Is Your Home Making You Sick?

JUNE 14, 2013

Is Your Home Making You Sick?

 

By Guy Lawrence & Stuart Cooke

Ever wondered if that electric cable buried in your wall from the light switch that runs down behind your head is affecting your brain? Or those pylons outside your window affecting not only your mood, but your health?

After meeting Lyn McLean of EMR Australia recently, Stu and I decided to put our humble abodes to the test to see if we are actually living in safe locations.

We decided to blog about it in two parts:

• Part 1: Testing Stu’s unit for magnetic fields
• Part 2: EMF interview with Lyn McLean

Pictured below are the meters offered for testing:

• Picture 1: Measures magnetic fields
• Picture 2: Measures wireless radiation and is called an Acoustimeter (we’ll cover wireless radiation in a later post)

Today we focus on the magnetic fields in Stu’s unit.

Simply put, magnetic fields are emitted from electrical sources such as:

• household appliances
• wiring
• power-lines
• electrical equipment
• conductive pipes

When an appliance (like your digital alarm clock in the bedroom) is operating, its electrical current produces a magnetic field. These magnetic fields are measured in milligauss (mG) or microtesla (uT). For the purpose of our home testing we’ll be measuring in milligauss (mG).

Our body is a finely tuned piece of electronic circuitry. Our cells are comprised of atoms that have an electrical charge and our heart and brain emit electromagnetic waves 24/7. Magnetic fields are difficult to block and can pass through the human body so whenever we are exposed to these fields it will have an impact on us in some way. Ever wondered why the interference on your radio disappears when you approach or touch the aerial? It’s because your body is like an aerial.

Lyn advises testing our levels of exposure at home (by taking readings with a magnetic field meter) and making an effort to reduce them. EMR Australia says some of the benefits of having an EMR-safe home include:

• improved sleep;
• reduced depression, stress and anxiety;
• improved immunity;
• better concentration, memory and focus;
• improved fertility and libido;
• reduced risk of health problems (those most associated with EMF/RF are childhood leukemia, Alzheimer’s disease, infertility, cancer and brain tumours).

This really is a can of worms with radically different international guidelines that appear to be based on outdated information and faulty assumptions so say the independent scientists and doctors who wrote ‘The BioInitiative Report’.

“Over the last three decades a number of studies have found evidence of health problems at levels of exposure of 4mG and under. This is what led the International Agency for Research on Cancer to classify magnetic fields of 4mG and more as ‘possibly carcinogenic” - The BioInitiatitive Report

Lyn recommends keeping exposure to magnetic fields below 4mG and as far below as possible. Ideally, they should be no more than 1mG in beds, she says. The BioInitiative Report also recommended a limit of 1mG for areas that will be occupied by children or pregnant women. Based on these findings, it makes good sense to keep exposure levels as low as possible.

Please watch this 2 minute video to gain an understanding of how we took the readings. Lyn used the magnetic field meter shown above and tested the 6 areas below. Our main concerns were the sleeping areas for the family as this is where we spend most of our time and would like the readings to be as low as possible:

Location: Main fuse box in the kitchen
Reading: 28.4mG

This is a high source of EMF but the readings drop considerably the further we moved from the box (a distance of about a metre did the trick). This would be more of a concern if the fuse box was located on the other side of the wall from the bed!

Location: Electric oven
Reading: 324mG

Before the oven was turned on the meter read 1.6mG so there was a considerable jump in magnetic fields with it on. Of course, these fields aren’t really a problem if you don’t spend much time standing next to the oven while food is cooking.

Location: Dining room table
Reading: 2.4mG

The readings were much lower once outside of the kitchen and could be influenced by external factors. One side of the table had higher readings due to being closer to a high voltage powerline outside.

Location: iMac computer (spare room)
Reading: 74.4mG

The highest reading was at the bottom right hand side. This is probably due to the electronics there. Again, this reading dropped the further back I moved, so don’t hunch over the screen and keep the screen and modem as far from your body as you can manage.

