«First  ‹Previous   Page 2 of 543   Next›  Last» 

Use of cell phones increases cancer risk
India Created: 18 Aug 2014
Dr Dariusz Leszczynski, Adjunct Professor, Division of Biochemistry and Biotechnology at the University of Helsinki and a member of a working group of 31 scientists from 14 countries constituted by World Health Organization (WHO) that classified cellphone radiation as possibly carcinogenic, in conversation with Maitri Porecha, reveals how leading cell phone operators and manufacturers are withdrawing funding for research, leading to closing down of laboratories studying effects of radio-frequency electromagnetic fields as emitted by cellphones and cell towers. Excerpts -

Q 1. How was cell phone radiation categorized as group 2B carcinogen, based on increasing risk of Glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer by International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and WHO?

The number of mobile phone subscriptions is estimated at 5 billion globally. With rising concerns over adverse health effects, in 2010, IARC invited thirty one experts to evaluate evidence involving carcinogenicity of cell phone radiation. The experts assembled at IARC headquarters in Lyon, France, in a meeting that lasted for twelve days in 2011. Experts shared the complex task of tackling the exposure data, the studies of cancer in humans, the studies of cancer in experimental animals, and the mechanistic and other relevant data. Groups worked separately and together sifting through many hundred research studies. After intense deliberations, we agreed upon the group 2B classification.

Q 2. On one hand, cell tower operators and industry stake holders say that cell phone radiation does not cause cancer, on the other hand the residents or activists posit a precautionary stand point by saying that it may cause cancer. Why there is no clarity?

The IARC-WHO classification of cell phone radiation is misrepresented by the industry. Classification of cell phone radiation as 'a possible carcinogen to humans’ means that there are enough studies indicating that it might cause cancer and that we urgently need more research to clarify this issue. The strongest evidence that it might be causing cancer comes from three epidemiological studies. In 2011, two sets of studies were available – EU's Interphone study and a series of studies from Lennart Hardell’s group in Sweden. Recently, CERENAT study from France published in 2014, similarly indicated that persons using cell phones for more than ten years and for half hour per day are at a higher risk for developing brain cancer. In fact now the evidence is sufficient to consider cell phone radiation as a probable carcinogen – Group 2A in IARC’s scale of carcinogenicity.

Q 3. Could you describe your work on cell phone radiation? Did you discover that it has ill effects on human health and if yes, in what way?

Our research has shown that human cells exposed in laboratory to cell phone radiation activated series of biochemical reactions in them known as 'stress response,' which means that the living cells recognize cell phone radiation as a potentially harmful agent. Stress responses are signals that intend to protect the living cell from any potential damage. In the 2008 study conducted by us, a small area of human forearm's skin in ten volunteers was exposed to GSM signal for one hour. After that, pieces of the radiation exposed skin and unexposed skin were collected and used for 'proteomic analysis.' In it, all proteins from the skin samples were extracted and amounts of different kinds of proteins in exposed and unexposed skin samples were compared. After the analysis of nearly 580 proteins, we identified eight proteins which were statistically significantly affected. We determined that the amounts of several proteins were changing after the exposure. After acquiring this result in the pilot ten-volunteer-study, we intended to conduct a larger study with 100 volunteers from 2009 onwards. This study did not start due to lack of funding and opposition from the telecom industry stakeholders.

Q 4. Why did the government did not sanction funds? What happened?

My laboratory studies on effects of cell phone radiation to human health began in 1999. My lab, which was government-run, was closed down in 2013 due to lack of funding as certain cell phone manufacturers and network operators in Finland were opposing the large scale human studies. We receive grants from government to conduct studies but in spite of making positive headway on research our funding was stopped. We were cut off from funding as the telecom industry was against it.
While majority of the funding for such research projects consists of tax payers money and industry pumps in only a part of the money, the advice of industry is highly valued during sanctioning of funds by the government.

Q 5. How much funding was expended during the last 15 years and how much more funding would be required to require to bring your studies to a proper conclusion?

