only two conclusions: There is no risk, or no one has yet proven the risk. That’s at odds with more than 300 studies in the peer-reviewed scientific literature supporting an increased risk of disease. Clearly, something doesn’t add up.
The industry’s manipulation of the media to consider only one study at a time obfuscates the big picture. Individually, there’s little to see. But the depth and breadth of the science that points to the problem, and the compilation of studies, make the future look frightening. Like the September 11 tragedy, where no one in government talked to each other and did not see it coming for lack of a big picture view, the health crisis from cell phone use looms darkly.
“When you put all the science together, we come to the irrefutable conclusion that there’s a major health crisis coming, probably already underway,” warns Dr. Carlo. “Not just cancer, but also learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, autism, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and psychological and behavioral problems—all mediated by the same mechanism. That’s why we’re so worried. Time is running out. When you put the pieces of the puzzle together, it’s such a wide ranging problem. It’s unlike anything we’ve ever seen before.”
Protecting Yourself
The most effective technique for protecting yourself against the dangers of cell phone radiation is keeping the phone at a distance from the body. Simply using a hands-free headset is a big step. Headsets keep the cell phone’s antenna at a distance of six to seven inches away from the body, thus eliminating near-field exposure. Wired headsets can act as an antenna to draw some ambient EMR, but not much, so using one is still preferable to holding the phone to your head. Wireless headsets should be avoided, as they draw much more far-field EMR.
The safest headsets have hollow air tubes, similar to those used in stethoscopes, instead of wires.They offer protection against both near-field and far-field exposure. If possible, avoid wearing the phone at your waist, which exposes the hip bones to radiation. Eighty percent of red blood cells are formed in the hip bones. There are also newer cell phones available capable of functioning in speaker phone mode. This enables you to talk on the phone while keeping it at a safe distance from your body. If you are able to conduct most of your conversations using a speaker phone, this could enable you to use a cell phone without encountering the intense radiation exposure that occurs when holding it to your ear.
Nutritional Protection against Cell Phone Radiation
As growing evidence points to the potential adverse health impact of exposure to cell phone radiation, scientists are seeking strategies to prevent or mitigate these effects. Currently, nutritional researchers are exploring whether melatonin, vitamin C, and and vitamin E can ameliorate the detrimental effects caused by radiation emitted by cell phones.
To date, a total of eight studies have pointed to the protective effects of melatonin and vitamins C and E in stemming the damage caused by cell phone emissions. In particular, these agents show promise in averting the increased oxidative stress that is thought to contribute to an increased risk of certain cancers. These studies have unveiled statistically significant protective effects of melatonin and vitamins C and E against the effects of the radiation frequency at which cell phones emit and receive radio frequency radiation.
Six of these eight studies were controlled, short-term studies (ranging from 10-30 days) in rodents. Each study examined 24-30 subjects. Study subjects were divided equally into three groups: one group received radiation exposure; another received active treatment with melatonin only, vitamin C only, or vitamins C and E before radiation exposure; and a control group did not receive radiation or active treatment. After the treatment period, scientists examined skin sections for radiation injury and analyzed blood and urine for markers of oxidative stress. They found significant kidney damage, skin changes, oxidative stress, and fibrosis in the animals who received radiation exposure only. Remarkably, these effects were reversed in the groups that received melatonin13-16 and vitamins C17,18 and E.17
Another two controlled studies in rodents, one of 10 days’19 and another of 60 days’ duration,20 revealed that melatonin significantly protects against retinal (eye)20 and kidney tissue19 damage caused by cell phone radiation, as compared with subjects that did not receive melatonin.
Despite this compelling evidence, other avenues of research still need to be pursued after contradictory findings from seven different studies that have looked into the effect of cell phone radiation on melatonin levels in the body.
In one study, melatonin levels in the blood were measured in 226 male electric utility workers who were categorized according to cell phone use. The study concluded that workers who used cell phones for more than 25 minutes per day had decreased melatonin production and revealed a relationship between increased cell phone use and decreasing melatonin levels in the blood.21
Yet six other studies—two in humans22,23 and four in rodents24-27— found that melatonin levels remained unchanged after radiation exposure. One human study did suggest that cell phone radiation may impact melatonin onset time. These were small studies, however, the majority of which were less than 28 days’ duration.
Melatonin is a vital natural neurohormone (hormone secreted by or acting on a part of the nervous system) that acts as a potent free radical scavenger and antioxidant. Melatonin regulates the daily circadian rhythm and is essential to self-repair and regeneration. Given melatonin’s protective effects, these findings warrant further research into the effect of cell phone radiation on melatonin in larger, longer-term, well-controlled human studies.
—Bina Singh
References
1. Lahkola A, Auvinen A, Raitanen J, et al. Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in 5 North European countries. Int J Cancer. 2007 Apr 15;120(8):1769-75.
2. Lonn S, Ahlbom A, Hall P, Feychting M. Mobile phone use and the risk of acoustic neuroma. Epidemiology. 2004 Nov;15(6):653-9.
3. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. Pooled analysis of two case-control studies on the use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk of benign brain tumours diagnosed during 1997-2003. Int J Oncol. 2006 Feb;28(2):509-18.
4. Hardell L, Mild KH, Carlberg M, Hallquist A. Cellular and cordless telephone use and the association with brain tumors in different age groups. Arch Environ Health. 2004 Mar;59(3):132-7.
5. Schreier N, Huss A, Roosli M. The prevalence of symptoms attributed to electromagnetic field exposure: a cross-sectional representative survey in Switzerland. Soz Praventivmed. 2006;51(4):202-9.
6. Westerman R, Hocking B. Diseases of modern living: neurological changes associated with mobile phones and radiofrequency radiation in humans. Neurosci Lett. 2004 May 6;361(1-3):13-6.
7. Available at: http://www.ijhg.com/text.asp?2005/11/2/99/16810. Accessed May 17, 2007.
8. Available at: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/408066_1. Accessed May 17, 2007.
9. Available at: http://www.starweave.com/reflex/. Accessed May 17, 2007.
10. Schuz J, Jacobsen R, Olsen JH, Boice JD Jr, McLaughlin JK, Johansen C. Cellular telephone use and cancer risk: update of a nationwide Danish cohort. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Dec 6;98(23):1707-13.
11. Hayes DL, Wang PJ, Reynolds DW, et al. Interference with cardiac pacemakers by cellular telephones. N Engl J Med. 1997 May 22;336(21):1473-9.
12. Diem E, Schwarz C, Adlkofer F, Jahn O, Rudiger H. Non-thermal DNA breakage by mobile-phone radiation (1800 MHz) in human fibroblasts and in transformed GFSH-R17 rat granulosa cells in vitro. Mutat Res. 2005 Jun 6;583(2):178-83.
13. Oktem F, Ozguner F, Mollaoglu H, Koyu A, Uz E. Oxidative damage in the kidney induced by 900-MHz-emitted mobile phone: protection by melatonin. Arch Med Res. 2005 Jul-Aug;36(4):350-5.
14. Ozguner F, Aydin G, Mollaoglu H, Gokalp O, Koyu A, Cesur G. Prevention of mobile phone induced skin tissue changes by melatonin in rat: an experimental study. Toxicol Ind Health. 2004 Sep;20(6-10):133-9.
15. Ayata A, Mollaoglu H, Yilmaz HR, Akturk O, Ozguner F, Altuntas I. Oxidative stress-mediated skin damage in an experimental mobile phone model can be prevented by melatonin. J Dermatol. 2004 Nov;31(11):878-83.
16. Yariktas M, Doner F, Ozguner F, Gokalp O, Dogrutt H, Delibas N. Nitric oxide level in the nasal and sinus mucosa after exposure to electromagnetic field. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005 May;132(5):713-6.
17. Balci M, Devrim E, Durak I. Effects of mobile phones on oxidant/antioxidant balance in cornea and lens of rats. Curr Eye Res. 2007 Jan;32(1):21-5.
18. Oral B, Guney M, Ozguner F, et al. Endometrial apoptosis induced by a 900-MHz mobile phone: preventive effects of vitamins E and C. Adv Ther. 2006 Nov-Dec;23(6):957-73.
19. Ozguner F, Oktem F, Armagan A, et al. Comparative analysis of the protective effects of melatonin and caffeic acid phenethyl ester (CAPE) on mobile phone-induced renal impairment in rat. Mol Cell Biochem. 2005 Aug;276(1-2):31-7.
20. Ozguner F, Bardak Y, Comlekci S. Protective effects of melatonin and caffeic acid phenethyl ester against retinal oxidative stress in long-term use of mobile phone: a comparative study. Mol Cell Biochem. 2006 Jan;282(1-2):83-8.
21. Burch JB, Reif JS, Noonan CW et al. Melatonin metabolite excretion among cellular telephone users. Int J Radiat Biol. 2002 Nov;78(11):1029-36.
22. Wood AW, Loughran SP, Stough C. Does evening exposure to mobile phone radiation affect subsequent melatonin production? Int J Radiat Biol. 2006 Feb;82(2):69-76.