Location: Children’s bedroom
Reading: 4.5mG

Both beds in the kids’ room measured the same and the magnetic fields increased the closer we were to the powerline outside the window. This made us reconsider the positions of the beds.

Location: Hot water heater in the laundry
Reading: 18mG

Our laundry backed up onto a bedroom so the magnetic fields on the other side of the wall were high. This is quite common, so bed placement should be carefully considered in this situation.

After delving into the world of electromagnetic pollution, I became aware of two things. The first was the external power lines that ran along the length of our unit, and the second was the fact that my sleep quality had consistently declined since we’d moved in. I found high magnetic fields in the exact spot where I slept that ranged from 10mG-45mG (from head to toe). These were due to communal light fittings on the other side of the wall and floor. We moved the bed to the other side of the room and my sleep quality improved out of sight!

I’ve got three young daughters  who like to share a bedroom and the readings at their pillows were all in the range of 4.5mG. We turned the beds  around so that their pillows were farthest from the lines. This dropped the  readings on their pillows but they were still on the high side.

This exercise made me realise how important it is to measure magnetic fields before renting or buying a home. Small changes really can have a big impact on our health and wellbeing – Stu

If you have any questions regarding magnetic fields or would like to test your home or office, Lyn has advised that you contact EMR Australia on their website here.

- See more at: http://www.180nutrition.com.au/2013/06/14/is-your-home-making-you-sick/#sthash.RSqYDxsn.dpuf

“Occupy Your Home”: Confronting Smart Meter Toxification

June 7, 2013

“Occupy Your Home”: Confronting Smart Meter Toxification

Home • Tags: environmentalism, public health, public relations

Updated June 9, 2013

An overwhelming majority of US and Canadian citizens are entirely unaware that an especially dangerous device has been attached to their homes. While installation of “smart meters” across North America has continued apace since 2009 the health effects such devices pose have yet to be fully realized. Left unaddressed the broad use and continued deployment of such equipment will almost certainly influence human health for many generations to come.

On May 22 my household received a “Notification Letter” from Florida Power and Light (FPL) stating the company’s intent to replace our existing analog meter with a new device equipped to communicate with other such meters in the utility’s wireless “mesh network.”{1] According to FPL we are among roughly 20,000 of Florida homes that have rejected the new digital device in lieu of an analog model.[2] The letter carries the industry’s familiar line–that the “meter upgrade” is intended to “provide you with more information so you can take more control over your energy use and monthly bills” while more readily “identify[ing]” and resolving power outages.

The correspondence came as quite a surprise since in late 2011 after explaining to FPL the health-related consequences of such electro-pollution and expressing concerns for my family’s well-being, the company agreed to remove the “smart meter” and replace it with one that does not emit such energy. This was done only after conducting my own investigation, providing the company with substantial medical research documenting the negative health effects of RF microwave radiation, and threatening legal action.[3]

FPL was in fact much more reasonable in addressing my concerns than was the Florida Public Service Commission, whose legal counsel informed me flatly that the body had no authority over smart meter deployment and referred me to the Federal Communications Commission.[4] Only after submitting a public records request to the agency did I discover that the information Commission members accepted to evaluate the safety of such equipment in terms of human health consisted largely of smart meter manufacturer and utility boilerplate, including a FPL “PowerPoint”-like presentation seemingly pitched to a fifth grade audience.

Upon receiving FPL’s May 22 letter I took a few hours to write a response to the company’s president, taking care to outline my past communication with them, the concerns I have over the device’s potentially negative effects on my family’s health, and the fact that they recognized and fulfilled my opt out request almost two years ago. A few days after sending my letter off, the executive’s assistant called to inform us the notification letter was likely the result of a computer glitch and should have never been sent.

The foremost danger of smart meters is that they are designed to communicate with each other by emitting substantial and frequent bursts of radio frequency (RF) microwave pollution several thousand times per day–a cumulative burden on one’s genetic and biological makeup that children and the elderly are especially vulnerable to given their respective developing and degenerative conditions. Yet the documented health effects are something FPL never voluntarily told me about, and your power utility will likely not tell you.