I was working on cell phone radiation effects for the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority. My research group has expended over the 15 years period well over one million euros. Some persons in the Finnish bureaucracy decided that basic research should be done in universities and thus basic research labs in government-run institutes were closed in a bid to save money in 2013. The 2009 study was planned to last about three years and entailed enrolling 100 human volunteers. There was a very real possibility of securing such funding from the EU research program but my research group was not permitted to do it. In order to continue the abruptly stopped study on humans, we would require some quarter million euros in funding. Industry provides jobs for people and therefore research policy decisions are taken by the government are influenced by it. The industry denied funding. To conduct that kind of human volunteer study, qualified personnel, laboratory space and sufficient funding is needed, of which I have none currently.

Q 6. Do you believe that the standards set by the Indian Telecommunications Ministry in September 2012 at 450 milliwatts/square meter (900MHz) for Electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation which is one tenth of what is prescribed by International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) enough when the government admitted in September 2012 that 95% of the mobile tower antennae were below the revised norms of 450 milliwatts/square meter radiation? Also, when most towers are well below those permissible limits, what is the logic behind Telecom ministry's bringing down the levels from 4500 mW/sq m to 450 mW/sq m?

ICNIRP is an organization of scientists, claiming that they are independent in their scientific opinions. However, there is a major problem – ICNIRP selects members in fashion resembling “private club” practices. The current members of ICNIRP select new members. This model leads to situation where all ICNIRP members have the same opinion on the dangers of cell phone radiation. When all ICNIRP scientists have the same opinion there is no need for scientific debate – there is a prior, existing consensus. This was not the case in the WHO’s IARC evaluation, where scientists with diverse, often opposing opinions were invited.

ICNIRP safety standards for radiation emissions from cell phones and cell towers may not be sufficient to protect people. The IARC classification of cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen invalidates the protective claims of the current ICNIRP safety standards. In epidemiological case-control studies evaluated by IARC (Interphone and Hardell) and published after IARC evaluation (CERENAT), adult participants used regular, off-the-shelf, cell phones. These cell phones were built to fulfill ICNIRP safety standards. However, avid use of such "ICNIRP-safe phones," for period of over 10 years, led to an increased risk of brain cancer. This means that the current safety standards do not protect sufficiently users of cell phones and this also casts a doubt over the validity of safety standards set for cell towers.

Of what I have seen from the pictures of India, as also what I have seen while visiting India, there are numerous situations where there are too many antennas located en masse, in huge clusters. Whether such clusters fulfill the current Indian safety standards should be examined. It is up to the local politicians and government to make sure that safety standards are met and to determine if present safety standards are questionable.

Q 7. Certain Australian schools are banning Wi-Fi, what is the rationale behind taking such steps?

There is a discussion in Australia, Canada, US, Europe about the possibility of harm caused by Wi-Fi. Some school principals are banning Wi-Fi, due to pressure from parents of the children. Grass root movements of parents concerned with Wi-Fi in schools is, in some cases, very strong. Wi-Fi radiation is similar to that emitted by cell phones and cell towers, which have been classified as a ‘possible’ carcinogen.
We can be legitimately concerned about what might happen to children, who are very young and spend seven to eight hours continuously exposed to Wi-Fi radiation. It is a responsible precautionary measure to ban Wi-Fi in schools. There are places where providing wired internet is not possible, like in railway stations or airports, but in schools wired internet is possible to install. There is no real need for Wi-Fi for schools.
In other places, where the wired internet is not feasible, is also possible to introduce precautionary measures. In airports or railway stations, there are enclosed spaces where people can gather and smoke tobacco. Others are not exposed to smoke.
A similar thing can be done for providing Wi-Fi connectivity. There could be provided enclosed areas, with walls built of materials not allowing Wi-Fi radiation to go outside, where Wi-Fi access would be provided without unnecessary exposing everyone.

Q 8. WHO is working on a new report summarizing the health risks of radio-frequency fields, to be published next year? What is the researchers' fraternity expecting out of the report? As also, do you think there is now evidence enough after the release of French epidemiological study in 2014 that classification of cell phone radiation should be shifted from Group 2B to Group 2A or Group 1?

The yet to be released WHO report has been delayed for ten years. They were waiting for the results to see if the Interphone project was finalized and, later, for the IARC evaluation of carcinogenicity. The WHO report will analyze all effects of radiation possibly fertility in humans and other health issues, not only cancer.
ICNIRP scientists are involved in the WHO report and, therefore, one cannot expect that it will substantially differ from what ICNIRP is saying.
The recent French CERENAT epidemiological study provides, together with Interphone and Hardell studies, is an evidence sufficient to consider cell phone radiation as a probable carcinogen – Group 2A in IARC’s scale of carcinogenicity.

