One bit of regulation that exists in the U.S. to protect us is the FCC’s rule that cell phones may have a Standard Absorption Rate (SAR) of no more than 1.6 watts per KG. Here’s the low-down on which phones are closer to max or min:
Motorola models V195S, ZN5, VU204, W385, Deluxe ic902, i335 — ranging from 1.6 to 1.53
RIM Blackberry Curve models 8330 Sprint, U Cellular and Verizon Wireless — 1.54 to 1.53
This guide is available at CNET.com. Powerwatch.org also recommends choosing a phone with low SAR, but with the awareness that some high SAR phones normally work at low power, while low SAR phones may be inefficient and must work at high power. Powerwatch states that in general, smaller phones have higher SARs. Also, the phones with external antenna keep radiation further from your head.
At Our House
Writing this article prompted me to assess my own family’s home, and a rash of illness we have had this fall. I’m a mom who likes to be thorough… and while I don’t avoid our allopathic doctors, I may just as easily call an alternative healer, massage therapist, counselor or psychically sensitive person. Often, the answer lies between the various specialities.
With the education this article has afforded me, I can add EMFs as a potential villain when an apparent immune system conspiracy hits my family. This is a significant challenge, as our home office rivals the control deck of the Starship Enterprise (except way messier) and we do love to be mobile. Koetting Media Limited is captain of our house, and we are ever grateful for the income it provides. However, we are nothing without our health and I like to promote that we are too smart to be slaves to convenience. And so this family has decided to compromise a few things.
We will unplug the amazing home WiFi. While it is uniquely entertaining to do virtual tours of homes in Tasmania from our bed, the number of times we would like to access the internet away from our office may not be worth the constant pulses the system must make. This will be most challenging for my husband, who loves nothing more than to whip out his laptop and consult Wikipedia to lay to rest questions at the dinner table or parties.
Next comes my rough challenge: Life with as little use of the microwave oven as possible. Ours is a high-power brushed steel model, which I got to choose on move-in. Now I’m to consider it as an attractive ornament that fits the space over the range. This means we’ll reheat coffee with a plug-in coil, warm soup in a pot we have to wash, and steam vegetables the “old-fashioned” way. I am putting a ribbon on the handle of the microwave oven to remind us to at least think before deciding to use it. And when I see that ribbon, I’ll remember the noise — way on the other side of the room — that 1,700 watts made on an electropollution measuring device.
I moved our bedside phone to the floor, just far enough away from the bed to be able to reach it if a call comes in the night. Previously, it was about a foot away from my husband’s sleeping head. I also am moving the phone in my office away from head level.
Moving the phones is a mean-time measure while I search for corded phones to replace our corded system. EMFields.org offers a “safer” cordless phone, but I’m not inclined to purchase something I can’t easily return to a box store when it malfunctions (as ours always do). Trying to find the old-fashioned phones is like trying to find rap music on vinyl. And when I do make us a tethered home again, there goes my ritual of catching up with a girlfriend while I mop the kitchen floor.
Perhaps in time, after a long stretch of vitality for everyone in our house, if we still haven’t become thoroughly adjusted to the lifestyle changes, I may consider reintroducing these conveniences, one at a time.
Healing Path magazine assigned me this piece, coincidentally at a time when I was seeking anything that could help reverse a rash of poor health my family was experiencing. We’re doing better now, possibly in part by the awareness and lifestyle adjustments brought by my research. It is published in the Jan-Feb ‘09 issue.
by Sonia Koetting
It’s easy to agree that cell phones are exceptionally useful devices, and most of us use them at least occasionally. The American Cancer Society and the FDA continue to tell us that no evidence has been found linking the electromagnetic frequencies (EMFs) of phones and other electronic devices to cancer. In 2004, a spokeswoman for the Mobile Operators Association said, “…the weight of scientific evidence to date suggests that exposure to radio waves from mobile phone handsets and base stations… do not cause adverse health effects.”
Then why have Germany, France, Sweden, Ontario and Israel issued warnings to their citizens about exposure to EMFs?
On September 25, 2008, a domestic policy subcommittee of our own government hosted a panel of interested parties to consider the veracity and urgency of this public health threat. At that meeting, Dr. David Carpenter, Dean of the School of Public Health at the University of Albany, said that the expansion of wireless technology is enormous in its implications. He believes the FCC (in charge of regulating this technology) is unduly conservative in the favor of the industries they represent, and fails to protect public health. Chief of the FCC’s office of Technology, Julius Knapp, was also present at the meeting. Knapp admitted that the FCC is comprised of engineers, not biologists, and that he knows of no studies being done by the FCC with collaboration of the FDA. Committee Chair Rep. Dennis Kucinich vowed that the committee will not let this issue of public safety rest.
While Dr. Carpenter and others claim EMFs are implicated in numerous health effects like fatigue, headaches and learning disabilities — diverse symptoms for which the causes are difficult to ferret out — the data most strongly points to a link between mobile device radiation and 3 types of rare tumors:
• Glioma (Senator Ted Kennedy was recently diagnosed with this)
• cancer of the parotid (a salivary gland near the ear) and
• acoustic neuroma (a non-cancerous growth where the ear meets the brain, sometimes called a “schwannoma”).
The risk of these cancers seemed to double after 10 years of heavy use. The FDA admits that the average length of previous studies was only 3 years, and cumulative effects over such long periods have not been exhaustively researched.
With more than 3 billion cell phone users worldwide and growing, a steady increase of wireless technologies, and length of exposure growing with each passing year, even a miniscule risk is a significant public health issue.
That risk is the worst menace to children. A study in July 2008 by Devia Davis at the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh points to the fact that children absorb more radiation from their phones because their skulls are thinner, and the protective myelin sheath of a brain isn’t fully developed until age 20. Images from the study show how cell phone radiation reaches a small portion of an adult brain, but penetrates nearly the entire head of a child.
In 2006, The New York Times reported that the mobile industry had begun super-sizing marketing efforts toward tweens, and was introducing darling phone products to be cuddled by the 5-year-old age group. Parents perceive a safety benefit of their kids carrying cell phones, while perhaps overlooking the potential threat to the health of their child. Children of the world are now raging toward cell phones in numbers that shame Tickle Me Elmo and Cabbage Patch dolls. What is the outlook for a child who may well face 70 years of cell phone usage?