23. De Seze R, Ayoub J, Peray P, Miro L, Touitou Y. Evaluation in humans of the effects of radiocellular telephones on the circadian patterns of melatonin secretion, a chronobiological rhythm marker. J Pineal Res 1999 Nov;27(4):237-42.
24. Koyu A, Ozguner F, Cesur F, et al. No effects of 900 MHz and 1800 MHz electromagnetic field emitted from cellular phone on nocturnal serum melatonin levels in rats. Toxicol Ind Health. 2005 Mar;21(1-2):27-31.
25. Hata K, Yamaguchi H, Tsurita G, et al. Short term exposure to 1439 MHz pulsed TDMA field does not alter melatonin synthesis in rats. Bioelectromagnetics. 2005 Jan;26(1):49-53.
26. Bakos J, Kubinyi G, Sinay H, Thuroczy G. GSM modulated radiofrequency radiation does not affect 6-sulfatoxymelatonin excretion of rats. Bioelectromagnetics. 2003 Dec;24(8):531-4.
27. Heikkinen P, Kosma VM, Alhonen L, et al. Effects of mobile phone radiation on UV-induced skin tumourigenesis in ornithine decarboxylase transgenic and non-transgenic mice. Int J Radiat Biol. 2003 Apr;79(4):221-33.
All Contents Copyright © 1995-2007 Life Extension Foundation All rights reserved.
These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. The information provided on this site is for informational purposes only and is not intended as a substitute for advice from your physician or other health care professional or any information contained on or in any product label or packaging. You should not use the information on this site for diagnosis or treatment of any health problem or for prescription of any medication or other treatment. You should consult with a healthcare professional before starting any diet, exercise or supplementation program, before taking any medication, or if you have or suspect you might have a health problem. You should not stop taking any medication without first consulting your physician.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Monday, August 06, 2007
The American Cancer Society Is Misleading The Public: A Letter From Dr. Carlo
Friends:
An important contextual point to the recent story in the Washington Post about this American Cancer Society paper linked below is the back story to it. Without this context, the true story behind the American Cancer Society's vested interests can not be seen.
In 2002, shortly before this American Cancer Society study was launched, a high-ranking official from the American Cancer Society was a witnesses for the mobile phone industry in a highly visible legal proceeding in Baltimore, Maryland. The proceeding, a Daubert hearing to evaluate scientific evidence regarding the link between cell phones and cancer, was part of the lawsuit brought by Baltimore, Maryland neurosurgeon Dr. Christopher Newman. The testimony of the American Cancer Society scientist was used to unfairly and visciously discredit Dr. Neil Cherry and Dr. Henry Lai, two important witnesses for Dr. Newman. At the time, this was a critical legal proceeding for the mobile phone industry and the focal point of millions of dollars of legal fees paid on their behalf to 'keep the lid on' the cell phone cancer issue. This American Cancer Society study was launched shortly after the testiimony. It is noteworthy that the disclosures in the published paper do not show funding for the study coming from the industry. I personally believe as do others, that the industry made substantial contributions to the American Cancer Society to secure their testimony in the litigation. In a litigation proceeding, the industry would make sure to not pay the American Cancer Society staff person directly, so a payment 'under the table' had to be arranged. There would be no other reason for the American Cancer Society official to participate in the litigation: the American Cancer Society up to that point had not even looked into the cell phone cancer issue; they had done no work on it whatsoever. I know this from sources within the American Cancer Society.
The industry has systematically laundered support money to support their positions: for Mike Repachioli at the World Health Organization; through ICNRP, the IEEE and other so-called independent groups; through various scientific labs around the world; through various bought scientists. In 2002, this type of money-based influence peddling was the modus operandi of the industry under the leadership of Tom Wheeler and his cohorts. A brief read through Tom Wheeler's book addressing how business leaders can take home lessons from civil war generals reveals a chapter entitled, "If you can't win, change the rules.". That is exactly the strategy that the industry put in place in those years and continues forward today. The rules are being changed by biasing the process that consumers should be able to trust.
Further evidence of this was seen two years ago. When renowned California attorney Johnnie Cochran died of a brain tumor that his surgeon, Dr. Keith Black from Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, and Johnnie's family believed was caused by his long-time heavy use of cell phones, CNN medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta covered it with a story that attempted to paint Johnnie's family and surgeon as emotional outliers. The industry did not even offer a spokesperson to appear on camera. Instead they offered a doctor from Emory University to say there was no link between brain cancer and cell phones -- a doctor with no history of any work on cell phones and cancer and who was part of the industry's litigation expert team coordinated through a law firm in Atlanta, Georgia where Emory University is located. Further, the industry submitted a written quote that was pasted on the screen: "The American Cancer Society has determined that cell phones and brain cancer is one of the top ten cancer myths".
The American Cancer Society for many years now, has been doing the bidding of the mobile phone industry. The question is why. The answer is money.
That the spokeman from the American Cancer Society saw the need to underscore the importance of their recent work by identifying themselves as one of the independent and reliable sources on the causes of cancer underscores the point that they are under much criticism for their biased bidding. This is but one more example. We can only hope that an informed public can see through this blatant manipulation.
Dr. George L. Carlo
Science and Public Policy Institute
1101 Pennsylvania Ave. NW -- 7th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20004
www.sppionline.org
www.safewireless.org_ (http://www.safewireless.org/)
202-756-7744
The American Cancer Society is misleading the public
_http://omega.twoday.net/stories/4136992/_
(http://omega.twoday.net/stories/4136992/)
An important contextual point to the recent story in the Washington Post about this American Cancer Society paper linked below is the back story to it. Without this context, the true story behind the American Cancer Society's vested interests can not be seen.
In 2002, shortly before this American Cancer Society study was launched, a high-ranking official from the American Cancer Society was a witnesses for the mobile phone industry in a highly visible legal proceeding in Baltimore, Maryland. The proceeding, a Daubert hearing to evaluate scientific evidence regarding the link between cell phones and cancer, was part of the lawsuit brought by Baltimore, Maryland neurosurgeon Dr. Christopher Newman. The testimony of the American Cancer Society scientist was used to unfairly and visciously discredit Dr. Neil Cherry and Dr. Henry Lai, two important witnesses for Dr. Newman. At the time, this was a critical legal proceeding for the mobile phone industry and the focal point of millions of dollars of legal fees paid on their behalf to 'keep the lid on' the cell phone cancer issue. This American Cancer Society study was launched shortly after the testiimony. It is noteworthy that the disclosures in the published paper do not show funding for the study coming from the industry. I personally believe as do others, that the industry made substantial contributions to the American Cancer Society to secure their testimony in the litigation. In a litigation proceeding, the industry would make sure to not pay the American Cancer Society staff person directly, so a payment 'under the table' had to be arranged. There would be no other reason for the American Cancer Society official to participate in the litigation: the American Cancer Society up to that point had not even looked into the cell phone cancer issue; they had done no work on it whatsoever. I know this from sources within the American Cancer Society.
The industry has systematically laundered support money to support their positions: for Mike Repachioli at the World Health Organization; through ICNRP, the IEEE and other so-called independent groups; through various scientific labs around the world; through various bought scientists. In 2002, this type of money-based influence peddling was the modus operandi of the industry under the leadership of Tom Wheeler and his cohorts. A brief read through Tom Wheeler's book addressing how business leaders can take home lessons from civil war generals reveals a chapter entitled, "If you can't win, change the rules.". That is exactly the strategy that the industry put in place in those years and continues forward today. The rules are being changed by biasing the process that consumers should be able to trust.
Further evidence of this was seen two years ago. When renowned California attorney Johnnie Cochran died of a brain tumor that his surgeon, Dr. Keith Black from Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, and Johnnie's family believed was caused by his long-time heavy use of cell phones, CNN medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta covered it with a story that attempted to paint Johnnie's family and surgeon as emotional outliers. The industry did not even offer a spokesperson to appear on camera. Instead they offered a doctor from Emory University to say there was no link between brain cancer and cell phones -- a doctor with no history of any work on cell phones and cancer and who was part of the industry's litigation expert team coordinated through a law firm in Atlanta, Georgia where Emory University is located. Further, the industry submitted a written quote that was pasted on the screen: "The American Cancer Society has determined that cell phones and brain cancer is one of the top ten cancer myths".
The American Cancer Society for many years now, has been doing the bidding of the mobile phone industry. The question is why. The answer is money.
That the spokeman from the American Cancer Society saw the need to underscore the importance of their recent work by identifying themselves as one of the independent and reliable sources on the causes of cancer underscores the point that they are under much criticism for their biased bidding. This is but one more example. We can only hope that an informed public can see through this blatant manipulation.
Dr. George L. Carlo
Science and Public Policy Institute
1101 Pennsylvania Ave. NW -- 7th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20004
www.sppionline.org
www.safewireless.org_ (http://www.safewireless.org/)
202-756-7744
The American Cancer Society is misleading the public
_http://omega.twoday.net/stories/4136992/_
(http://omega.twoday.net/stories/4136992/)
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Electronic smog linked to respiratory disease, study shows
Electronic smog linked to respiratory disease, study shows
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Published: 29 July 2007
Electrical fields from computers, televisions and other everyday equipment can give people asthma, influenza and other respiratory diseases, a startling new study suggests.