Q 9. Recently the industry has started a campaign stating that radiation from mobile towers and mobile phones is not hazardous. They have brought in researchers like Dr Mike Repacholi, the ex co-ordinator of the radiation and environment health unit of WHO, who has claimed there are no health hazards from mobile towers/phone radiation. Do you agree with his statements?

The industry likes to call on scientists who will endorse their product and say that it is safe. Hence, Dr Repacholi visited India and spoke publicly about the safety of cell phones as well as cell towers. I disagree with Dr Repacholi. He says that we don't have and we will not have in the future health problems due to cell phone and cell tower radiation. In my opinion the scientific evidence is still insufficient to say that cell phone radiation is harmless. We need both better research and, for the time being, implementation of the European Union’s Precautionary Principle until there is further clarity.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: DNA India, Maitri Porecha, 18 Aug 2014

War on the phone masts (old article from 2000)
United Kingdom Created: 17 Aug 2014
A mobile phone company has been banned from erecting a mast because of health fears.
The decision is the first of its kind by Government planning inspectors.
They rejected an application by Orange to erect a 30ft mast in a residential area because of the 'serious harm' it could cause to those living nearby.
The landmark move is expected to have major implications for hundreds of similar cases nationwide.
Community groups and safety campaigners have repeatedly expressed fears about the masts - which send and receive mobile phone signals -because of the possible radiation dangers.
There are fears of a link between microwave radiation from masts and conditions ranging from cancer to blood clots in the brain.
Orange wanted to erect the mast in Harrow, North-West London. The council refused the application last May after residents expressed their concerns.
The company appealed to John Prescott's Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions whose inspectors also turned the application down.
They stated: 'The need to site the installation in the location proposed does not outweigh the serious harm it would cause to neighbouring residents in terms of visual amenity and about the possible health effect.'
They claimed the company had not provided enough detail about possible radiation emissions. 'In short, there is little in the written representations expressly relating to the appeal proposal that provides any basis for allaying the fears that neighbouring residents have about it,' their report said.
Orange said it was 'considering the way forward'. Although applications for mobile phone masts have previously been rejected on health grounds by councils, including Barnet, Kent and Worcester, this is the first time the matter has gone as far as the Planning Inspectorate and been rejected.
Inspectors are preparing to issue local authorities with guidelines advising them that all telecommunications companies should provide concise details about the risks of potential radiation emissions when applying to put up masts.
Harrow councillor Navin Shah said: 'Up until now the advice to planning authorities has been that health considerations should not be taken into account, as long as the radio waves from a mast fall within recommended guidelines.
'The appeal decision at last confirms the genuine fears of local people are being recognised.'
Last year the Stewart Report, a study by 12 experts commissioned by the Department of Health, stated that children might be more vulnerable to the low-level radiation from the masts because they have thinner skulls and a developing nervous system.
The chairman, Professor Sir William Stewart, a former Government chief scientist, stressed that, on balance, there was no scientific evidence of a threat from either mobile handsets or mobile phone masts.
However, he added, that some studies indicated they caused subtle biological effects, particularly on the electrical circuitry of the brain.
Earlier this week a government advisory panel admitted there were potential health risks for children living near electricity power lines.
by NILUFER ATIK, Daily Mail
Click here to view the source article.
Source: John Weigel/Agnes Ingvarsdottir, 2000

Microwave News on CDC's new cautionary stance on cellphones
USA Created: 17 Aug 2014
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention —CDC— has become the first US health agency to call for precaution in the use of cell phones.

“Along with many organizations worldwide, we recommend caution in cell phone use,” the CDC states on its Web site’s FAQ About Cell Phones and Your Health. It follows up with a call for more research to answer the unresolved cancer question.

The recommendation was posted on the CDC’s Web site on or before, June 9. It passed mostly unnoticed until a few days ago when Joel Moskowitz, who writes a blog on Electromagnetic Radiation Safety, sent out a press release announcing the news.

“I am pleased to see that the CDC, the lead public health action agency in the United States, is reassuming its leadership role by warning the public about this health risk,” he said in an interview with Microwave News. Moskowitz is the director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health.