For example, FPL spokeswoman Elaine Hinsdale disingenuously remarked that smart meters’ radio frequencies are akin “to those in a garage-door opener and hundreds of times less than emission limits set by the Federal Communications Commission.” According to Hinsdale, “You’d have to stand right next to the smart-meter for more than a year to equal the radio-frequency exposure of a 15-minute cellphone call … Once we talk to our customers and explain how it will repair power outages faster and safer, they understand.”[5] In 2011 when I contacted FPL via telephone to inquire on the overall safety of the devices I was similarly told that RF radiation is emitted only “a few times per day.”

Yet other sources I consulted observed that such emissions are much more frequent. I thus purchased a German-made Gigahertz Solution HF35C Elektrosmog Analyzer and did my own measurements. To my surprise I found that FPL’s meter was emitting RF bursts in excess of 2,000 microwatts per square meter at a distance of five feet several times every thirty seconds to one minute. This pulsing radiation was detected in varying degrees of intensity elsewhere throughout the home and may have at least partially explained the common symptoms of electro-hypersensitivity I was experiencing.

I no longer have an active smart meter on my house so on June 9 I took the liberty of conducting readings with the HF 35C on a neighbor’s meter. The readings are demonstrable at 0:38 to the end of the brief video below–each burst exceeding 2,000 microwatts per square meter with the HF 35C at a distance of about one meter from the device. When I conducted a reading with the 20db attenuator, thereby desensitizing the HF 35C by a factor of 100 (not shown in video) the reading was as high as 129, or 129 * 100 = 12,900 uw per sq meter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVe43nhSv9g

If the US public was served by a more honest and diligent press smart meters and RF radiation in general would not endanger public health to the extent they do today. This is particularly the case since a multitude of scientific studies exist that point to the deleterious health effects of RF energy exposure–especially in children and the elderly. Such information is intentionally overlooked by power utilities and little-if-any acknowledgement of negative health effects appear in any of the vacuous paraphernalia they provide their customers–and state regulators–promoting the meters.

When I pressed FPL representatives on what studies the company had conducted on smart meter safety they sent me a privately commissioned 2011 report, Florida Power and Light Advanced Meter Infrastructure & Distribution Automation RF Exposure Survey, produced by an obscure Arlington Virginia firm called Site Safe.[6] The study’s findings assert that one receives almost the equivalent amount of RF radiation standing one meter away from a smart meter as they would within the immediate vicinity of a cell phone tower–an especially alarming observation!

However, the research’s overall flaw and deceptive nature lies in the absence of suitable methodological parameters for examining how smart meters pulse lesser amounts of such microwave radiation throughout the home up to 190,000 times per day. Germany’s Standard Building Biology Measurements of 2008 caution that specifically in terms of human health “pulsed signals [are] to be taken more seriously than continuous ones.” When I contacted the author of the Site Safe study via telephone and email to evaluate his credentials for authoring such a study, he refused to provide me with any information that might confirm such training and expertise.

In May 2011 the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified RF as a Class 2B carcinogen. This means that caution should be applied because exposure to RF and EMF may cause cancer.[7] Given such an admission power utilities should be exercising the precautionary principal lest they further endanger human health with the continued wide-scale deployment of smart meters. FPL and the broader power industry have produced no compelling scientific evidence to date that even tentatively confirms the safety of smart meters. With this in mind, and in terms specifically related to human health, the power industry writ large is executing a transparently dangerous and criminal fraud against the US public.

A half century ago tobacco and asbestos were known menaces to health and over the long term exposure to these substances culminated in a variety of cancers and other terminal diseases compelling the government to intervene on the public’s behalf. The credible scientific evidence suggests the same holds true for exposure to RF microwave radiation. In fact, government and academic research dating to the 1960s points to the potential health dangers of sustained RF and EMF exposure. While the Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, and the American Cancer Society claim that RF and EMF pose no health risks, their conclusions are based on dubious and outdated studies often funded by the telecommunications industry itself.