Because cell phone technology is one of the most lucrative and powerful businesses on the planet, some consumer advocates are labeling this a communication conspiracy: “Big Tobacco 2.0”. The consequences may dim statistics associated with public health disasters like asbestos and cigarettes.
In June 2008, the New York Times reported that an association with cancer does exist. The report cites a highly respected research effort of 13 European countries, the Interphone Study, which showed that radio waves do affect body cells and damage DNA. Definitive research to discover at what point this damage renders a serious health defect will take another 4 to 5 years, according to the German leaders of the research.
Perhaps we shouldn’t wait for industry advocates to agree a risk exists.
It takes too long to get answers from science, according to Ronald B. Herberman, Director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. He is one who calls for action now, especially in protecting children.
When two new cell phone towers were recently erected in Northern Colorado, it didn’t escape the notice of Longmont resident Debbie Kankiewicz, whose experience with natural alternatives to health led her to multi-national company BioPro. She cites over 350 cell phone antenna and 61 towers in a 4-mile radius centered over Fort Collins alone (check AntennaSearch.com for your address). Technology can’t reverse, but products are marketed with the intent of protecting humans from the increasing effects of EMF exposure.
BioPro representatives like Kankiewicz believe even our smallest electrical appliances negatively affect us, though many scientists will point out a difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. It also is fair to say that some people are much more sensitive than average to the effects of electropollution, and this condition may change in a lifetime. The variables are so great that — like many potential health issues — people tend to cut the chase to the dire question of cancer.
But before cancer becomes an end result, Kankiewicz and others claim that consistent exposure to EMFs at any level affects the adrenal glands, and can manifest into disease such as fibromyalgia, chronic headaches, anxiety and even autism. Changing the bio-fields around her, she said, “totally affected my being, like a blanket of calm settled in front of me.” Her home is liberally sprinkled with BioPro “chips” on appliances and a “whole-house harmonizer”.
On the other hand, Powerwatch.org, a website produced in the U.K., warns against relying on “gizmos” to give protection. Afterall, your doctor and dentist trust only distance and lead aprons to keep bodies safe from ionizing x-rays.
As long as humans have been on earth, they’ve been exposed to naturally occuring sources of ionizing radiation from the soil, space and atmosphere. Technology escalates that environmental negative, though science has yet to agree on what degree. Meanwhile, on the heels of the rage toward a wireless world, comes businesses like BioPro, whose dealers sell stick-on devices to protect us from EMFs; and EMFields.org, which sell metal mesh and carbon paint as physical barriers to get relief from the constant bombardment.
While the U.S. government wrestles with the issue of illness related to cell phones, we each must decide for ourselves and our children — with consideration of individual factors like proximity to multiple sources of EMFs, overall health and integrity of immune systems — what we will do to minimize the risk of the increasing invisible pollution that’s part of the electronic modern world.
Peru Lima City
Pueblo Colorado USA
Solomon Islands Honiara
Port Augusta South Australia
1) primary solutions that prevent damage;
2) secondary solutions that reduce the effects of the damage;
3) tertiary solutions that repair the damage.
Primary solutions include using a hands-free headset to keep the phone away from your body. However, this doesn’t reduce your background exposure to wireless hotspots, and even worse, wire-antenna and Bluetooth headsets may act as antennas to attract ambient or background wireless signals to your head. Dr. Carlo suggests using “air-based” head sets, although they won’t prevent second-hand electropollution.
The best solution is to reduce background radiation by moving to an older, but better, technology: fibre-optic cables that transport the signal to the curbsides of our schools, cafes, offices and homes, after which we can either plug-in to the signals or use short distance or air-based wireless. It’s expensive in that it involves digging trenches to keep the cables straight and protected, but the technology is ready to go and the insulation around them is very effective; the radiation is almost nil.
Dr. Carlo suggests combining primary solutions with secondary and tertiary solutions. Secondary solutions include working with the subtle energies of our cells, which have their own natural electromagnetic fields. Tertiary solutions include enhancing people’s overall health to foster the repair of cell membranes. Boosting our health by improving the immune system’s ability to stimulate cellular repair may help with both of these solutions. However, in our cities with widespread, blanket wireless systems, as in Toronto where background radiation is already 500,000 times higher than it was five years ago, it’s hard to imagine that merely boosting our immune systems could completely counter the harmful effects.
Lastly, Dr. Carlo talked about abstinence. He confessed that while abstinence works, it is not really practical. Try getting teens off their cell phones! One study showed that 91 percent of 12 year olds use cell phones, and in Buffalo teens were clocking in 2,600 to 7,000 minutes per month on their phones.
With cheap packages going for as little as $150 for 5,000 minutes, it’s unlikely teens will abstain any time soon. Among males, there’s even the belief that carrying their phone in their front pocket, where it is known to reduce sperm count, is the greatest thing ever, good birth control! Abstinence doesn’t work for cell phones any more than it works for teens and sex. In fact, Dr. Carlo himself uses a cell phone, albeit, with an air-based headset.
Marketing campaigns for mobile phones and wireless technology capitalize on our need to fill the empty spaces in our urban landscape. They are irresistible because they facilitate community. Despite the damage they cause, we like the feeling of the grassroots empowerment and interconnectedness they provide.
If this connection is real, let’s harness it now to spread the truth about these hazards and work together on solutions.
Sri Lanka, Colombo,
Sri Jayawardenepura Kotte,
Stamford Connecticut USA
Sale Victoria Australia
by Amanda Brown PhD
Few people would be surprised to hear that cell phones are unhealthy. But how many of us actually know the degree of damage they cause, the extent of the cover-up by the industry, or that there is a viable solution? Dr. George Carlo, a mobile phone industry whistleblower, recently presented a talk in Vancouver about how electropollution from wireless technology can cause brain damage, cancer and an array of mental illnesses.
I checked his facts against recent, peer-reviewed scientific papers and the results were startling. Dr. Carlo explained why the industry’s user manuals don’t warn of these health hazards: currently, there are pending class action lawsuits against them, which threaten to expose the entire industry, similar to the cases brought against “Big Tobacco”, and the asbestos and silicone breast implant industries. But what really shone brightly in Dr. Carlo’s message were his realistic solutions. One option is to have fibre-optic cables running underground to our curbs to shorten the distance and power necessary for the wireless signals. According to Dr. Carlo, this option requires an ongoing search for the diamond politician or activist who will take the lead.