*SNIP* read the entire article via the source link below...
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Microwave News, Louis Slesin ph.D., 16 Aug 2014

CDC Issues Precautionary Health Warnings about Cell Phone Radiation
USA Created: 14 Aug 2014
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have issued precautionary health warnings about cell phone radiation and provide tips on how to reduce one's risk from exposure.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated the Frequently Asked Questions about cell phones and health on the CDC web site.

CDC now asserts that "Along with many organizations worldwide, we recommend caution in cell phone use." As the lead Federal health action agency, CDC provides tips to the public on how to "reduce radio frequency radiation near your body."

Health authorities at the Federal, state, and local level should follow CDC's lead and disseminate precautionary health warnings to ensure that the public is adequately informed about the potential health risks of cell phone use and has the know-how to reduce exposure to the radiofrequency radiation emitted when carrying or using cell phones.

Moreover, the Federal Communications Commission should review CDC's new position in light of the Commission's obsolete regulatory standard for cell phone radiation that was adopted in 1996 when few adults used cell phones.

CDC's latest recommendations represent a considerable improvement in our Federal government's position regarding cell phone radiation health risks and the need for precaution.

CDC indicates that more research is needed to understand the health risks of exposure to cell phone radiation. Unfortunately the U.S. has been negligent in supporting research on wireless radiation health effects. A major government research funding initiative could be launched with as little as a nickel-a-month fee on wireless subscriptions. This research initiative should be conducted independent of the wireless industry as we have considerable evidence that the industry has undermined much of the research it has funded in the past.

For additional information about how to reduce your exposure to wireless radiation see the tips available on my Electromagnetic Radiation Safety web site at:

CDC FAQ on cellphones:

Click here to view the source article.
Source: PRLog, Joel M. Moskowitz Ph.D., 13 Aug 2014

New Scholarly Article Declares Wireless Devices a Safety Risk for Children

USA Created: 14 Aug 2014
A scholarly article on wireless safety, published online in the Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure, reports that children and fetuses are the most at risk from neurological and biological damage that results from microwave radiation emitted by wireless devices, due to the higher rate of absorption of microwave radiation by children than by adults. The paper is available on the following link: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213879X14000583

The paper, titled “Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences,” describes how the fetus is particularly vulnerable to microwave radiation, which can cause degeneration of the protective myelin sheath that surrounds brain neurons. The authors recommend that wireless toys be banned due to the serious potential health risks.

The paper also documents cancer registry studies showing increased brain cancer incidence. Because the average latency time between first exposure and diagnosis of a tumor can be decades, the total number of tumors induced in children may not be diagnosed until well into adulthood.

The authors explain that current exposure limits are based on the erroneous assumption that tissue damage from overheating is the only potential danger of wireless devices. However, extensive scientific reports document the non-thermal biological effects from chronic (long-term) exposures. Although government warnings have been issued worldwide, most of the public is unaware of such warnings.

Pediatric neurologist Dr. Maya Shetreat-Klein stated, “Pregnant women deserve to know that wireless radiation can have an impact on the developing brain. We're seeing alarming increases in the number of children diagnosed with neurological disorders over the past decade, and anything we can do that might help reduce that rate should be taken very seriously." during her remarks while launching the Baby Safe Project in New York this June.

The authors state that consumers are unaware that cellphones, tablets and laptop manuals have specific advice on recommended distances (20 cm rule for tablets/laptops and about ½ inch for cell phones) from the user in order to ensure compliance with exposure standards. Children and adults use wireless devices in ways that “violate” these recommendations, putting them at even increased risk.

The authors make specific recommendations: pregnant women should avoid wireless exposures; children should not play with wireless toys; adolescent girls and women should not place cellphones in their bras or in hijabs; and government exposure limits need to be urgently revised.

The paper’s authors include: Santosh Kesari, MD, PhD, Professor of Neurosciences at UC San Diego School of Medicine, and Director of Neuro-oncology at Moores UCSD Cancer Center; Devra Davis, PhD, MPH, cancer researcher, toxicologist, Founder and President of the Environmental Health Trust; L. Lloyd Morgan, Senior Science Fellow at the Environmental Trust.

Dr. Santosh Kesari investigates the biology of gliomas with the aim of developing new therapeutics for patients with brain tumors. He has an interest in neural development and cancer stem cells and focuses on their role in the formation of brain tumors and resistance to treatments.