The research, by scientists at Imperial College London, provides academic backing for one of the more controversial claims of campaigners against the thickening electro-smog from sources such as mobile phones and their masts, Wi-Fi systems and household electrical devices.
The scientists believe that there should now be research into whether electromagnetic radiation from sources such as mobile phone masts and Wi-Fi systems has the same effect.
The study is bound to increase the row over the effects of the electro-smog. It comes in the wake of the publication last week of research which concluded that people who believe that the masts are making them ill are deluding themselves. This research, by psychologists at Essex University, found that people who claimed to be sensitive to radiation from the masts could not tell when they were being subjected to them. It has, however, been criticised for alleged flaws and for measuring only short-term exposure.
MPs are to consider the health effects of the masts and Wi-Fi systems in an adjournment debate called by the Liberal Democrats' local government spokesman, Tom Brake, in October.
Suspicion that electrical fields cause respiratory illness dates back to the 1950s when it was found that placing asthmatics in areas with low electrical fields got rid of their symptoms. As the amount of electro-smog has multiplied many fold since then, campaigners have increasingly insisted that it causes a wide range of ailments, from respiratory diseases to difficulties in concentrating, from sleeplessness to cancer.
The research by Imperial College's Centre for Environmental Policy – which will be published in the August issue of the journal Atmospheric Environment – provides powerful evidence of how respiratory diseases may be caused.
The scientists found that the electrical fields given off by a wide variety of household items, including compu-ters, televisions, cookers, lamps and even wiring, charge minuscule particles in the air such as viruses, bacteria, allergens and highly toxic pollutants.
Because they are so tiny – less than 80 times the thickness of a human hair – they are constantly airborne and so are being breathed in all the time. The electrical charge makes them stick to the tissue of the lungs and respiratory tract, causing infection and increasing the impact on the body.
The higher the electrical field the greater the danger, as the most charged particles hit the tissue with more speed. As they crash land, they become deformed, which makes them stick more firmly.
Electrostatic charges, such as those given off by clothing and sheets made of synthetic materials, add to the problem.
The research also shows that the electrical fields greatly reduced concentrations of charged molecular oxygen, which is readily absorbed by the body, enhances biological functions and can also kill harmful microbes.
Keith Jamieson, who led the research, is particularly worried about the effects in hospitals, where already sick people are surrounded by electrical equipment and often have sheets made of synthetic materials.
He adds, however, that, "there are a number of easy actions which can be implemented in the home and workplace to help reduce the toxic load on our bodies and the risk of illness and infection".
He said that people should ensure that electrical equipment – particularly laptop computers – is earthed, avoid synthetic materials, and unplug equipment when it is not in use.
http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article2814749.ece
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Published: 29 July 2007
Electrical fields from computers, televisions and other everyday equipment can give people asthma, influenza and other respiratory diseases, a startling new study suggests.
The research, by scientists at Imperial College London, provides academic backing for one of the more controversial claims of campaigners against the thickening electro-smog from sources such as mobile phones and their masts, Wi-Fi systems and household electrical devices.
The scientists believe that there should now be research into whether electromagnetic radiation from sources such as mobile phone masts and Wi-Fi systems has the same effect.
The study is bound to increase the row over the effects of the electro-smog. It comes in the wake of the publication last week of research which concluded that people who believe that the masts are making them ill are deluding themselves. This research, by psychologists at Essex University, found that people who claimed to be sensitive to radiation from the masts could not tell when they were being subjected to them. It has, however, been criticised for alleged flaws and for measuring only short-term exposure.
MPs are to consider the health effects of the masts and Wi-Fi systems in an adjournment debate called by the Liberal Democrats' local government spokesman, Tom Brake, in October.
Suspicion that electrical fields cause respiratory illness dates back to the 1950s when it was found that placing asthmatics in areas with low electrical fields got rid of their symptoms. As the amount of electro-smog has multiplied many fold since then, campaigners have increasingly insisted that it causes a wide range of ailments, from respiratory diseases to difficulties in concentrating, from sleeplessness to cancer.
The research by Imperial College's Centre for Environmental Policy – which will be published in the August issue of the journal Atmospheric Environment – provides powerful evidence of how respiratory diseases may be caused.
The scientists found that the electrical fields given off by a wide variety of household items, including compu-ters, televisions, cookers, lamps and even wiring, charge minuscule particles in the air such as viruses, bacteria, allergens and highly toxic pollutants.
Because they are so tiny – less than 80 times the thickness of a human hair – they are constantly airborne and so are being breathed in all the time. The electrical charge makes them stick to the tissue of the lungs and respiratory tract, causing infection and increasing the impact on the body.
The higher the electrical field the greater the danger, as the most charged particles hit the tissue with more speed. As they crash land, they become deformed, which makes them stick more firmly.
Electrostatic charges, such as those given off by clothing and sheets made of synthetic materials, add to the problem.
The research also shows that the electrical fields greatly reduced concentrations of charged molecular oxygen, which is readily absorbed by the body, enhances biological functions and can also kill harmful microbes.
Keith Jamieson, who led the research, is particularly worried about the effects in hospitals, where already sick people are surrounded by electrical equipment and often have sheets made of synthetic materials.
He adds, however, that, "there are a number of easy actions which can be implemented in the home and workplace to help reduce the toxic load on our bodies and the risk of illness and infection".
He said that people should ensure that electrical equipment – particularly laptop computers – is earthed, avoid synthetic materials, and unplug equipment when it is not in use.
http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article2814749.ece
Friday, August 03, 2007
Are Your Cell Phone and Laptop Bad for Your Health?
Are Your Cell Phone and Laptop Bad for Your Health?
By Stan Cox, AlterNet
Posted on July 31, 2007, Printed on August 3, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/58354/
In the wee hours of July 14, a 45-year-old Australian named John Patterson climbed into a tank and drove it through the streets of Sydney, knocking down six cell-phone towers and an electrical substation along the way. Patterson, a former telecommunications worker, reportedly had mapped out the locations of the towers, which he claimed were harming his health.
In recent years, protesters in England and Northern Ireland have brought down cell towers by sawing, removing bolts, and pulling with tow trucks and ropes. In one such case, locals bought the structure and sold off pieces of it as souvenirs to help with funding of future protests. In attempts to fend off objections to towers in Germany, some churches have taken to disguising them as giant crucifixes.
Opposition to towers usually finds more socially acceptable outlets, and protests are being heard more often than ever in meetings of city councils, planning commissions, and other government bodies. This summer alone, citizen efforts to block cell towers have sprouted in, among a host of other places, including California, New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois, North Dakota and north of the border in Ontario and British Columbia. Transmitters are already banned from the roofs of schools in many districts.
For years, towers have been even less welcome in the United Kingdom, where this summer has seen disputes across the country.
Most opponents cite not only aesthetics but also concerns over potential health effects of electromagnetic (EM) fields generated by the towers. Once ridiculed as crackpots and Luddites, they're starting to get backup from the scientific community.
It's not just cell phones they're worried about. The Tottenham area of London is considering the suspension of all wireless technology in its schools. Last year, Fred Gilbert, a respected scientist and president of Lakehead University in Ontario, banned wireless internet on his campus. And resident groups in San Francisco are currently battling Earthlink and Google over a proposed city-wide Wi-Fi system.
Picking up some interference?
For decades, concerns have been raised about the health effects of "extremely low frequency" fields that are produced by electrical equipment or power lines. People living close to large power lines or working next to heavy electrical equipment are spending a lot of time in electromagnetic fields generated by those sources. Others of us can be exposed briefly to very strong fields each day.
But in the past decade, suspicion has spread to cell phones and other wireless technologies, which operate at frequencies that are millions to tens of millions higher but at low power and "pulsed."
Then there's your cell phone, laptop, or other wireless device, which not only receives but also sends pulsed signals at high frequencies. Because it's usually very close to your head (or lap) when in use, the fields experienced by your body are stronger than those from a cell tower down the street.
A growing number of scientists, along with a diverse collection of technology critics, are pointing out that our bodies constantly generate electrical pulses as part of their normal functioning. They maintain that incoming radiation from modern technology may be fouling those signals.
But with hundreds of billions in sales at stake, the communications industry (and more than a few scientists) insist that radio-frequency radiation can't have biological effects unless it's intense enough to heat your flesh or organs, in the way a microwave oven cooks meat.
It's also turning out that when scientific studies are funded by industry, the results a lot less likely to show that EM fields are a health hazard.
Low frequency, more frequent disease?
Before the digital revolution, a long line of epidemiological studies compared people who were exposed to strong low-frequency fields -- people living in the shadow of power lines, for example, or long-time military radar operators -- to similar but unexposed groups.
One solid outcome of that research was to show that rates of childhood leukemia are associated with low-frequency EM exposure; as a result, the International Agency for Research on Cancer has labeled that type of energy as a possible carcinogen, just as they might label a chemical compound.