It’s important to get the facts straight. Dr. Carlo, a scientist hired by the cell phone industry in the ‘90s, now believes cell phones are the greatest health hazard of our time. In his view, there is no question that mobile phones cause terrible health consequences. It seemed prudent to independently check the recent, peer-reviewed scientific literature to see if his mid-1990s results are supported today. A quick search revealed five excellent studies from 2006 that provide strong evidence of serious problems from electromagnetic signals from cell phones.
In contrast, several review studies that pooled results from 10 to 20 other studies suggested the evidence isn’t conclusive either way. However, these reviews may have been diluted by the inclusion of some studies with ties to telecommunication industry funders. One author cited in these studies is affiliated with on Australian institute that has an FAQ web page full of suspicious PR (see www.acrbr.org.au/FAQ.htm). The website states this group of scientists has agreed, by committee, on the science they want to do: essentially, that which shows cell phones are harmless, and they will focus their research accordingly. Very revealing PR. Dr. Carlo also found that among more than 300 studies completed over the past six years, those funded by the industry are more than six times more likely to find “nothing wrong” than studies that are funded independently.
Dr. Carlo explained in detail his theory of how cell phones cause brain damage. It begins with the wave. The signals use carrier waves of around 1,900 megahertz (MHz), which are so high in frequency that they pass right through us, and our houses, unnoticed. But harmful information-carrying waves are packed into the carrier waves. These information waves, which carry signals that can be decoded by our computers and mobile phones, are low-frequency waves in the range of one hertz (Hz). That’s slow. So slow that our cells can feel them as an aggravating, physical jolt at their surfaces. Within 30 seconds or so of bombardment, our cells temporarily shut down their surface transport and intercellular communication functions, to resist further damage from threatening invaders.
Normally, small threats to cells cause them to send out chemical signals to neighbouring cells that tell them to protect themselves from invaders, and they signal for help from our immune system’s T-cells. But bombardment from mobile phone waves causes whole areas of cells and tissues to shut down their surfaces, stopping the active transport of good and bad stuff in and out of the cell, without time to signal a warning to other cells. Further, the shut down of gap junction communication pathways compromises tissue and organ functions, including the immune system.
Free radicals build up inside the cells so they eventually die and spill toxins and fragmented DNA into the space between cells. There, micronuclei form as a result of membranes becoming organized around broken bits of DNA. These micronuclei wreak havoc, disrupting cell function and allowing cancers to form. That is how, as Dr. Carlo explains, both benign and malignant tumours are caused by wireless signals. He suggests a similar process occurs at the blood-brain barrier that protects our delicate neurons and their tiny sophisticated chemical signals from contaminants in our blood. Once cells in the barrier are shut down by mobile phone waves, all kinds of big, toxic molecules enter our neural spaces where they can cause many problems, among them “autism spectrum disorders,” which include some types of anxiety attacks, hyperactivity, ADD, problems with focussing, mild and severe autism, hyper-irritability and others.
Based on levels of adult cell phone use in the ‘90s, Dr. Carlo predicts 40,000 to 50,000 new cases of brain and eye cancer caused by mobile phones each year worldwide. By 2010, he estimates the number to be near a half million cases. Given that Dr. Carlo’s prediction derives from conditions in the ‘90s – average use of 500 to 1,000 minutes per month, with little or no wireless background signal – the numbers are bound to be higher. Increasingly, we are blasted by wireless signals all day long, both at home and at work. In certain closed spaces, such as cars or buses, the signals are intensely amplified as they bounce around, trapped. Data, so far, suggest there is no safe level, only a probable safe duration of exposure. Our cells may not be damaged until after about 30 seconds of bombardment from wireless phone signals.
Dr. Carlo also suggests our cells can be imprinted so they remember the disruption and pass it down to future cells. This may be why some people seem to have heightened sensitivity, experienced as sudden unexplained anxiety when walking past a wireless hotspot. While peer-reviewed studies have not yet been done to directly address this claim, most of us have experienced the effects of an information-carrying signal that disrupts sensitive objects around us, like the car stereo. Although additional research is required, our instincts are probably right; these signals have an effect and it is unnerving.
So why don’t our cell phones and wireless cards come with a “Use at your own risk” label and a warning that there is evidence they may be harmful? The crux of the problem is historical. Mobile phones were exempted from pre-market safety testing in the ‘80s because they were presented as merely “low-powered” devices, taking the onus off the industry to prove their safety. This was a problem for advocates and opponents alike.
Industry found it necessary to prove they were safe to defend against claims such as the cell phone related brain cancer death of Deborah Reynard in 1993. Reynard’s cancer was unusual, growing from the outside to the inside of her head, at the precise location of her mobile phone antenna. Following that case, the industry began to fund its own researchers to study the health effects of cell phones, but it struck a deal with the regulating bodies that stipulated they would only research the damaging effects of cell phones as long as they could remain unregulated until all the research was done. That’s when the industry hired Dr. Carlo.
Even before Dr. Carlo’s group’s research was published, the industry began to file for patents on devices to make them safe, but these depended on proof that cell phones posed a danger. It was a classic Catch-22, leading to a cascade of hypocritical acts by the industry as it sought safer technologies, while at the same time printing users’ manuals stating that cell phones were not harmful.
Portsmouth Virginia USA
Durham North Carolina USA
Fremantle Victoria Australia
Prior to 1996, the wireless age was not coming online fast enough, primarily because communities had the authority to block the siting of cell towers. But the Federal Communications Act of 1996 made it nearly impossible for communities to stop construction of cell towers “even if they pose threats to public health and the environment. Since the decision to enter the age of wireless convenience was politically determined for us, we have forgotten well-documented safety and environmental concerns and, with a devil-may-care zeal that is lethally short-sighted, we have incorporated into our lives every wireless toy that comes on the market. We behave as if we are addicted to radiation. Our addiction to cell phones has led to harder “drugs” like wireless Internet. And now we are bathing in the radiation that our wireless enthusiasm has unleashed. Those who are addicted, uninformed, corporately biased and politically-influenced may dismiss our scientifically-sound concerns about the apocalyptic hazards of wireless radiation. But we must not. Instead, we must sound the alarm.