Current independent scientific and medical research paints an entirely different picture. For example, in 2012 the American Academy of Environmental Medicine generated a list of 86 scientific studies and bibliographies on the health effects of EMF, RF and  extremely low frequency (ELF) microwave radiation dating to 1971.[8] Referencing this literature, in January 2012 the AAEM Board issued a public statement to the California Public Utilities Commission expressing its concern over smart meter installations across the state. “[E]xisting FCC guidelines for RF safety that have been used to justify installation of ‘smart meters’ only look at thermal tissue damage and are obsolete,” the Board observed,

since many modern studies [such as those used by the FCC] show metabolic and genomic damage from RF and ELF exposures below the level of intensity which heats tissues … More modern literature shows medically and biologically significant effects of RF and ELF at lower energy densities. These effects accumulate over time, which is an important consideration given the chronic nature of exposure from “smart meters”. The current medical literature raises credible questions about genetic and cellular effects, hormonal effects, male fertility, blood/brain barrier damage and increased risk of certain types of cancers from RF or ELF levels similar to those emitted from “smart meters”. Children are placed at particular risk for altered brain development, and impaired learning and behavior. Further, EMF/RF adds synergistic effects to the damage observed from a range of toxic chemicals. Given the widespread, chronic, and essentially inescapable ELF/RF exposure of everyone living near a “smart meter”, the Board of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine finds it unacceptable from a public health standpoint to implement this technology until these serious medical concerns are resolved.[9]

Along these lines in 2007 and again in 2012 the BioInitiative Working Group, an international body of academic scientists, medical doctors and public health professionals released a comprehensive review of over 2000 scientific studies and reviews, concluding that RF and EMF exposure can contribute to childhood leukemia and lay the groundwork for a variety of adult cancers.

Aside from long term adverse health effects, smart meters also pose more immediate safety and privacy concerns. The equipment has not been inspected by and thus does not meet  the protocols of the internationally recognized authority on consumer appliance safety standards, Underwriters Laboratory, a potential violation of numerous state and local municipal codes. Careless installation or the limited integrity of smart meter engineering and design have been pointed to as the possible cause of house fires. “We have encountered an unusual amount of fire incidents involving smart meters,” an Ontario Fire Marshal explains to theVancouver Sun. “New meters may have defects that cause electrical failures (or they may be caused by) careless installation during a changeover.”[10]

Finally, the collection and uncertain wireless transmission of intimate data related to a family’s domestic power usage and everyday life encompassed in residential occupancy also serve as a potential basis for the violation of protections from illegal search and seizure guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. This lifestyle-related information relayed throughout the mesh network via RF microwave may be easily “hacked” and the broader network attacked by any number of third parties, including criminals and terrorists. Such data may also be easily accessed by police or other government agencies that would otherwise need a warrant and probable cause to access such information. Utility customers should remind power companies that they do not consent to any personal data related to electrical usage and living patterns aggregated and sold to third parties, including marketers, appliance manufacturers, or data analyst subcontractors.

Already RF is involuntarily yielded to through the ubiquitous radiation emitted from local area networks (“Wi-Fi”) in places of employment and public areas. This is compounded by the voluntary exposure to RF through close quarter cell phone and household Wi-Fi use. With the combined financial and advertising power of the telecommunications service and wireless-manufacturing industries the research clearly pointing to the harmful health effects of RF remains to a large degree unknown. Given their wide scale use and around-the-clock activity, smart meters complete the circle of what is now ceaseless RF bombardment; their broad deployment anticipates a not-too-distant future when they will engage with “smart” appliances within the home, further disseminating such radiation while arbitrarily exerting power over everyday energy use and unlawfully collecting vital and likely profitable data on behavior and lifestyle.

Notes

[1] Florida Power and Light Smart Meter Installation Notification Form Letter, May 22, 2013 (PDF).

[2] Doreen Hemlock, “Some FP&L Users Reject Smart Meters in Their Homes[sic],” South Florida Sun-Sentinel, April 26, 2013.