Other studies have found increased incidence of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (commonly called ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease), higher rates of breast cancer among both men and women, and immune-system dysfunction in occupations with high exposure.
Five years ago, the California Public Utilities Commission asked three epidemiologists in the state Department of Health Services to review and evaluate the scientific literature on health effects of low-frequency EM fields.
The epidemiologists, who had expertise in physics, medicine, and genetics, agreed in their report that they were "inclined to believe that EMFs can cause some degree of increased risk of childhood leukemia, adult brain cancer, Lou Gehrig's disease, and miscarriage" and were open to the possibility that they raise the risks of adult leukemia and suicide. They did not see associations with other cancer types, heart disease, or Alzheimer's disease.
Epidemiological and animal studies have not been unanimous in finding negative health effects from low-frequency EM fields, so the electric-utility industry continues to emphasize that no cause-and-effect link has been proven.
High resistance
Now the most intense debate is focused on radio-frequency fields. As soon as cell phones came into common usage, there was widespread concern that holding an electronic device against the side of your head many hours a month for the rest of your life might be harmful, and researchers went to work looking for links to health problems, often zeroing in on the possibility of brain tumors.
Until recently, cell phones had not been widely used over enough years to evaluate effects on cancers that take a long time to develop. A number of researchers failed to find an effect during those years, but now that the phones have been widely available for more than a decade, some studies are relating brain-tumor rates to long-term phone use.
Some lab studies have found short-term harm as well. Treatment with cell-phone frequencies has disrupted thyroid-gland functioning in lab rats, for example. And at Lund University in Sweden, rats were exposed to cell-phone EM fields of varying strengths for two hours; 50 days later, exposed rats showed significant brain damage relative to non-exposed controls.
The authors were blunt in their assessment: "We chose 12-26-week-old rats because they are comparable with human teenagers -- notably frequent users of mobile phones -- with respect to age. The situation of the growing brain might deserve special concern from society because biologic and maturational processes are particularly vulnerable during the growth process."
Even more recently, health concerns have been raised about the antenna masts that serve cell phones and other wireless devices. EM fields at, say, a couple of blocks from a tower are not as strong as those from a wireless device held close to the body; nevertheless many city-dwellers are now continuously bathed in emissions that will only grow in their coverage and intensity.
Last year, the RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia closed off the top two floors of its 17-story business school for a time because five employees working on its upper floors had been diagnosed with brain tumors in a single month, and seven since 1999. Cell phone towers had been placed on the building's roof a decade earlier and, although there was no proven link between them and the tumors, university officials were taking no chances.
Data on the health effects of cell or W-Fi towers are still sparse and inconsistent. Their opponents point to statistically rigorous studies like one in Austria finding that headaches and difficulty with concentration were more common among people exposed to stronger fields from cell towers. All sides seem to agree on the need for more research with solid data and robust statistical design.
San Francisco, one of the world's most technology-happy cities, is home to more than 2400 cell-phone antennas, and many of those transmitters are due to be replaced with more powerful models that can better handle text messaging and photographs, and possibly a new generation of even higher-frequency phones.
Now there's hot-and-heavy debate over plans to add 2200 more towers for a city-wide Earthlink/Google Wi-Fi network. On July 31, the city's Board of Supervisors considered an appeal by the San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union (SNAFU) that the network proposal be put through an environmental review -- a step that up to now has not been required for such telecommunications projects.
In support of the appeal, Magda Havas, professor of environmental and resource studies at Trent University in Ontario submitted an analysis of radio-frequency effects found in more than 50 human, animal, and cellular-level studies published in scientific journals.
Havas has specialized in investigating the effects of both low- and high-frequency EM radiation. She says most of the research in the field is properly done, but that alone won't guarantee that all studies will give similar results. "Natural variability in biological populations is the norm," she said.
And, she says, informative research takes time and focus: "For example, studies that consider all kinds of brain tumors in people who've only used cell phones for, say, five years don't show an association. But those studies that consider only tumors on the same side of the head where the phone is held and include only people who've used a phone for ten years or more give the same answer very consistently: there's an increased risk of tumors." In other research, wireless frequencies have been associated with higher rates of miscarriage, testicular cancer, and low sperm counts.
Direct current from a battery can be used to encourage healing of broken bones. EM fields of various frequencies have also been shown to reduce tissue damage from heart attacks, help heal wounds, reduce pain, improve sleep, and relieve depression and anxiety. If they are biologically active enough to promote health, are they also active enough to degrade it?
At the 2006 meeting of the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety in Benevento, Italy, 42 scientists from 16 countries signed a resolution arguing for much stricter regulation of EM fields from wireless communication.
Four years earlier, in Freiburger, Germany, a group of physicians had signed a statement also calling for tighter regulation of wireless communication and a prohibition on use of wireless devices by children. In the years since, more than 3000 doctors have signed the so-called "Freiburger Appeal" and documents modeled on it.
But in this country, industry has pushed for and gotten exemption from strict regulation, most notably through the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Libby Kelley, director of the Council on Wireless Technology Impacts in Novato, California says, "The technology always comes first, the scientific and environmental questions later. EM trails chemicals by about 10 years, but I hope we'll catch up."
Kelley says a major problem is that the Telecommunications Act does not permit state or local governments to block the siting of towers based on health concerns: "We'll go to hearings and try to bring up health issues, and officials will tell us, 'We can't talk about that. We could get sued in federal court!'"
High-voltage influence?
Industry officials are correct when they say the scientific literature contains many studies that did not find power lines or telecommunication devices to have significant health effects. But when, as often happens, a range of studies give some positive and some negative results, industry people usually make statements like, "Technology A has not been proven to cause disease B."
Michael Kundi, professor at the Medical University of Vienna, Austria and an EM researcher, has issued a warning about distortions of the concept of cause-and-effect, particularly when a scientific study concludes that "there is no evidence for a causal relationship" between environmental factors and human health. Noting that science is rarely able to prove that A did or did not "cause" B, he wrote that such statements can be "readily misused by interested parties to claim that exposure is not associated with adverse health effects."
Scientists and groups concerned about current standards for EM fields have criticized the World Health Organization (WHO) and other for downplaying the risks. And some emphasize the risk of financial influence when such intense interest is being shown by huge utilities and a global communications industry that's expected to sell $250 billion worth of wireless handsets per year by 2011 (that's just for the instruments, not counting monthly bills). Microwave News cited Belgian reports in late 2006 that two industry groups -- the GSM Association and Mobile Manufacturers Forum -- accounted for more than 40 percent of the budget for WHO's EM fields project in 2005-06.
When a US National Academy of Sciences committee was formed earlier this year to look into health effects of wireless communication devices, the Center for Science in the Public Interest and Sage Associates wrote a letter to the Academy charging that the appointment of two of the committee's six members was improper under federal conflict-of-interest laws.
One of the committee members, Leeka Kheifets, a professor of epidemiology in UCLA's School of Public Health, has, says the letter, "spent the majority of the past 20 years working in various capacities with the Electric Power Research Institute, the research arm of the electric power industry."
The other, Bernard Veyret, senior scientist at the University of Bordeaux in France, "is on the consulting board of Bouygues Telecom (one of 3 French mobile phone providers), has contracts with Alcatel and other providers, and has received research funding from Electricite de France, the operator of the French electricity grid." The NAS committee will be holding a workshop this month and will issue a report sometime after that.
A paper published in January in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives found that when studies of cell phone use and health problems were funded by industry, they were much less likely to find a statistically significant relationship than were publicly funded studies.
The authors categorized the titles of the papers they surveyed as either negative (as in "Cellular phones have no effect on sleep patterns"), or neutral (e.g., "Sleep patterns of adolescents using cellular phones"), or positive, (e.g., "Cellular phones disrupt sleep"). Fully 42 percent of the privately funded studies had negative titles and none had positive ones. In public or nonprofit studies, titles were 18 percent negative and 46 percent positive.
Alluding to previous studies in the pharmaceutical and tobacco industries, the authors concluded, "Our findings add to the existing evidence that single-source sponsorship is associated with outcomes that favor the sponsors' products."
By email, I asked Dr. John Moulder, a senior editor of the journal Radiation Research, for his reaction to the study. Moulder, who is Professor and Director of Radiation Biology in the Department of Radiation Oncology at the University of Wisconsin, did not think the analysis was adequate to conclusively demonstrate industry influence and told me that in his capacity as an editor, "I have not noted such an effect, but I have not systematically looked for one either. I am certainly aware that an industry bias exists in other areas of medicine, such as reporting of clinical trails."
Moulder was lead author on a 2005 paper concluding that the scientific literature to that point showed "a lack of convincing evidence for a causal association between cancer and exposure to the RF [radio-frequency] energy used for mobile telecommunications."
The Center for Science in the Public Interest has questioned Moulder's objectivity because he has served as a consultant to electric-power and telecommunications firms and groups. Moulder told me, "I have not done any consulting for the electric power and telecommunications industry in years, and when I was doing consulting for these industries, the journals for which I served as an editor or reviewer were made aware of it."