About Dr. Devra Davis and Lloyd Morgan of the Environmental Health Trust:
Environmental Health Trust (EHT) educates individuals, health professionals and communities about controllable environmental health risks and policy changes needed to reduce those risks. Current multi-media projects include: local and national campaigns to ban smoking and asbestos; working with international physician and worker safety groups to warn about the risks of inappropriate use of diagnostic radiation and cell phones, promoting research and awareness of environmental causes of breast cancer, and building environmental wellness programs in Wyoming and Pennsylvania to address the environmental impacts of energy development, the built environment and radon.

Senior Science Fellow, Lloyd Morgan is an electronic engineer by training with 38 years of industrial experience and a member of international science organizations. His latest science paper “Estimating the Risk of Brain Tumors from Cellphone Use: Published Case-Control Studies” reported that the Interphone studies on the risk of brain tumor from cellphone use has a systemic-protective-skew that result in an underestimation of the risk of brain tumors. He is the lead author of the “Report, Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern”. Since 1995 Lloyd Morgan has been involved in the study of exposure to electromagnetic fields and resultant health problems.

EHT was created with the goal of promoting health and preventing disease one person, one community and one nation at a time. Capitalizing on growing public interest in Dr. Devra Lee Davis’s three popular books, When Smoke Ran Like Water, a National Book Award Finalist, The Secret History of the War on Cancer, and Disconnect--The Truth about Cell Phone Radiation, What Industry Has Done to Hide It and How to Protect Your Family. The foundation’s website offers clear, science-based information to prevent environmentally based disease and promote health, for the general public, children, and health professionals. For more information about getting involved in the numerous special projects spearheaded by the EHT, please log on to http://www.ehtrust.org
Click here to view the source article.
Source: NewsWise, 05 Aug 2014

Carcinogenicity of Cell Phone Radiation: 2B or not 2B…
Finland Created: 14 Aug 2014
In May/June 2011, 30 experts invited by the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), gathered in Lyon to discuss the scientific studies on radio-frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) and cancer.

After intense deliberations, to the great surprise of the world-at-large, experts decided to classify RF-EMF emitted by e.g. cell phones, cell towers and wi-fi networks, as a possible human carcinogen – in IARC scale “2B carcinogen”.

IARC has somewhat complicated but detailed set of rules that guide classification of carcinogenicity. The rules are in place to prevent “out of the blue sky” classifications. Protocols need to be followed and requirements fulfilled before carcinogen is classified.

Once the evidence from human studies is determined to be limited, and the same limited evidence is assigned to the evidence from experimental animal studies, classification of RF was automatically set as 2B possible carcinogen (for details see Preamble of IARC Monograph 102).

There are three possible scenarios that could change classification from 2B possible carcinogen to a higher group of carcinogenicity....

*SNIP* read the entire article via the source link below... (a recommended read!!)
Click here to view the source article.
Source: BRHP blog, Prof. Dariusz Leszczynski, 14 Aug 2014

Children Face the Highest Health Risk From Cell Phones
USA Created: 14 Aug 2014
The potential harm from microwave radiation (MWR) emitted by wireless devices, particularly for children and unborn babies, is the highlight of a new review.

Although the data are conflicting, associations between MWR and cancer have been observed.

The review, by L. Lloyd Morgan, senior science fellow at Environmental Health Trust, and colleagues, was published online July 15 in the Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure.

The authors reviewed the current literature showing that children face a higher health risk than adults. They evaluated peer-reviewed cell phone exposure epidemiology from 2009 to 2014, along with cell phone dosimetry data, government documents, manufacturers’ manuals, and similar publications.

Children and unborn babies face the highest risk for neurologic and biologic damage that results from MWR emitted by wireless devices, according to Morgan and colleagues.

The rate of absorption is higher in children than adults because their brain tissues are more absorbent, their skulls are thinner, and their relative size is smaller. The fetus is particularly vulnerable because MWR exposure can result in degeneration of the protective myelin sheath that surrounds brain neurons, they report.

Multiple studies have shown that children absorb more MWR than adults. One found that that the brain tissue of children absorbed about 2 times more MWR than that of adults (Phys Med Biol. 2008;53:3681-3695), and other studies have reported that the bone marrow of children absorbs 10 times more MWR than that of adults.

“Belgium, France, India, and other technologically sophisticated governments are passing laws and/or issuing warnings about children’s use of wireless device,” they write.