[3] James F. Tracy to Florida Power and Light September 18, 2011 (PDF), James F. Tracy to Florida Power and Light, November 9, 2011 (PDF).

[4] Jennifer Crawford for the Florida Public Service Commission to James F. Tracy, September 30, 2011. (PDF). The PSC is now forging a policy for Florida FPL customers to “opt out” of a smart meter for an additional charge. Hemlock, “Some FP&L Users.”

[5] Hemlock, “Some FP&L Users.”

[6] Matthew J. Butcher, Florida Power and Light Advanced Meter Infrastructure & Distribution Automation RF Exposure Survey, Arlington Virginia: Site Safe, June 10, 2011. In author’s possession.

[7] “World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer Classifies RF-EMF Fields as Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans,” [Press Release], May 31, 2011, (PDF).

[8]  See also American Association of Environmental Medicine EMF-RF Reference List (PDF). See also American Association of Environmental Medicine April 12, 2012 Press Advisory (PDF).

[9] American Academy of Environmental Medicine to California Public Utilities Commission, January 19, 2012 (PDF).

[10] Scott Simpson, “Ontario Fire Marshall Says Faulty Base Plates Could Be the Cause, Similar to Mission Blaze,” Vancouver Sun, August 7, 2012. Available atstopsmartmetersbc.ca

-JFT

See related post: Wireless Technology and the Accelerated Toxification of America

Republished at GlobalResearch.ca on June 8, 2013.

http://memoryholeblog.com/2013/06/07/occupy-your-home-struggling-aganst-smart-meter-toxification/

Forcing people to accept wireless smart meters against wishes is indefensible, says local MP

Forcing people to accept wireless smart meters against wishes is indefensible, says local MP

By Editor on June 13, 2013

Dear Editor:

This letter is sent in response to the recent article under the headline “Claims that smart meters are dangerous to human health called preposterous by FortisBC officials” that ran in the May 23 edition of the Osoyoos Times.

I find it very disturbing that FortisBC can be so arrogantly dismissive of the many concerns citizens are expressing about its proposed wireless smart meter program.

Although FortisBC would prefer that we do, we cannot look at the electro-magnetic frequency (EMF) emissions from one smart meter in isolation from the wide variety of other sources of emissions we are increasingly being exposed to.

These meters will blanket our communities every day for the rest of our their lives with a range of emissions which have been classified by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a Group 2B possible carcinogen and enable the industrial growth of an untold number of other emitting appliances and applications.

Scientists have yet to even identify all the mechanisms by which we may experience biological effects, harmful or otherwise, from chronic exposures to low level radiation.

Because of the gaps in research and the WHO classification citizens are well justified in taking steps to limit their exposure to unnecessary emissions.

Forcing people to accept the installation of wireless smart meters on their homes and in their communities against their wishes is indefensible.

Given the existence of equally viable, less controversial and more affordable alternatives to wireless smart meters, I continue to hope that the B.C. Utilities Commission will deny outright the FortisBC application it is currently considering.

Thank you.

Alex Atamanenko, MP 

BC Southern Interior

http://www.osoyoostimes.com/forcing-people-to-accept-wireless-smart-meters-against-wishes-is-indefensible-says-local-mp/

euronews science - Mobile phone cancer connection

Federal Wi-Fi panel criticized for undisclosed conflict

June 18, 2013

Federal Wi-Fi panel criticized for undisclosed conflict

Citizens for Safe Technology, an Oakville, Ontario-based group, demonstrate in Aurora, Ontario, for tougher federal safety rules on radiofrequency devices.

Photo credit: Paul Webster

The Royal Society of Canada will reconsider its decision to appoint a University of Ottawa professor to chair a panel that will assess the safety of radiowave-emitting devices such as cellular phones, following a CMAJinvestigation that reveals a potential conflict-of-interest. 