Illa Garcia wore jewelry the first day she went back to work as a fire lookout for the state of California in the summer of 2002. The intense radiation from dozens of RF/microwave antennas surrounding the lookout heated the metals on her body enough to burn her skin. “I still have those scars,” she says. “I never wore jewelry to work after that.” Likely Mountain Lookout, on U.S. Forest Service land with a spectacular view of Mount Shasta, is one of thousands of RF/microwave “hot spots” across the nation. A newly-erected cellular communications tower was only 30 feet from the lookout. “One antenna on that tower was even with our heads,” recalls Garcia. “We could hear high-pitched buzzing. There were also three state communications antennas mounted on the lookout, only 6 feet from where we walked. We climbed past them every day.” Motorola company manuals for management of communications sites confirm that high frequency radiation from these antennas is nasty stuff. Safety regulations mandate warning signs, EMF awareness training, protective gear, even transmitter deactivation for personnel working that close to antennas. Garcia and co-worker Mary Jasso were never warned about the hazards. This, they say, demonstrates extreme malfeasance on the part of agencies and commercial companies responsible for their exposure.
By the end of fire season, Garcia and Jasso were so ill they were forced to retire and the lookout was closed to state personnel. Garcia, 52, is now severely disabled with fibromyalgia, auto-immune thyroiditis and acute nerve degeneration. Medical tests confirmed broken DNA strands in her blood and abnormal tissue death in her brain. Dr. Gunner Heuser, a medical specialist in neurotoxicity, states that Garcia’s disorders are a result of chronic electromagnetic field exposure in the microwave range and that “she has become totally disabled as a result.” Dr. Heuser wrote, “In my experience patients develop multisystem complaints after EMF exposure just as they do after toxic chemical exposure.” Jasso, who worked the lookout for 11 seasons, is also disabled with brain and lung damage, partial left side paralysis, muscle tremors, bone pain and DNA damage. Jasso discovered that all lookouts who worked Likely Mountain since 1989 are disabled. At only 61 years of age, she has lost so much memory that she cannot remember back to when her first three children were born. She fears that communications radiation may be a major factor in the nation’s phenomenal epidemics of dementia and autism.
Both women say they have been unjustly denied worker’s comp and medical benefits. Their pleas for help to state and federal agencies have been fruitless. Between them they have racked up over $150,000 in medical bills, although there is no effective treatment for radiation sickness. Twenty-two other members of Garcia and Jasso’s two families received Likely Mountain radiation exposure. All now suffer serious and expensive illnesses, including tumors, blood abnormalities, stomach problems, lung damage, bone pain, muscle spasms, extreme fatigue, tremors, numbness, impaired motor skills, cataracts, memory loss, spine degeneration, sleep problems, low immunity to infection, hearing and vision problems, hair loss and allergies. Jasso’s husband, who often stayed at the lookout, has a rare soft tissue sarcoma known to be radiation related.
Garcia’s husband, who spent little time at the lookout, has systemic cancer that started with sarcoma of the colon. Garcia’s daughter Teresa was at the lookout for a total of two hours during her first pregnancy. Her daughter was born with slight brain damage and immunity problems. “That baby was always sick,” says Garcia. Teresa spent only three days at the lookout during her second pregnancy. Her son was born with autism.
Garcia and Jasso have a terminal condition known as “toxic encephalopathy,” involving brain damage to frontal and temporal lobes.
This was confirmed by SPECT brain scans. Twelve others in the two-family group who also had the scans were diagnosed with the affliction. “All of us with this condition have been told that we are dying,” says Garcia. “Our mutated cells will reproduce new mutated cells until the body finally shuts down.” Painful conditions endured by the families of Garcia and Jasso are identical to those suffered by Japanese victims of gamma wave radiation after nuclear explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Five decades of studies confirm that non-ionizing communications radiation in the RF/microwave spectrum has the same effect on human health as ionizing gamma wave radiation from nuclear reactions. Leading German radiation expert Dr. Heyo Eckel, an official of the German Medical Association, states, “The injuries that result from radioactive radiation are identical with the effects of electromagnetic radiation. The damages are so similar that they are hard to differentiate.”
Understanding what happened at Likely Mountain is critical to understanding the public health threat posed by RF/microwave radiation in the United States. The families of Garcia and Jasso, plus previous lookout workers and multitudes of tourists who visited Likely Mountain for camping and sightseeing, were beamed by the same kind of high frequency radiation that blasts from tens of thousands of neighborhood cell towers and rooftop antennas erected across America for wireless communications. The city of San Francisco, with an area of only seven square miles, has over 2,500 licensed cell phone antennas positioned at 530 locations throughout the city. In practical terms, this city, like thousands of others, is being wave-nuked 24 hours a day. The identical damage resulting from both radioactive gamma waves and high frequency microwaves involves a pathological condition in which the nuclei of irradiated human cells splinter into fragments called micronuclei.
Micronuclei are a definitive pre-cursor of cancer. During the 1986 nuclear reactor disaster at Chernobyl in Russia, the ionizing radiation released was equivalent to 400 atomic bombs, with an estimated ultimate human toll of 10,000 deaths. Exposed Russians quickly developed blood cell micronuclei, leaving them at high risk for cancer.
RF/microwaves from cell phones and cell tower transmitters also cause micronuclei damage in blood cells. This was reported a decade ago by Drs. Henry Lai and Narendrah Singh, biomedical researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle. Dr. Singh is famous for refining comet assay techniques used to identify DNA damage. Lai and Singh demonstrated in numerous animal studies that mobile phone radiation quickly causes DNA single and double strand breaks at levels well below the current federal “safe” exposure standards. The telecommunications industry knows this thanks to its own six-year, wireless technology research (WTR) study program mandated by Congress and completed in 1999.