A year ago, Microwave News also reported that approximately one-half of all studies looking into possible damage to DNA by communication-frequency EM fields found no effect. But three-fourths of those negative studies were industry- or military-funded; indeed, only 3 of 35 industry or military papers found an effect, whereas 32 of 37 publicly funded studies found effects.
Magda Havas sees a shortage of public money in the US for research on EM health effects as one of the chief factors leading to lack of a rigorous public policy, telling me, "Much of the research here ends up being funded directly or indirectly by industry. That affects both the design and the interpretation of studies." As for research done directly by company scientists, "It's the same as in any industry. They can decide what information to make public. They are free to downplay harmful effects and release information that's beneficial to their product."
Meanwhile, at Trent University where Havas works, students using laptops are exposed to radio-frequency levels that exceed international guidelines. Of that, she says, "For people who've been fully informed and decide to take the risk, that's their choice. But what about those who have no choice, who have a cell-phone tower outside their bedroom window?
"It's the equivalent of secondhand smoke. We took a long time to get the political will to establish smoke-free environments, and we now know we should have done it sooner. How long will it take to react to secondhand radiation?"
For more information, visit Environmnental Health Perspectives; Microwave News; the National Center for Biotechnology Information.
Stan Cox is a plant breeder and writer in Salina, Kansas. His book Sick Planet: Corporate Food and Medicine will be published by Pluto Press in Spring 2008.
© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/58354/
By Stan Cox, AlterNet
Posted on July 31, 2007, Printed on August 3, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/58354/
In the wee hours of July 14, a 45-year-old Australian named John Patterson climbed into a tank and drove it through the streets of Sydney, knocking down six cell-phone towers and an electrical substation along the way. Patterson, a former telecommunications worker, reportedly had mapped out the locations of the towers, which he claimed were harming his health.
In recent years, protesters in England and Northern Ireland have brought down cell towers by sawing, removing bolts, and pulling with tow trucks and ropes. In one such case, locals bought the structure and sold off pieces of it as souvenirs to help with funding of future protests. In attempts to fend off objections to towers in Germany, some churches have taken to disguising them as giant crucifixes.
Opposition to towers usually finds more socially acceptable outlets, and protests are being heard more often than ever in meetings of city councils, planning commissions, and other government bodies. This summer alone, citizen efforts to block cell towers have sprouted in, among a host of other places, including California, New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois, North Dakota and north of the border in Ontario and British Columbia. Transmitters are already banned from the roofs of schools in many districts.
For years, towers have been even less welcome in the United Kingdom, where this summer has seen disputes across the country.
Most opponents cite not only aesthetics but also concerns over potential health effects of electromagnetic (EM) fields generated by the towers. Once ridiculed as crackpots and Luddites, they're starting to get backup from the scientific community.
It's not just cell phones they're worried about. The Tottenham area of London is considering the suspension of all wireless technology in its schools. Last year, Fred Gilbert, a respected scientist and president of Lakehead University in Ontario, banned wireless internet on his campus. And resident groups in San Francisco are currently battling Earthlink and Google over a proposed city-wide Wi-Fi system.
Picking up some interference?
For decades, concerns have been raised about the health effects of "extremely low frequency" fields that are produced by electrical equipment or power lines. People living close to large power lines or working next to heavy electrical equipment are spending a lot of time in electromagnetic fields generated by those sources. Others of us can be exposed briefly to very strong fields each day.
But in the past decade, suspicion has spread to cell phones and other wireless technologies, which operate at frequencies that are millions to tens of millions higher but at low power and "pulsed."
Then there's your cell phone, laptop, or other wireless device, which not only receives but also sends pulsed signals at high frequencies. Because it's usually very close to your head (or lap) when in use, the fields experienced by your body are stronger than those from a cell tower down the street.
A growing number of scientists, along with a diverse collection of technology critics, are pointing out that our bodies constantly generate electrical pulses as part of their normal functioning. They maintain that incoming radiation from modern technology may be fouling those signals.
But with hundreds of billions in sales at stake, the communications industry (and more than a few scientists) insist that radio-frequency radiation can't have biological effects unless it's intense enough to heat your flesh or organs, in the way a microwave oven cooks meat.
It's also turning out that when scientific studies are funded by industry, the results a lot less likely to show that EM fields are a health hazard.
Low frequency, more frequent disease?
Before the digital revolution, a long line of epidemiological studies compared people who were exposed to strong low-frequency fields -- people living in the shadow of power lines, for example, or long-time military radar operators -- to similar but unexposed groups.
One solid outcome of that research was to show that rates of childhood leukemia are associated with low-frequency EM exposure; as a result, the International Agency for Research on Cancer has labeled that type of energy as a possible carcinogen, just as they might label a chemical compound.
Other studies have found increased incidence of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (commonly called ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease), higher rates of breast cancer among both men and women, and immune-system dysfunction in occupations with high exposure.
Five years ago, the California Public Utilities Commission asked three epidemiologists in the state Department of Health Services to review and evaluate the scientific literature on health effects of low-frequency EM fields.
The epidemiologists, who had expertise in physics, medicine, and genetics, agreed in their report that they were "inclined to believe that EMFs can cause some degree of increased risk of childhood leukemia, adult brain cancer, Lou Gehrig's disease, and miscarriage" and were open to the possibility that they raise the risks of adult leukemia and suicide. They did not see associations with other cancer types, heart disease, or Alzheimer's disease.
Epidemiological and animal studies have not been unanimous in finding negative health effects from low-frequency EM fields, so the electric-utility industry continues to emphasize that no cause-and-effect link has been proven.
High resistance
Now the most intense debate is focused on radio-frequency fields. As soon as cell phones came into common usage, there was widespread concern that holding an electronic device against the side of your head many hours a month for the rest of your life might be harmful, and researchers went to work looking for links to health problems, often zeroing in on the possibility of brain tumors.
Until recently, cell phones had not been widely used over enough years to evaluate effects on cancers that take a long time to develop. A number of researchers failed to find an effect during those years, but now that the phones have been widely available for more than a decade, some studies are relating brain-tumor rates to long-term phone use.
Some lab studies have found short-term harm as well. Treatment with cell-phone frequencies has disrupted thyroid-gland functioning in lab rats, for example. And at Lund University in Sweden, rats were exposed to cell-phone EM fields of varying strengths for two hours; 50 days later, exposed rats showed significant brain damage relative to non-exposed controls.
The authors were blunt in their assessment: "We chose 12-26-week-old rats because they are comparable with human teenagers -- notably frequent users of mobile phones -- with respect to age. The situation of the growing brain might deserve special concern from society because biologic and maturational processes are particularly vulnerable during the growth process."
Even more recently, health concerns have been raised about the antenna masts that serve cell phones and other wireless devices. EM fields at, say, a couple of blocks from a tower are not as strong as those from a wireless device held close to the body; nevertheless many city-dwellers are now continuously bathed in emissions that will only grow in their coverage and intensity.
Last year, the RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia closed off the top two floors of its 17-story business school for a time because five employees working on its upper floors had been diagnosed with brain tumors in a single month, and seven since 1999. Cell phone towers had been placed on the building's roof a decade earlier and, although there was no proven link between them and the tumors, university officials were taking no chances.
Data on the health effects of cell or W-Fi towers are still sparse and inconsistent. Their opponents point to statistically rigorous studies like one in Austria finding that headaches and difficulty with concentration were more common among people exposed to stronger fields from cell towers. All sides seem to agree on the need for more research with solid data and robust statistical design.
San Francisco, one of the world's most technology-happy cities, is home to more than 2400 cell-phone antennas, and many of those transmitters are due to be replaced with more powerful models that can better handle text messaging and photographs, and possibly a new generation of even higher-frequency phones.
Now there's hot-and-heavy debate over plans to add 2200 more towers for a city-wide Earthlink/Google Wi-Fi network. On July 31, the city's Board of Supervisors considered an appeal by the San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union (SNAFU) that the network proposal be put through an environmental review -- a step that up to now has not been required for such telecommunications projects.
In support of the appeal, Magda Havas, professor of environmental and resource studies at Trent University in Ontario submitted an analysis of radio-frequency effects found in more than 50 human, animal, and cellular-level studies published in scientific journals.
Havas has specialized in investigating the effects of both low- and high-frequency EM radiation. She says most of the research in the field is properly done, but that alone won't guarantee that all studies will give similar results. "Natural variability in biological populations is the norm," she said.
And, she says, informative research takes time and focus: "For example, studies that consider all kinds of brain tumors in people who've only used cell phones for, say, five years don't show an association. But those studies that consider only tumors on the same side of the head where the phone is held and include only people who've used a phone for ten years or more give the same answer very consistently: there's an increased risk of tumors." In other research, wireless frequencies have been associated with higher rates of miscarriage, testicular cancer, and low sperm counts.
Direct current from a battery can be used to encourage healing of broken bones. EM fields of various frequencies have also been shown to reduce tissue damage from heart attacks, help heal wounds, reduce pain, improve sleep, and relieve depression and anxiety. If they are biologically active enough to promote health, are they also active enough to degrade it?