They note that MWR exposure limits have remained unchanged for 19 years, and that smartphone manufacturers specify the minimum distance from the body that their products must be kept so that legal limits for exposure to MWR are not exceeded. For laptop computers and tablets, the minimum distance from the body is 20 cm.

The authors explain that current exposure limits were established based on the erroneous assumption that tissue damage from overheating is the only potential danger of wireless devices.

However, extensive scientific reports have documented nonthermal biologic effects from chronic (long-term) exposure. Although government warnings have been issued worldwide, most of the public is unaware of such warnings, they write.

Raising “Appropriate Concerns”

The review authors “continue to raise appropriate concerns related to the ever-increasing role of technologies that emit nonionizing radiation, including cell phones and certain toys,” said L. Dade Lunsford, MD, Lars Leksell Professor of Neurological Surgery at the University of Pittsburgh, who was not involved in the study.

“They indicate that certain types of tumors, at least as reported, may have increased in incidence, including the most malignant brain tumors and perhaps hearing nerve tumors,” he told Medscape Medical News. However, he pointed out that there are issues with some of the data, and that many of the reports are anecdotal.

“Among the concerns with such public health data are the inability to determine if there is one or many environmental factors — cell phones are not the only concerns — that are related, or whether the perceived increase is simply better recognition at earlier stages based on the availability of MRI, as well as better reporting,” Dr. Lunsford explained.

“Perhaps it is enough to simply raise the alarm in the hope of liberating either government or industry-sponsored appropriately designed investigational research,” he noted.

“Regardless, it seems unlikely that the use of cell phones will diminish; cell phones have saved more lives than will ever be lost,” Dr. Lunsford said. However, “concerns related to the greatly expanded use of digital toys in childhood clearly warrant better science and, for the time being, appropriate vigilance.”

“Digital Dementia” Reported in Schoolchildren

The review points out the danger of childhood and fetal exposure to MWR, and the reasons the exposure is more pronounced in children than in adults, Morgan told Medscape Medical News.

“There are toys being sold to infants and toddlers that are dangerous,” Morgan said. “The risk from exposure to any carcinogen is higher in children, and the younger the child, the higher the risk. The risk to adults from exposure to any carcinogen, to a first approximation, does not vary with age.”

He explained that a problem known as “digital dementia” has been reported in school-aged children. The term was coined by German neuroscientist Manfred Spitzer in his 2012 book of the same name, and is used to describe how the overuse of digital technology is leading to a breakdown in cognitive abilities. It is sometimes also referred to as FOMO — fear of missing out — which is considered a form of social anxiety and is a compulsive concern about missing an opportunity for social interaction.

Take-Home Messages About Safe Use

As a take-home message for physicians and other healthcare practitioners, Morgan emphasized that wireless telecommunication devices need to be used in a safe manner. These devices are now part of everyday life, “but they can be used in a manner that is safe enough,” he said. “Cars are not safe, for example, but they are safe enough. The essential problem is the vast majority of the public has no knowledge of their hazards.”

Morgan and his colleagues have made some recommendations.

The first is that “distance is your friend.” The intensity of radiation decreases as the square of the distance from the source increases (the inverse-square law). He explained that holding a cell phone 15 cm from your ear “provides a 10,000-fold reduction in risk.”

Unless a cell phone is turned off, it is always radiating. When not in use, it should not be kept on the body. The best place for a cell phone is somewhere like a purse, bag, or backpack.

Devices should be kept away from a pregnant woman’s abdomen, and a mother should not use a cell phone while nursing, Morgan noted. “And baby monitors should not be placed in an infant’s crib.”

Children and adolescents need to know how to use these devices safely. Cell phones should not be allowed in a child’s bedroom at night, he continued. “The Pew Research Center has reported that 75% of preteens and early teens sleep all night with their cell phone under their pillow.”

Because the risk is cumulative, and more radiation is absorbed with more hours of use, children should be taught to minimize their wireless phone use, Morgan explained. Landlines, Skype, and computer phone services (when connected to the Internet with a cable) do not emit radiation and their use should be encouraged.

Finally, Wi-Fi routers in the home should be placed away from where people, particularly children, spend the most time. “Boys should not keep a cell phone in their front pants pockets,” he said. There is a potential harm to sperm, although no prepuberty studies of young boys have assessed whether early exposure to MWR has any effect on sperm after puberty, he acknowledged.