Gathering a team of over 200 doctors, scientists and experts in the field, WTR research showed that human blood exposed to cell phone radiation had a 300-percent increase in genetic damage in the form of micronuclei. Dr. George Carlo, a public health expert who coordinated the WTR studies, confirms that exposure to communications radiation from wireless technology is “potentially the biggest health insult” this nation has ever seen. Dr. Carlo believes RF/microwave radiation is a greater threat than cigarette smoking and asbestos.
In 2000, European communications giant T-Mobile commissioned the German ECOLOG Institute to review all available scientific evidence in regard to health risks for wireless telecommunications. ECOLOG found over 220 peer-reviewed, published papers documenting the cancer-initiating and cancer-promoting effects of the high frequency radiation employed by wireless technology. Many corroborating studies have been published since. By 2004, 12 research groups from seven European countries cooperating in the REFLEX study project confirmed that microwaves from wireless communications devices cause significant single and double strand DNA breaks in both human and animal cells under laboratory conditions. In 2005, a Chinese medical study confirmed statistically significant DNA damage from pulsed microwaves at cell phone levels. That same year, University of Chicago researchers described how pulsed communications microwaves alter gene expression in human cells at non-thermal exposure levels.
Because gamma waves and RF/microwave radiation are identically carcinogenic and genotoxic to the cellular roots of life, the safe dose of either kind of radiation is zero. No study has proven that any level of exposure from cell-damaging radiation is safe for humans. Dr. Carlo confirms that cell damage is not dose dependant because any exposure level, no matter how small, can trigger damage response by cell mechanisms. Officials at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health closely reviewed the damning results of WTR studies, which also revealed microwave damage to the blood brain barrier.
But these officials have chosen to downplay, obfuscate and even deny the irrepressible science of the day. Raking in $billions from selling spectrum licenses, the feds have allowed the telecom industry to unleash demonstrably dangerous technology which induces millions of people to become brain-intimate with improperly tested wireless devices9 and which saturates the nation with carcinogenic waves to service those devices. Dr. Carlo says that even the American Cancer Society is in bed with the communications industry, which infuses the Society with substantial contributions.
Medical science illustrates that there are two ways to die from radiation poisoning: Fast burn and slow burn. Nuclear flash-burned Japanese had parts of their flesh melt off before they died in agony within hours or days. People have also quickly died after walking through powerful radar beams, which can microwave-cook internal organs within seconds of exposure. Slow-burn radiation mechanisms are cumulative, progressive, ongoing and continual. Thousands of Japanese nuke bomb victims died painfully years after exposure. The slow burn process of RF/microwave exposure is manifested by cancer clusters commonly found in communities irradiated by cell tower transmitters. Recent Swedish epidemiological studies confirm that, after 2,000 hours of cellular phone exposure, or a latency period of about 10 years, brain cancer risk rises by 240 percent.
Communications antennas now blast the human habitat with many different electromagnetic frequencies simultaneously. Human DNA hears this energetic cacophony loud and clear, reacting like the human ear would to high volume country music, R&B plus rock and roll screaming from the same speaker. Irradiated cells struggle to protect themselves against this destructive dissonance by hardening their membranes.
They cease to receive nourishment, stop releasing toxins, die prematurely and spill micronuclei fragments into a sort of “tumor bank account.” This is precisely how microwave radiation prematurely ages living tissues. The constant roaming pain is intense for 32-year-old Kenneth Hurtado of Southern California. He’s been to hell and back, starting with a seven-pound tumor on a kidney, diagnosed in 2002. The cancer spread to his brain. His first brain tumor was removed by craniotomy, the second by the cyber knife. In 2005, cancer nodes were found in his lungs. By 2006, the cancer had metastasized to his legs. This year he is battling three excruciating tumors on his spinal cord. Hurtado hates his seizures. His last one came on while he was driving. “It’s like the devil taking over your body,” he says.
Now unable to work, Hurtado says he was relatively healthy in 1998 when he began a career as an installer for a large international corporation manufacturing electronics equipment for wireless providers. At the base of cell towers there is an equipment “hut” where installers assemble the radios, amplifiers and filters which generate man-made microwave frequencies and route them up to transmitter antennas through huge cables. Mounted on sector supports aptly named alpha, beta and gamma, the antennas send and receive these carcinogenic radio waves and their pulsed data packets at the speed of light. Posted on locked fences around the huts are “danger” warning signs. Hurtado says, “You look around these sites and you find many dead birds on the gravel. They can’t take the radiation and they’ll just die. You don’t have to ponder that too long to figure it’s bad.”
Hurtado doesn’t know how much radiation he got on the job. He says there are at least four connection spots inside the hut where radiation can leak. He could not avoid the “heat” when he turned the radios on for testing and he wonders if his cancer is the result.
“When I first got hired, we had safety meetings, but they pretty much minimized the hazards,” he remembers. He was issued no electromagnetic safety clothing and it was not until 2002 that he got a radiation meter to wear. “The meter is supposed to warn you if you are getting too much radiation,” he says, “but I put mine on a stick and placed it next to antennas and the alarm never went off.”
City of Randwick Australia
Fairfield California USA
A medical report in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health confirms that workers exposed to high levels of RF/microwave radiation routinely have astronomical cancer rates. The report notes that, for these workers, the latency period between high radiation exposure and illness is short compared to less exposed populations. Hurtado says there are many industry workers who are dangerously over-exposed. “I’ve talked to guys on power crews who have to climb around the antennas and they,ve told me that before a work day is half over, they start feeling really sick.” He adds, “In my mind they are getting cooked.”
Hurtado suspects that, since the early days of the wireless buildout, there has been illegal activity related to public exposure from transmission sites. “I’m pretty sure,” he says, “that some of the carriers are exceeding FCC exposure limits. They can turn the radios and amplifiers up to get a bigger footprint and they don’t care if the alarms go on once the installers are gone.” Regulatory inspectors could identify violators because channels can be spectrum analyzed. “But,” he says, “there is just no one to check and I believe that the public is getting way too much radiation now.” The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the single agency with authority to regulate the broadcast/communications industry, has neither money, manpower nor motive to properly monitor radiation output from hundreds of thousands of commercial wireless installations spewing carcinogenic waves across the nation. The FCC admits that physical testing to verify compliance with emissions guidelines is relatively rare. Critics say that FCC appointees, with virtually no medical or public health expertise, represent an old-boy network and a cheering squad for the telecommunications and broadcast industries. The Center for Public Integrity found that FCC officials have been bribed by the industries with such perks as expensive trips to Las Vegas.