At the 2006 meeting of the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety in Benevento, Italy, 42 scientists from 16 countries signed a resolution arguing for much stricter regulation of EM fields from wireless communication.
Four years earlier, in Freiburger, Germany, a group of physicians had signed a statement also calling for tighter regulation of wireless communication and a prohibition on use of wireless devices by children. In the years since, more than 3000 doctors have signed the so-called "Freiburger Appeal" and documents modeled on it.
But in this country, industry has pushed for and gotten exemption from strict regulation, most notably through the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Libby Kelley, director of the Council on Wireless Technology Impacts in Novato, California says, "The technology always comes first, the scientific and environmental questions later. EM trails chemicals by about 10 years, but I hope we'll catch up."
Kelley says a major problem is that the Telecommunications Act does not permit state or local governments to block the siting of towers based on health concerns: "We'll go to hearings and try to bring up health issues, and officials will tell us, 'We can't talk about that. We could get sued in federal court!'"
High-voltage influence?
Industry officials are correct when they say the scientific literature contains many studies that did not find power lines or telecommunication devices to have significant health effects. But when, as often happens, a range of studies give some positive and some negative results, industry people usually make statements like, "Technology A has not been proven to cause disease B."
Michael Kundi, professor at the Medical University of Vienna, Austria and an EM researcher, has issued a warning about distortions of the concept of cause-and-effect, particularly when a scientific study concludes that "there is no evidence for a causal relationship" between environmental factors and human health. Noting that science is rarely able to prove that A did or did not "cause" B, he wrote that such statements can be "readily misused by interested parties to claim that exposure is not associated with adverse health effects."
Scientists and groups concerned about current standards for EM fields have criticized the World Health Organization (WHO) and other for downplaying the risks. And some emphasize the risk of financial influence when such intense interest is being shown by huge utilities and a global communications industry that's expected to sell $250 billion worth of wireless handsets per year by 2011 (that's just for the instruments, not counting monthly bills). Microwave News cited Belgian reports in late 2006 that two industry groups -- the GSM Association and Mobile Manufacturers Forum -- accounted for more than 40 percent of the budget for WHO's EM fields project in 2005-06.
When a US National Academy of Sciences committee was formed earlier this year to look into health effects of wireless communication devices, the Center for Science in the Public Interest and Sage Associates wrote a letter to the Academy charging that the appointment of two of the committee's six members was improper under federal conflict-of-interest laws.
One of the committee members, Leeka Kheifets, a professor of epidemiology in UCLA's School of Public Health, has, says the letter, "spent the majority of the past 20 years working in various capacities with the Electric Power Research Institute, the research arm of the electric power industry."
The other, Bernard Veyret, senior scientist at the University of Bordeaux in France, "is on the consulting board of Bouygues Telecom (one of 3 French mobile phone providers), has contracts with Alcatel and other providers, and has received research funding from Electricite de France, the operator of the French electricity grid." The NAS committee will be holding a workshop this month and will issue a report sometime after that.
A paper published in January in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives found that when studies of cell phone use and health problems were funded by industry, they were much less likely to find a statistically significant relationship than were publicly funded studies.
The authors categorized the titles of the papers they surveyed as either negative (as in "Cellular phones have no effect on sleep patterns"), or neutral (e.g., "Sleep patterns of adolescents using cellular phones"), or positive, (e.g., "Cellular phones disrupt sleep"). Fully 42 percent of the privately funded studies had negative titles and none had positive ones. In public or nonprofit studies, titles were 18 percent negative and 46 percent positive.
Alluding to previous studies in the pharmaceutical and tobacco industries, the authors concluded, "Our findings add to the existing evidence that single-source sponsorship is associated with outcomes that favor the sponsors' products."
By email, I asked Dr. John Moulder, a senior editor of the journal Radiation Research, for his reaction to the study. Moulder, who is Professor and Director of Radiation Biology in the Department of Radiation Oncology at the University of Wisconsin, did not think the analysis was adequate to conclusively demonstrate industry influence and told me that in his capacity as an editor, "I have not noted such an effect, but I have not systematically looked for one either. I am certainly aware that an industry bias exists in other areas of medicine, such as reporting of clinical trails."
Moulder was lead author on a 2005 paper concluding that the scientific literature to that point showed "a lack of convincing evidence for a causal association between cancer and exposure to the RF [radio-frequency] energy used for mobile telecommunications."
The Center for Science in the Public Interest has questioned Moulder's objectivity because he has served as a consultant to electric-power and telecommunications firms and groups. Moulder told me, "I have not done any consulting for the electric power and telecommunications industry in years, and when I was doing consulting for these industries, the journals for which I served as an editor or reviewer were made aware of it."
A year ago, Microwave News also reported that approximately one-half of all studies looking into possible damage to DNA by communication-frequency EM fields found no effect. But three-fourths of those negative studies were industry- or military-funded; indeed, only 3 of 35 industry or military papers found an effect, whereas 32 of 37 publicly funded studies found effects.
Magda Havas sees a shortage of public money in the US for research on EM health effects as one of the chief factors leading to lack of a rigorous public policy, telling me, "Much of the research here ends up being funded directly or indirectly by industry. That affects both the design and the interpretation of studies." As for research done directly by company scientists, "It's the same as in any industry. They can decide what information to make public. They are free to downplay harmful effects and release information that's beneficial to their product."
Meanwhile, at Trent University where Havas works, students using laptops are exposed to radio-frequency levels that exceed international guidelines. Of that, she says, "For people who've been fully informed and decide to take the risk, that's their choice. But what about those who have no choice, who have a cell-phone tower outside their bedroom window?
"It's the equivalent of secondhand smoke. We took a long time to get the political will to establish smoke-free environments, and we now know we should have done it sooner. How long will it take to react to secondhand radiation?"
For more information, visit Environmnental Health Perspectives; Microwave News; the National Center for Biotechnology Information.
Stan Cox is a plant breeder and writer in Salina, Kansas. His book Sick Planet: Corporate Food and Medicine will be published by Pluto Press in Spring 2008.
© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/58354/
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Mobile-free area to attract tourists
Canadian campaigners claim tourists will be attracted by keeping their valley cellphone-free
Mobile-free area to attract tourists
Canadian valley uses novel argument to stop mast plans
Phil Lattimore
July 23rd 2007 14:12
If being out of range of mobile phones sounds like bliss to you, a rural valley in British Columbia, Canada could be the place to head for.
Officials from the Slocan Valley Economic Development Commission reckon keeping the valley mobile-free will draw in tourists and new residents. A group of residents have asked mobile company Telus Corp. not to go ahead with plans to erect a cellphone mast in the small town of New Denver. If successful, the local development group plans to promote the "cell phone free status" of the town as an attraction, according to a report from Reuters .
"The fact that we're without cellphone service means that we're able to enjoy life without the incessant sound of ringtones, immediately followed by someone's shouted conversation," Bill Roberts of the Slocan Valley Economic Development Commission was quoted as saying.
Of course, UK residents already enjoy poor cellular coverage in many rural areas, although local campaigns against mobile masts have yet to use the tourist attraction gambit. Interesting to see if it works...
tech.co.uk
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Damage Producing Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS), Singlet Oxygen, Produced By Microwave Discharges
I was reading about the production of Free Radicals and about how, in particular, a Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS), called Singlet Oxygen is produced:
We mentioned above that some of the reactive oxygen species (ROS) were not actually free radicals. That is the case for singlet oxygen, 1O2, which although not a free radical, behaves like one, and is extremely injurious to cells in the body.
One way in which singlet oxygen is generated is by the action of sunlight, particularly the ultraviolet part, whereby it breaks the bonds of normal diatomic oxygen, O2. Normal oxygen is generally very stable. However, when sunlight strikes the skin, any diatomic oxygen that is present may be broken down into singlet oxygen. (The Miracle of Antioxidants, 2002, pp. 44-45, McCleod & White)
Now, I was thinking that
"Well, if ultraviolet rays which only hit the skin can cause the production of the ROS Singlet Oxygen within the body, then what about microwaves which pass right through the body?"
So I decided to do a search and found that microwave discarges are indeed used for this specific purpose - the creation of Singlet Oxygen. Now, if this can happen outside the body then there should be no reason why it also cannot happen inside the body in producing this "extremely-injurious-to-cells" ROS. Microwave exposure has been shown to induce a depletion of a number of the body's antioxidants: SuperOxide Dismutase (S.O.D.), Glutathione, and CoEnzyme Q10, and this might just explain - in part - why.
J Phys Chem A. 2007 Apr 26;111(16):3010-5. Epub 2007 Apr 4.
Quenching of I(2P1/2) by O3 and O(3P).
Azyazov VN, Antonov IO, Heaven MC.
Department of Chemistry, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia 30322, USA.