The society’s decision comes after CMAJ informed it that Daniel Krewski, who is a professor in the Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ontario and Director of the R. Samuel McLaughlin Centre, failed to disclose to the society that he had a

$126 000 contract in 2008–2009 from Industry Canada. According to the Merx public tender document, Krewski’s contract was to “assist in addressing what the Department believes is opposition often based on misperception and misinformation” with respect to cellphone antennas.

In an interview with CMAJ, Krewski confirmed that he held this contract and that he had not specifically disclosed it to the society.

After being informed about the contract and Krewski’s admission that he had failed to disclose it, Geoffrey Flynn, who chairs the society’s Committee on Expert Panels and its Scientific Advisory Committee, told CMAJ he would “take it back to the panels” to reconsider the choice of Krewski as chair.

“I don’t think there’s anything nefarious in it that he didn’t disclose it,” Flynn says. “The most positive view is that [Krewski] is so busy he overlooked it.”

Flynn declined to provide CMAJ with all of the panel members’ conflict-of-interest disclosures.

Krewski says he did tell the society that he has consulted for the Canadian government. He notes that the contract with Industry Canada was to offer “advice in how to communicate” the risks associated with cellphone antennas. “The aim was not to reinforce Industry Canada’s positions, but to help it communicate complex scientific issues.”

The Royal Society convened its panel, Review of Safety Code 6: Potential Health Risks of Radiofrequency Fields from Wireless Telecommunications Devices, in March at the behest of Health Canada, which provided $100 000 in funding. The eight panel members from Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands are tasked with assessing whether Health Canada should update its 2009 safety guidelines for human exposure to electromagnetic emissions from wireless devices, which Industry Canada regulates.

The 2009 guidelines, Safety Code 6: Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Energy in the Frequency Range from 3 kHz to 300 GHz, were designed to govern exposure limits in federal workplaces. But in recent years, according to Health Canada, Safety Code 6 has been “aligned to provide safety provisions for all members of the public.” A previous royal society panel assessed the code in 1999.

In 2009, Health Canada edited the guidelines and removed without explanation a passage acknowledging that “certain members of the general public may be more susceptible to harm from microwave exposure.”

Driven by the explosive popularity of mobile phones and other wireless devices, public concern is growing about the rapid penetration of Wi-Fi into almost every facet of Canadian life, including schoolrooms. These concerns intensified in 2011, when a panel of 30 scientists from 14 countries convened by the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded that emissions from them are “possibly carcinogenic.”

With scrutiny of the Health Canada guidelines growing, the society’s choice of experts is triggering controversy. According to Citizens for Safe Technology, an Oakville, Ontario-based group that wants tougher federal safety rules on radiofrequency devices, several other panel members may also have undisclosed conflicts-of-interest.

“Having people who are this conflicted, and who are this vocal on this panel is wrong. It should either be disbanded or many of its members replaced,” says spokesperson Frank Clegg, a former CEO of Microsoft Canada.”

Flynn, at the royal society, acknowledges that some of Clegg’s concerns are valid.  “We realized some of these members had previously had close connections to the [radiofrequency] industry,” he says. “I know it may be hard to believe, but it was very difficult to find people with sufficient expertise without apparent or perceived connections to the [radiofrequency] industry.”

Clegg strongly disputes the assertion that independent, impartial experts are unavailable and points to the International Agency for Research on Cancer panel as evidence.

Clegg is especially critical of the society’s choice of Krewski. According to Clegg, the McLaughlin Centre, which Krewski directs, was established with help from a million-dollar grant from the Canadian Wireless and Telecommunications Association — a cellphone industry lobby group. Krewski confirmed that association has also funded some of his research.

Krewksi, who also chaired a panel for the Royal Society of Canada that reviewed Safety Code 6 in 1999, says “strong firewalls” separate him from all industry funders for his research. “We don’t want to get a reputation for being in the pocket of industry,” he says.

Anthony Miller, professor emeritus at the University of Toronto’s Dalla Lana School of Public Health suggests the current society panel lacks epidemiological expertise and choosing Krewski as a panelist is inappropriate in light of his outspoken views. Miller, who edited the International Agency for Research on Cancer report warning of a cancer risk, notes that experts with strong linkages to industry are excluded from that agency’s panels, despite the “distressing” lack of independent researchers in the radiofrequency field.