Dr. Carlo confirms that there is no regulatory accountability. He says, “You have to go to those base stations and independently measure what is coming out of them because we have had many instances where you have an antenna that is allowed by law to transmit at 100 watts and we have seen up to 900 to 1000 watts. You can turn things up when nobody is looking.” Neighborhood groups monitoring the broadcast/communications antenna farm on Lookout Mountain near Denver, Colorado, have consistently found that, despite protests to the FCC over nine years, radiation on the mountain has been measured at up to 125 percent of exposure levels permitted by federal law. Even if there were reliable compliance monitoring, many experts say that FCC public exposure guidelines for RF/microwave radiation are deadly because they are based on the obsolete and unfounded theory that only power density hot enough to flash-cook tissues is harmful. This puts FCC at odds with current scientific knowledge regarding the minimum exposure level at which harm to living cells begins.
Myriad symptoms of radiation poisoning can be induced at exposure levels hundreds, even thousands of times lower than current standards permit. Russia’s public exposure standards are 100 times more stringent than ours because Russian scientists have consistently shown that, at U.S. exposure levels, humans develop pathological changes in heart, kidney, liver and brain tissues, plus cancers of all types. Norbert Hankin, chief of the EPA’s Radiation Protection Division, has stated that the FCC’s exposure guidelines are protective only against effects arising from a thermal (flash burn) mechanism. He concedes that, “the generalization by many, that these guidelines protect human beings from harm by any and all mechanisms, is not justified.”
Thus, public microwave exposure levels tolerated by the FCC and its industry-loaded advisory committees are a national health disaster. Yet, for pragmatic and lucrative reasons, federal exposure limits have been deliberately set so high that no matter how much additional wireless radiation is added to the national burden, it will always be “within standards.” The FCC regulatory mess comes into focus with the Likely Mountain case. Jasso says that when she and Garcia contacted the FCC regarding their radiation injuries, they were met with an appalling lack of expertise and concern. “FCC has no answers,” Jasso says. “Their exposure guidelines are convoluted and nonsensical. They refuse to address problems of multiple antennas, field expansion, human body coupling and blood reversal because they want to avoid regulatory problems at telecommunication sites.” She adds, “FCC will fine a licensee thousands of dollars for not having a light installed on top of a telecommunications tower, but they have not issued even a warning letter to their licensees for the injuries that occurred on Likely Mountain. They say injury cannot occur because their licensees are regulated.”
When Garcia and Jasso filed suit against companies operating microwave transmitters on Likely Mountain, they could find no attorney who would take their case and they were forced to proceed pro se. In August, 2007, a California district court denied their claim, mainly on the grounds that they had not proven that the defendants had exceeded FCC exposure guidelines. Under federal law the shattered health of 24 people, plus medical testimony, is not sufficient proof of negligence and liability. Since FCC provides no enforcement monitoring at transmitter sites and since the radiation industry is not required to prove with consistent documentation that it is compliant, injured parties have little chance of proving non-compliance because the damage to their health often becomes obvious months or even years after their exposure.
The court worried that the Garcia-Jasso case highlights “the conflict between the FCC’s delegated authority to establish RF radiation guidelines and limits and plaintiffs, attempt to establish that wireless facilities like the one at Likely Mountain are ultrahazardous.”So, while current science provides ample evidence that FCC’s guidelines are ultrahazardous, the radiation industry hides behind FCC incompetence, simply because FCC retains exclusive authority to set the standards.
The FCC’s disastrous authority is calcified by the Telecommunications Act (TCA) of 1996. The telecom industry is infamous for lavish “donations” which keep legislators on its leash. Anticipating a national radiation health crisis and the public backlash that would follow, the telecom lobby blatantly bought itself a provision in the law that prohibits state and local governments from considering environmental (health) effects when siting personal wireless service facilities so long as “…such facilities comply with the FCC’s regulations concerning such emissions.” Many say the TCA insures that America’s war on cancer will never be won, while protecting gross polluters from liability.
After passage of the TCA, a group of scientists and engineers, backed by the Communications Workers of America, filed suit in federal court. They hoped the Supreme Court would review both the FCC’s outdated exposure guidelines and the legality of a federal law that severely impedes state and local authority in the siting of hazardous transmitters. In 2001, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. The group’s subsequent petition to the FCC asking the agency to bring its exposure guidelines current with the latest scientific data was denied. This is where we stand today. The public has no vote, no voice, no choice.
Chronic exposure to scientifically indefensible levels of DNA-ravaging radiation is now compulsory for everyone in America. This is why Garcia and Jasso are ill today; this why the industry enjoys unchallenged power to place dangerous transmitters in residential and commercial areas with unsafe setbacks and this is why untold thousands of Americans in buildings with transmitters on the roof are given no safety warnings, though they work and dwell in carcinogenic electromagnetic fields. In the meantime, the radiation industry rakes in $billions in quarterly profits, none of which is set aside for to pay for the national health catastrophe at hand.
Every citizen is now condemned to protect and defend himself against radiation assault as best he can. There have been a number of lawsuits against the radiation industry since cell towers began going up in backyards across the nation. In 2001, a group action lawsuit was filed in South Bend, Indiana, by families living in close proximity to towers. The complaint describes health effects suffered by the plaintiffs, including heart palpitations, interference with hearing, recurring headaches, short term memory loss, sleep disturbances, multiple tumors, glandular problems, chronic fatigue, allergies, weakened immune system, miscarriage and inability to learn. The South Bend suit was settled out of court on the basis of nuisance and decreased property values. Health claims don’t hold water if emissions are within FCC exposure standards. This case is valuable for understanding the lunacy of FCC standards. The sick families enlisted the help of radiation consultant Bill Curry, who honed his expertise as an engineer for Argonne and Livermore labs. Dr. Curry found that one of the towers was irradiating homes at over 65 microwatts per square centimeter.
This power density is well within federal exposure standards, which allow any neighborhood to be zapped with at least 580 microwatts per square centimeter, or higher, depending on the frequencies. If the families were sick at 65 microwatts/cm2 what would they be at 580? Considering that the Soviets used furtive Cold War microwave bombardment to make US embassy personal radiation-sick at an average exposure level of only .01 microwatts/cm2, America’s clear and present danger is obvious. How radiation sick is America?