Oxygen-iodine lasers that utilize electrical or microwave discharges to produce singlet oxygen are currently being developed. The discharge generators differ from conventional chemical singlet oxygen generators in that they produce significant amounts of atomic oxygen. Post-discharge chemistry includes channels that lead to the formation of ozone. Consequently, removal of I(2P1/2) by O atoms and O3 may impact the efficiency of discharge driven iodine lasers. In the present study, we have measured the rate constants for quenching of I(2P1/2) by O(3P) atoms and O3 using pulsed laser photolysis techniques. The rate constant for quenching by O3, (1.8 +/- 0.4) x 10(-12) cm3 s-1, was found to be a factor of 5 smaller than the literature value. The rate constant for quenching by O(3P) was (1.2 +/- 0.2) x 10(-11) cm3 s-1.
PMID: 17407271 [PubMed]
Now, the following studies show very clearly how dangerous the ROS Singlet Oxygen truly is - in that it can halt biological activity of a cell by causing DNA breaks:
Biochim Biophys Acta. 1989 Mar 1;1007(2):151-7.
Singlet molecular oxygen causes loss of biological activity in plasmid and bacteriophage DNA and induces single-strand breaks.
Di Mascio P, Wefers H, Do-Thi HP, Lafleur MV, Sies H.
Institut für Physiologische Chemie I, Universität Düsseldorf, F.R.G.
Damage of plasmid and bacteriophage DNA inflicted by singlet molecular oxygen (1O2) includes loss of the biological activity measured as transforming capacity in E. coli and single-strand break formation. Three different sources of 1O2 were employed: (i) photosensitization with Rose bengal immobilized on a glass plate physically separated from the solution; (ii) thermal decomposition of the water-soluble endoperoxide 3,3'-(1,4-naphthylidene) dipropionate (NDPO2); and (iii) microwave discharge. Loss of transforming activity was documented after exposing bacteriophage M13 DNA to 1O2 generated by photosensitization employing immobilized Rose bengal, and with bacteriophage luminal diameter X174 DNA, using the thermodissociable endoperoxide (NDPO2) as a source of 1O2. These findings are in agreement with experiments in which plasmid DNA pBR322 was exposed to a gas stream of 1O2 generated by microwave discharge. The effects of 1O2 quenchers and of 2H2O indicate 1O2 to be the species responsible. Strand-break formation in pBR322 and luminal diameter X174, measured as an increase of the open circular form at the expense of the closed circular supercoiled form, was observed without alkaline treatment after exposing the DNA to 1O2, using either agarose gel electrophoresis or sucrose gradient separation. The effect of quenchers and 2H2O indicate the involvement of 1O2 in DNA damage. We conclude that singlet oxygen can cause loss of biological activity and DNA strand breakage.
PMID: 2920171 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
FEBS Lett. 1987 Jan 19;211(1):49-52.
Loss of transforming activity of plasmid DNA (pBR322) in E. coli caused by singlet molecular oxygen.
Wefers H, Schulte-Frohlinde D, Sies H.
Plasmid DNA pBR322 in aqueous solution was exposed to singlet molecular oxygen (1O2) generated by microwave discharge. DNA damage was detected as loss of transforming activity of pBR322 in E. coli (CMK) dependent on the time of exposure. DNA damage was effectively decreased by singlet-oxygen quenchers such as sodium azide and methionine. Replacement of water in the incubation buffer by D2O led to an increase in DNA damage. 9,10-Bis(2-ethylene)anthracene disulfate was used as a chemical trap for 1O2 quantitation by HPLC analysis of the endoperoxide formed.
PMID: 3026841 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Now, the next study also indicates the protective effects of both quenchers and antioxidants carotenoids and tocopherols:
Mutat Res. 1992 Sep;275(3-6):367-75.
Singlet oxygen induced DNA damage.
Sies H, Menck CF.
Institut für Physiologische Chemie I, Universität Düsseldorf, Germany.
Singlet oxygen generated by photoexcitation and by chemiexcitation selectively reacts with the guanine moiety in nucleosides (kq + kr about 5 x 10(6) M-1s-1) and in DNA. The oxidation products include 8-oxo-7-hydro-deoxyguanosine (8-oxodG; also called 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine) and 2,6-diamino-4-hydroxy-5-formamidopyrimidine (FapyGua). Singlet oxygen also causes alkali-labile sites and single-strand breaks in DNA. The biological consequences include a loss of transforming activity as studied with plasmids and bacteriophage DNA, and mutagenicity and genotoxicity. Employing shuttle vectors, it was shown that double-stranded vectors carrying singlet oxygen induced lesions seem to be processed in mammalian cells by DNA repair mechanisms efficient in preserving the biological activity of the plasmid but highly mutagenic in mammalian cells. Biological protection against singlet oxygen is afforded by quenchers, notably carotenoids and tocopherols. Major repair occurs by excision of the oxidized deoxyguanosine moieties by the Fpg protein, preventing mismatch of 8-oxodG with dA, which would generate G:C to T:A transversions.
PMID: 1383777 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
This final study shows that 50 Hz Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields can induce both cell proliferation and DNA damage. It also indicates the production of 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG), a hallmarker of oxidative damage, and one believed to proceed through a singlet-oxygen-involvment mechanism.
Biochim Biophys Acta. 2005 Mar 22;1743(1-2):120-9. Links
50-Hz extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields enhance cell proliferation and DNA damage: possible involvement of a redox mechanism.
Wolf FI, Torsello A, Tedesco B, Fasanella S, Boninsegna A, D'Ascenzo M, Grassi C, Azzena GB, Cittadini A.
Institute of General Pathology and Giovanni XXIII Cancer Research Center, L.go F. Vito, 1-00168 Rome, Italy. fwolf@rm.unicatt.it
HL-60 leukemia cells, Rat-1 fibroblasts and WI-38 diploid fibroblasts were exposed for 24-72 h to 0.5-1.0-mT 50-Hz extremely low frequency electromagnetic field (ELF-EMF). This treatment induced a dose-dependent increase in the proliferation rate of all cell types, namely about 30% increase of cell proliferation after 72-h exposure to 1.0 mT. This was accompanied by increased percentage of cells in the S-phase after 12- and 48-h exposure. The ability of ELF-EMF to induce DNA damage was also investigated by measuring DNA strand breaks. A dose-dependent increase in DNA damage was observed in all cell lines, with two peaks occurring at 24 and 72 h. A similar pattern of DNA damage was observed by measuring formation of 8-OHdG adducts. The effects of ELF-EMF on cell proliferation and DNA damage were prevented by pretreatment of cells with an antioxidant like alpha-tocopherol, suggesting that redox reactions were involved. Accordingly, Rat-1 fibroblasts that had been exposed to ELF-EMF for 3 or 24 h exhibited a significant increase in dichlorofluorescein-detectable reactive oxygen species, which was blunted by alpha-tocopherol pretreatment. Cells exposed to ELF-EMF and examined as early as 6 h after treatment initiation also exhibited modifications of NF kappa B-related proteins (p65-p50 and I kappa B alpha), which were suggestive of increased formation of p65-p50 or p65-p65 active forms, a process usually attributed to redox reactions. These results suggest that ELF-EMF influence proliferation and DNA damage in both normal and tumor cells through the action of free radical species. This information may be of value for appraising the pathophysiologic consequences of an exposure to ELF-EMF.
PMID: 15777847 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
We mentioned above that some of the reactive oxygen species (ROS) were not actually free radicals. That is the case for singlet oxygen, 1O2, which although not a free radical, behaves like one, and is extremely injurious to cells in the body.
One way in which singlet oxygen is generated is by the action of sunlight, particularly the ultraviolet part, whereby it breaks the bonds of normal diatomic oxygen, O2. Normal oxygen is generally very stable. However, when sunlight strikes the skin, any diatomic oxygen that is present may be broken down into singlet oxygen. (The Miracle of Antioxidants, 2002, pp. 44-45, McCleod & White)
Now, I was thinking that
"Well, if ultraviolet rays which only hit the skin can cause the production of the ROS Singlet Oxygen within the body, then what about microwaves which pass right through the body?"
So I decided to do a search and found that microwave discarges are indeed used for this specific purpose - the creation of Singlet Oxygen. Now, if this can happen outside the body then there should be no reason why it also cannot happen inside the body in producing this "extremely-injurious-to-cells" ROS. Microwave exposure has been shown to induce a depletion of a number of the body's antioxidants: SuperOxide Dismutase (S.O.D.), Glutathione, and CoEnzyme Q10, and this might just explain - in part - why.
J Phys Chem A. 2007 Apr 26;111(16):3010-5. Epub 2007 Apr 4.
Quenching of I(2P1/2) by O3 and O(3P).
Azyazov VN, Antonov IO, Heaven MC.
Department of Chemistry, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia 30322, USA.
Oxygen-iodine lasers that utilize electrical or microwave discharges to produce singlet oxygen are currently being developed. The discharge generators differ from conventional chemical singlet oxygen generators in that they produce significant amounts of atomic oxygen. Post-discharge chemistry includes channels that lead to the formation of ozone. Consequently, removal of I(2P1/2) by O atoms and O3 may impact the efficiency of discharge driven iodine lasers. In the present study, we have measured the rate constants for quenching of I(2P1/2) by O(3P) atoms and O3 using pulsed laser photolysis techniques. The rate constant for quenching by O3, (1.8 +/- 0.4) x 10(-12) cm3 s-1, was found to be a factor of 5 smaller than the literature value. The rate constant for quenching by O(3P) was (1.2 +/- 0.2) x 10(-11) cm3 s-1.