Almost all research on radiofrequency in Canada is industry supported, says Alex Thomas, director of the Bioelectromagnetics Group and Canadian Institutes for Health Research’s University-Industry Chair in Bioelectromagnetics at the Lawson Health Research Institute.  As a consequence, he says, truly independent research purely dedicated to examining safety is rarely done.

Thomas suggests the society publish full details of all its panelists’ funding histories. “This matters a great deal because Health Canada is a supposedly independent watchdog. If they are going to outsource their responsibilities to [the royal society], it should not diminish accountability and openness.”

Health Canada spokesperson Sara Lauer says “it is important to note that before awarding the contract, Health Canada made sure the Royal Society of Canada had a robust Conflict of Interest Policy in place for the appointment of all panel members.”

At the society, Flynn has invited Citizens for Safe Technology to nominate an individual to serve as a peer reviewer for the panel’s report.

“It is almost inevitable that experts in a field will have expressed conclusions based on existing evidence,” says Flynn. “But these views are not immutable. Scientists are accustomed to assessing new evidence and changing their conclusions as required. I am confident that the existing panel, working with a wide variety of inputs and subject to peer review of its report, will make a fair assessment of Safety Code 6 and make sensible recommendations for changes.”

http://www.cmaj.ca/site/earlyreleases/18june13_federal_wi-fi_panel_criticized_for_undisclosed_conflict.xhtml

Mobile phone radiation: it's better to be safe than sorry

Mobile phone radiation: it's better to be safe than sorry

No causal link has been established between cancer and mobile phones but doctors advise limiting usage, writes Sasha Gonzales

Monday, 11 March, 2013, 10:37am

Sasha Gonzaleshealthpost@scmp.com

• 

Pong's case claims to reduce exposure to cellphone radiation.

The second volume of a report that detailed the history of technologies later found to be harmful has sparked discussion over the possibility that mobile phones have cancer-causing radiation.

The European Environment Agency's Late Lessons From Early Warningswas first published in 2001. The 750-page second edition, published in January, discusses an increased risk of some brain tumours associated with long-term mobile phone use. Among other topics in the report's 20 case studies were industrial mercury poisoning, fertility problems caused by pesticides and hormone-disrupting chemicals in common plastics.

The report also alleges that governments and the mobile phone industry have been slow to respond to the problem.

In 2011, the World Health Organisation's International Agency for Research on Cancer called cellular device radiation "possibly carcinogenic", or cancer causing. It is believed that the electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitted by these devices may harm brain cells, upsetting sleep patterns and causing migraines, memory problems and even tumours.

Recently, local company New Star began selling cases for mobile devices that are said to protect users from EMR exposure. Made by Pong Research a US-based firm, the Pong cases feature a patented, ultra-thin, flexible printed circuit board antenna that is said to redirect and redistribute the waves - both cellular (such as 3G) and Wi-fi - to the back of the device, away from your head.

There are Pong cases for a wide range of smartphones and other devices. Pong claims the case has been proven in laboratory tests to reduce users' exposure to mobile phone radiation by up to 95 per cent, putting it below the limit set by the US Federal Communications Commission.

Many studies have been conducted on the short- and long-term effects of mobile phone radiation. One by Yale School of Medicine, published last year in Scientific Reports, found that in tests on mice, exposure to EMR during pregnancy affected the brain development of offspring, possibly leading to hyperactivity.

Another study, published in 2011 in JAMA, the journal of the American Medical Association, found that 50 minutes of mobile phone use was associated with increased brain glucose metabolism (a marker of brain activity) in the region closest to the phone antenna, but its significance is still unknown.

In fact, despite the studies, researchers have yet to determine a causal link between mobile device usage and cancer. Still, many experts agree that it is better to be safe than sorry.