Since the wireless revolution began wave-nuking the U.S. in the 1990s, there have been no federally funded health studies to assess the cumulative effects of ever-increasing communications radiation on public health. There is no national database enabling citizens to study the location of transmitters in their areas. Local and state governments can offer no information on how much commercial wireless radiation is contaminating their populations. When trying to find out who owns a tower or which companies have transmitters on that tower, citizens usually hit a brick wall. Dr. Carlo heads the only independent, post-market health surveillance registry in the nation where people can report radiation illness. Dr. Carlo says the registry has heard from thousands of people who believe that their illnesses, including brain and eye cancers, are due to telecommunications radiation from both wireless phones and tower transmitters. In the last two years, the registry has seen an upsurge in reports as transmitters become ever more energetically dangerous in order to accommodate increased data flow for new, multi-media technologies.
We can only guess how many Americans are in their graves today from microwave assault. Arthur Firstenberg, who founded the Cellular Phone Task Force, wrote that, on November 14, 1996, New York City’s first digital cellular provider activated thousands of PCS antennae newly erected on the rooftops of apartment buildings. Health authorities reported that a severe and lingering flu hit the city that same week. In response to its classified newspaper ad advising that radiation sickness is similar to flu, the Task Force heard back from hundreds of people who reported sudden onset symptoms synchronous to microwave startup”symptoms similar to stroke, heart attack and nervous breakdown.
Firstenberg then gathered statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and analyzed weekly mortality statistics published for 122 U.S. cities. Each of dozens of cities recorded a 10-25 percent increase in mortality, lasting two to three months, beginning in the week during which that city’s first digital cell phone network began commercial service. Cities with no cellular system start up in the same time period showed no abnormal increases in mortality.
Peru, Lima, City,
Russian Federation, Moscow City,
Sao Tome and Principe Sao Tome
Egypt Cairo: city limits
South Bend Indiana USA
Davenport Iowa USA
Adelaide South Australia
Kerry Crofton travels with a land line phone, purposely stays in hotels that don’t offer wireless Internet in rooms and when she gives her talk tonight on the topic of wireless radiation, it will be in a downtown Vancouver venue selected because it purportedly has no such radiation.
Kerry Crofton travels with a land line phone, purposely stays in hotels that don’t offer wireless Internet in rooms and when she gives her talk tonight on the topic of wireless radiation, it will be in a downtown Vancouver venue selected because it purportedly has no such radiation.
The Victoria-based health researcher is speaking at the wireless network-free St. Andrew’s-Wesley Church, where she’s promoting her new book, Wireless Radiation Rescue, said to be the first consumer guide to reducing levels of electromagnetic radiation in homes, offices and schools.
Crofton does practise what she preaches. Hence, arranging a phone interview to take place while she was en route to Vancouver was a bit of a challenge since she owns a cellphone but prefers not to use it except in emergencies. The interview took place during her sailing; she called from a pay phone on the ship.
Some would argue Crofton’s beliefs are extreme. A B.C. study a few years ago concluded there may be one extra case of childhood leukemia every two years because of power lines.
Health Canada, meanwhile, has issued statements denying the health threat from wireless technology and cellphones.
“Based on scientific evidence, Health Canada has determined that exposure to low-level radio-frequency energy, such as that from Wi-Fi systems, is not dangerous to the public,” said a statement from the federal agency.
On another occasion, Health Canada said it “currently sees no scientific reason to consider the use of cellphones as unsafe … and there is no convincing evidence of increased risk of disease from exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields from cellphones.”
But Crofton, who has a doctoral degree in health psychology, has spent the last five years collecting research on radiation from power lines, cellphones, cordless phones, wireless Internet, computers, baby monitors and microwaves.
And she’s convinced that government standards meant to be protective are too lenient and while cellphone industry-sponsored research may show no impacts, other studies do show biological effects causing symptoms such as headaches, heart effects, decreased fertility and neurological disorders.
Crofton has three decades of experience devising wellness and heart health programs for air traffic controllers, pilots, nurses, teachers and others. Until she started doing her research, Crofton was like most people: she wanted the latest, fastest technology.
“It’s not that I am against technology now. The Internet is extraordinary. Computers are essential. I just make sure that I have mine set up as a fully wired system, without the wireless mouse, without the wireless monitor and without the wireless router.”
She acknowledges that not all people will experience symptoms of such radiation.
“Absolutely, there are some people who are more electro-sensitive than others.,” she said.
Recently, a British scientist waded into the issue of wireless networks in Canadian schools, warning generations could face genetic disorders because of prolonged exposure to low-level microwaves.
“Children are not small adults, they are underdeveloped adults, so there are different symptoms,” said Barrie Trower, who specialized in microwave “stealth” warfare during the Cold War.
Crofton will be joined tonight by American cardiologist Dr. Stephen Sinatra.
The Hague, Netherlands,
Palmdale California USA
Melbourne Ararat Victoria Australia
Dr. Croftons ground-breaking book is well-researched and informative. I highly recommend it, especially to other physicians who need to know about electro-pollution. Stephen Sinatra, MD, FACC. This proven plan targets these symptoms: Difficulty sleeping, dizziness, headaches. Tingling in the hands, ringing in the ears. ADD/ADHD and autism.
Electro-sensitivity, low immunity. Unexplained cardiac conditions. We dont have to give up our high-tech devices; we need to use them differently. Read the Research: An accurate summary of the science; How our wireless devices avoided being pre-market tested for health safety; Why our government safety standards are not protecting us. A note from the author: WE HUMANS, EACH WONDROUSLY UNIQUE and complex, have an inborn healthiness that is based on all the electrical fields within and around us being in harmony. Our heart and brain cells have their own delicate electrical integrity. Our modus operandi, so to speak, relies on being attuned in this way.
The challenge is to see that we are overwhelming this natural state of wellbeing with clouds of electro-pollution electro-magnetic waves of invisible energy powerful enough to blast wireless communication data through concrete. Imagine how easily it travels through us, and especially through vulnerable newborns and children. This book reveals how government-approved, low levels of radiation can carry high risks to our health. Why are we urging you to listen?