PMID: 17407271 [PubMed]
Now, the following studies show very clearly how dangerous the ROS Singlet Oxygen truly is - in that it can halt biological activity of a cell by causing DNA breaks:
Biochim Biophys Acta. 1989 Mar 1;1007(2):151-7.
Singlet molecular oxygen causes loss of biological activity in plasmid and bacteriophage DNA and induces single-strand breaks.
Di Mascio P, Wefers H, Do-Thi HP, Lafleur MV, Sies H.
Institut für Physiologische Chemie I, Universität Düsseldorf, F.R.G.
Damage of plasmid and bacteriophage DNA inflicted by singlet molecular oxygen (1O2) includes loss of the biological activity measured as transforming capacity in E. coli and single-strand break formation. Three different sources of 1O2 were employed: (i) photosensitization with Rose bengal immobilized on a glass plate physically separated from the solution; (ii) thermal decomposition of the water-soluble endoperoxide 3,3'-(1,4-naphthylidene) dipropionate (NDPO2); and (iii) microwave discharge. Loss of transforming activity was documented after exposing bacteriophage M13 DNA to 1O2 generated by photosensitization employing immobilized Rose bengal, and with bacteriophage luminal diameter X174 DNA, using the thermodissociable endoperoxide (NDPO2) as a source of 1O2. These findings are in agreement with experiments in which plasmid DNA pBR322 was exposed to a gas stream of 1O2 generated by microwave discharge. The effects of 1O2 quenchers and of 2H2O indicate 1O2 to be the species responsible. Strand-break formation in pBR322 and luminal diameter X174, measured as an increase of the open circular form at the expense of the closed circular supercoiled form, was observed without alkaline treatment after exposing the DNA to 1O2, using either agarose gel electrophoresis or sucrose gradient separation. The effect of quenchers and 2H2O indicate the involvement of 1O2 in DNA damage. We conclude that singlet oxygen can cause loss of biological activity and DNA strand breakage.
PMID: 2920171 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
FEBS Lett. 1987 Jan 19;211(1):49-52.
Loss of transforming activity of plasmid DNA (pBR322) in E. coli caused by singlet molecular oxygen.
Wefers H, Schulte-Frohlinde D, Sies H.
Plasmid DNA pBR322 in aqueous solution was exposed to singlet molecular oxygen (1O2) generated by microwave discharge. DNA damage was detected as loss of transforming activity of pBR322 in E. coli (CMK) dependent on the time of exposure. DNA damage was effectively decreased by singlet-oxygen quenchers such as sodium azide and methionine. Replacement of water in the incubation buffer by D2O led to an increase in DNA damage. 9,10-Bis(2-ethylene)anthracene disulfate was used as a chemical trap for 1O2 quantitation by HPLC analysis of the endoperoxide formed.
PMID: 3026841 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Now, the next study also indicates the protective effects of both quenchers and antioxidants carotenoids and tocopherols:
Mutat Res. 1992 Sep;275(3-6):367-75.
Singlet oxygen induced DNA damage.
Sies H, Menck CF.
Institut für Physiologische Chemie I, Universität Düsseldorf, Germany.
Singlet oxygen generated by photoexcitation and by chemiexcitation selectively reacts with the guanine moiety in nucleosides (kq + kr about 5 x 10(6) M-1s-1) and in DNA. The oxidation products include 8-oxo-7-hydro-deoxyguanosine (8-oxodG; also called 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine) and 2,6-diamino-4-hydroxy-5-formamidopyrimidine (FapyGua). Singlet oxygen also causes alkali-labile sites and single-strand breaks in DNA. The biological consequences include a loss of transforming activity as studied with plasmids and bacteriophage DNA, and mutagenicity and genotoxicity. Employing shuttle vectors, it was shown that double-stranded vectors carrying singlet oxygen induced lesions seem to be processed in mammalian cells by DNA repair mechanisms efficient in preserving the biological activity of the plasmid but highly mutagenic in mammalian cells. Biological protection against singlet oxygen is afforded by quenchers, notably carotenoids and tocopherols. Major repair occurs by excision of the oxidized deoxyguanosine moieties by the Fpg protein, preventing mismatch of 8-oxodG with dA, which would generate G:C to T:A transversions.
PMID: 1383777 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
This final study shows that 50 Hz Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields can induce both cell proliferation and DNA damage. It also indicates the production of 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG), a hallmarker of oxidative damage, and one believed to proceed through a singlet-oxygen-involvment mechanism.
Biochim Biophys Acta. 2005 Mar 22;1743(1-2):120-9. Links
50-Hz extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields enhance cell proliferation and DNA damage: possible involvement of a redox mechanism.
Wolf FI, Torsello A, Tedesco B, Fasanella S, Boninsegna A, D'Ascenzo M, Grassi C, Azzena GB, Cittadini A.
Institute of General Pathology and Giovanni XXIII Cancer Research Center, L.go F. Vito, 1-00168 Rome, Italy. fwolf@rm.unicatt.it
HL-60 leukemia cells, Rat-1 fibroblasts and WI-38 diploid fibroblasts were exposed for 24-72 h to 0.5-1.0-mT 50-Hz extremely low frequency electromagnetic field (ELF-EMF). This treatment induced a dose-dependent increase in the proliferation rate of all cell types, namely about 30% increase of cell proliferation after 72-h exposure to 1.0 mT. This was accompanied by increased percentage of cells in the S-phase after 12- and 48-h exposure. The ability of ELF-EMF to induce DNA damage was also investigated by measuring DNA strand breaks. A dose-dependent increase in DNA damage was observed in all cell lines, with two peaks occurring at 24 and 72 h. A similar pattern of DNA damage was observed by measuring formation of 8-OHdG adducts. The effects of ELF-EMF on cell proliferation and DNA damage were prevented by pretreatment of cells with an antioxidant like alpha-tocopherol, suggesting that redox reactions were involved. Accordingly, Rat-1 fibroblasts that had been exposed to ELF-EMF for 3 or 24 h exhibited a significant increase in dichlorofluorescein-detectable reactive oxygen species, which was blunted by alpha-tocopherol pretreatment. Cells exposed to ELF-EMF and examined as early as 6 h after treatment initiation also exhibited modifications of NF kappa B-related proteins (p65-p50 and I kappa B alpha), which were suggestive of increased formation of p65-p50 or p65-p65 active forms, a process usually attributed to redox reactions. These results suggest that ELF-EMF influence proliferation and DNA damage in both normal and tumor cells through the action of free radical species. This information may be of value for appraising the pathophysiologic consequences of an exposure to ELF-EMF.
PMID: 15777847 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Office ‘smog’ risk to health
From The Sunday Times
July 15, 2007
Office ‘smog’ risk to health
Jonathan Leake, Science Editor
THE electronic “smog” generated by computers, printers and other office equipment may be exposing workers to raised levels of pollutants and bacteria, a study has found.
The research, by Imperial College London, examined whether there was any substance to complaints by office workers who report headaches and other health problems after spending long periods working with electronic equipment.
Such claims are often dismissed by employers but the research suggests these electric fields can cause harm.
There has long been concern over the possible impact of electric fields. Last year the Oxford Childhood Cancer Research Group reported that children living within 200 metres of high-voltage power lines had a 69% higher risk of leukaemia than those living 600 metres or more away The possibility that similar effects might occur with the far lower voltages of domestic and office appliances has also been winning acceptance.
In the Imperial College study Keith Jamieson, who led the research, mapped the fields in a typical office.
“Electric fields have a powerful effect on the air. That is why the backs of computers get covered in dust,” he said. “The same thing happens to people’s skin and lungs. It increases the toxic load that the body has to deal with and raises the risk of contamination and infection.”
July 15, 2007
Office ‘smog’ risk to health
Jonathan Leake, Science Editor
THE electronic “smog” generated by computers, printers and other office equipment may be exposing workers to raised levels of pollutants and bacteria, a study has found.
The research, by Imperial College London, examined whether there was any substance to complaints by office workers who report headaches and other health problems after spending long periods working with electronic equipment.
Such claims are often dismissed by employers but the research suggests these electric fields can cause harm.
There has long been concern over the possible impact of electric fields. Last year the Oxford Childhood Cancer Research Group reported that children living within 200 metres of high-voltage power lines had a 69% higher risk of leukaemia than those living 600 metres or more away The possibility that similar effects might occur with the far lower voltages of domestic and office appliances has also been winning acceptance.
In the Imperial College study Keith Jamieson, who led the research, mapped the fields in a typical office.
“Electric fields have a powerful effect on the air. That is why the backs of computers get covered in dust,” he said. “The same thing happens to people’s skin and lungs. It increases the toxic load that the body has to deal with and raises the risk of contamination and infection.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)