These cellular devices have only been around for 15 years, so it might still be too early to reach any conclusion

ANDREW TAN, NUCLEAR MEDICINE SPECIALIST

Dr Andrew Tan, a specialist in nuclear medicine and consultant at Raffles Hospital in Singapore, says the risk of mobile phone EMR cannot be dismissed. "Mobile phones cannot be completely avoided, and the risk of use has to be balanced against practical realities," he says. "I would advise against ... prolonged use of mobile phones."

Tan cites the important and extensive Interphone study, published in theInternational Journal of Epidemiology in 2010, which investigated the possible carcinogenic effects of mobile phone radiation. About 5,000 patients with brain cancer (glioma and meningioma) were interviewed about their mobile phone usage. The conclusion was, there was no increased risk in those types of brain cancers with mobile phone use.

Heavy users (an averageof 30 minutes daily for 10 years) had an increased risk of such brain tumours of 10 per cent to 40 per cent more than people in general. However, this result was also inconclusive, since there was a high risk of recall bias and errors.

"It is mainly because of this study that the IACR classified mobile phone electromagnetic radiation as potentially cancer-causing, in which the risk is credible, but errors cannot be ruled out," says Tan.

What is definitely known of mobile devices is that they generate heat energy. Radiation from phones is similar to that created by microwave ovens, as opposed to the type of radiation that breaks down molecules.

"EMR has a very wide spectrum, ranging from low-frequency radio waves to high frequency gamma radiation," Tan says. "Human toxicity of radiation depends on the type and energy level. High-frequency ionising radiation, such as gamma or X-rays, can damage DNA molecules and cause direct damage, and low-frequency radiation such as radio waves is non-ionising.

"Mobile phone EMR is non-ionising radiation, but it has a heating effect. This is of a lower frequency than ultraviolet radiation."

Certainly, if the brain is exposed to heat for a long period of time, it might be damaged. But mobile phones are capable of heating up the skin only superficially.

"It's very unlikely that your phone might raise the temperature of your brain and cause cancer," says Dr Clarence Leung Hin-shuen, honorary consultant and specialist in neurosurgery at Matilda International Hospital.

"Mobile phone use is potentially toxic, but there is no direct or adequate evidence to say that it is toxic. People worry about tumours along the auditory nerves and brain tumours, but there is no correlation between these and mobile phone use. These cellular devices have only been around for 15 years, so it might still be too early to reach any conclusion."

It is also hard to say whether certain types of mobile phones are more dangerous than others. Some might have higher energy emissions, so it's best to consult the manufacturer's specifications.

There is no need to worry about the radiation from other people's devices affecting you, says Leung. As long as you are standing a few inches away from people while they are using their devices, the radiation intensity you are exposed to is very low, since radiation energy drops very rapidly with distance.

There are many anti-radiation mobile phone products out there. According to Pong, what makes their case different is that it redistributes, rather than reduces, radiation. This also makes more radiation available for communication, resulting in a stronger signal and longer battery life.

The company says other products that claim to reduce radiation exposure by shielding, blocking, absorbing or neutralising mobile phone radiation either aren't effective or can actually increase exposure. Such products tend to weaken the signal, forcing the device to work harder and use more power.

Limiting mobile phone use is another way to minimise exposure to EMR. Leung suggests using a land-line phone or hands-free accessories, or putting your calls on speaker. Take note: Bluetooth headsets are still a source of radiation, albeit a small one.

Dr Ronald Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, offers other precautionary tips. One is to keep your mobile phone away from your body as much as possible. Avoid placing it under your pillow or on your bedside table when you go to sleep. If using the alarm function, switch to flight mode to stop the electromagnetic emissions. And if you carry your phone in a pocket, position the screen towards your body, as the antenna is located on the back.

He also suggests that when you talk on the phone, switch sides regularly to avoid overexposure on one side. Finally, wait until a call has been connected before placing your phone to your ear, because it emits the most radiation during the initial connection.

life@scmp.com

This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as Too close to Call

http://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/health/article/1186400/mobile-phone-radiation-its-better-be-safe-sorry