Our medical team advises us that there is a range of results from: exposure without symptoms (harm can still be occurring), mild to moderate symptoms, electro-sensitivity, and other conditions. And, its not only human health at risk. The good news: this is a wake-up call with easy-to-implement solutions, and pro-active strategies. I sincerely hope that you will hear what our team of dedicated experts has to offer: how to recognize symptoms, prevent more from developing, and how to reset our finely-tuned, electrically-sensitive systems. We can reduce the risks for ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren. Not just ours. Everyones. – Kerry Crofton.
What other experts are saying: The signals from cell phones reach more deeply into childrens thinner skulls and smaller brains. Wireless Radiation Rescue is a wake-up call for anyone concerned about our brains, and those of our children. Devra Davis, PhD author of Disconnect. Wireless Radiation Rescue sounds the medical alert and more importantly offers many safety strategies and solutions. – — Carolyn Dean, MD, ND There is enough evidence to link this exposure to increased risk of cancer and therefore of a need to limit our exposure, especially of children. – Martin Blank, PhD Associate Professor of Physiology Cellular Biophysics at Columbia University. You’d be amazed at the levels of electro-magnetic fields found in the home.
These can disrupt your sleep. There also seems to be a connection with electro-sensitivity and CFS (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome). – Jacob Teitelbaum, MD a board certified internist and author of From Fatigued To Fantastic. What readers are saying: Every parent should read the research in this book before giving a child a cell phone, or installing a wireless network in their home or school! Kerry Crofton not only explains the harmful effects but also gives us practical tips.
Our child has autism. Your books 4 step plan has helped him tremendously. This is a must-read for the parents in the autism community, and others. Wireless Radiation Rescue has helped me understand why I was not sleeping well, had arrhythmia and dizziness, and what to do. There are many useful strategies, and the Resource section is extensive.
A report in a U.S. journal says there are possible biological hazards and risks of genetic damage from unchecked proliferation of wireless technologies.
A panel of international scientists writing in the journal Reviews of Environmental Health is urging world governments to set greatly reduced exposure limits for electromagnetic radiation from power line and telecommunications technologies including cellphones, ElectromagneticHealth.org reported Wednesday.
In the United States, there have been calls in Congress for a U.S. cellphone research program, warning labels on cellphones and an update of antiquated radiation exposure standards, but no action has been taken yet, scientists say.
“Current United States and ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) standards for radiofrequency and microwave radiation from wireless technologies are entirely inadequate,” panel chairman Olle Johansson of the Karolinska Institutet medical university in Stockholm said. “They never were intended to address the kind of exposures from wireless devices that now affect over 4 billion people.”
The current accepted measure of radiation risk, the specific absorption rate or SAR, is inadequate, the panel said.
There is abundant evidence that biological effects are occurring at exposures “many orders of magnitude” below existing public safety standards, it said.
“We are already seeing increases in health problems such as cancer and neurobehavioral impairments, even though these wireless technologies are fairly new in the last decades or so for the general public,” said panel member Elihu Richter, retired professor of occupational and environmental medicine at Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
St. Kitts and Nevis Basseterre
San Diego California USA
El Salvador San Salvador
Fort Wayne Indiana USA
Luxembourg Luxembourg City
Moe Victoria Australia
Professor Lawrie Challis, who heads the Government’s official mobile safety research, this year said that the mobile could turn out to be “the cigarette of the 21st century”.
There has been less concern about masts, as they emit very much less radiation than mobile phones. But people living – or attending schools – near them are consistently exposed and studies reveal a worrying incidence of symptoms such as headaches, fatigue, nausea, dizziness and memory problems. There is also some suggestion that there may be an increase in cancers and heart disease.
Wi-Fi systems essentially take small versions of these masts into the home and classroom – they emit much the same kind of radiation. Though virtually no research has been carried out, campaigners and some scientists expect them to have similar ill-effects. They say that we are all now living in a soup of electromagnetic radiation one billion times stronger than the natural fields in which living cells have developed over the last 3.8 billion years. This, they add, is bound to cause trouble
Prof Leif Salford, of Lund University – who showed that the radiation kills off brain cells – is also deeply worried about wi-fi’s addition to “electronic smog”.
There is particular concern about children partly because they are more vulnerable – as their skulls are thinner and their nervous systems are still developing – and because they will be exposed to more of the radiation during their lives.
The Austrian Medical Association is lobbying against the deployment of Wi-Fi in schools. The authorities of the province of Salzburg has already advised schools not to install it, and is now considering a ban. Dr Gerd Oberfeld, Salzburg’s head of environmental health and medicine, says that the Wi-Fi is “dangerous” to sensitive people and that “the number of people and the danger are both growing”.
In Britain, Stowe School removed Wi-Fi from part of its premises after a classics master, Michael Bevington – who had taught there for 28 years – developed headaches and nausea as soon as it was installed.
Ian Gibson, the MP for the newly wireless city Norwich is calling for an official inquiry into the risks of Wi-Fi. The Professional Association of Teachers is to write to Education Secretary Alan Johnson this week to call for one.
Philip Parkin, the general secretary of the union, says; “I am concerned that so many wireless networks are being installed in schools and colleges without any understanding of the possible long-term consequences.
“The proliferation of wireless networks could be having serious implications for the health of some staff and pupils without the cause being recognised.”
But, he added, there are huge commercial pressures” which may be why there has not yet been “any significant action”.
Guidelines that were ignored
The first Stewart Report, published in May 2000, produced a series of sensible recommendations. They included: discouraging children from using mobiles, and stopping the industry from promoting them to the young; publicising the radiation levels of different handsets so that customers could choose the lowest; making the erection of phone masts subject to democratic control through the planning system; and stopping the building of masts where the radiation “beam of greatest intensity” fell on schools, unless the school and parents agreed.
The Government accepted most of these recommendations, but then, as ‘The Independent on Sunday’ has repeatedly pointed out, failed to implement them. Probably, it has lost any chance to curb the use of mobiles by children and teenagers. Since the first report, mobile use by the young has doubled.
Argentina, Buenos Aires
Boise, Idaho, USA
Townsville, Queensland, Australia