“And girls should not place their cell phone in their bras,” he added. This recommendation was based on a case study of 4 young women with a history of putting cell phones in their bras and who developed breast cancer — 2 at the age of 21 years (Case Rep Med. 2013;2013:354682).

The authors note that some studies have shown an increased risk for brain cancer with cell phone use, although some of these data have been disputed. In recent years, glioblastoma rates have increased in Denmark and the United States, and brain cancer incidence has increased in Australia, according to data drawn from cancer registries. The average time between exposure to a carcinogen and the diagnosis of a resultant solid tumor is 3 or more decades, so it will likely be several decades before tumors induced by childhood MWR exposure are diagnosed, they note.

Commenting to Medscape Medical News, Dr. Lunsford pointed out that much of the data are anecdotal and do not fit the hypothesis of a long latency interval between exposure and tumor development. For one of the 21-year-old women who developed breast cancer, cell phone exposure was only 6 years. “Unfortunately, we know neither the denominator nor the numerator of these index cases. Usage data are a closely guarded secret of phone service providers and a patient’s own recall of exposure may or may not be correct due to recall bias,” he noted.

In addition, the mechanism of oncogenesis is poorly understood and seems to conflict with the understanding that rapidly dividing cell lines, such as those in the skin, are the most susceptible to neoplastic transformation. However, there appear to be no reports of increased risk for local melanomas, basal cell cancers, or squamous cell cancers, which are the ones that would be expected to develop, Dr. Lunsford said.

Conflicting Data From Previous Studies

The potential health risks related to cell phone use, especially brain tumors, have remained a hot-button issue. Studies have been inconsistent and results have been conflicting. Currently, there is no consensus about the degree of cancer risk posed by cell phone use, if any at all.

A recent French study, for example, found that the heaviest users face a higher-than-average risk for gliomas and meningiomas (Occup Environ Med. 2014;71:514-522). There was no association between brain tumors and regular cell phone use, but the association was significant for those with heavy life-long cumulative use.

The first study to specifically assess the health impact of cell phone use on children and adolescents, conducted in Europe, found no association with risk for brain cancer, as reported by Medscape Medical News in 2011.

However, the debate was reignited the same year when the World Health Organization classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (group 2B) on the basis of the increased risk for glioma that some studies have associated with the use of cell phones.

Also in 2011, a nationwide Danish extension study found no evidence of an overall increase in brain tumors or any cancers over an 18-year period. The original Danish study compared cancer risk for all 420,095 Danish cell phone subscribers with that for nonusers from 1982 to 1995, with follow-up to 1996. The update extended follow-up to 2007.

When analyzed by morphologic subtype of intracranial central nervous system tumor, there was a slight but nonsignificant increase in the incidence rate ratio for glioma in men (1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.96 to 1.22). The ratio was highest in the shortest-term users (1 to 4 years).

However, the results of extension study were met with a fierce rebuttal from group of international experts, who joined together and posted their response on ElectromagneticHealth.org, a health education and advocacy group based in the United States.

J Microsc Ultrastruct. Published online July 15, 2014. Abstract


Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
Director, Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley
Center: http://cfch.berkeley.edu

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

Website: http://www.saferemr.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/SaferEMR
News Releases: http://pressroom.prlog.org/jmm716/
Twitter: @berkeleyprc
Click here to view the source article.
Source: EMFacts blog, via Medscape Medical News / Roxanne Nelson, 13 Aug 2014

No grandchildren for you
Saudi Arabia Created: 13 Aug 2014
More than any other adverse health effect from exposure to microwave radiation, such as that given off by wireless devices, damage to sperm is the most documented.

It might be hard to imagine, but from the 1930s until the 1970s, the shoe fitting fluoroscope was used in shoe stores throughout the United States and Europe to visualize how a child’s feet fit inside a new pair of shoes. The fluoroscope was marketed as a “revolutionary” aid in the purchase of children’s shoes - even though it wasn’t. It did result in skin burns and the stunting of bone and cartilage growth. These health concerns eventually caused the shoe fitting fluoroscope to fall out of favor. Unfortunately, that was too late for all the children and shoe salesmen who had incurred unnecessary radiation exposure due to the device’s use.

The situation with the shoe fitting fluoroscope came to mind after reviewing an article that examined the current trend in exposing children and unborn babies to microwave radiation (MWR) from smartphones and tablet computers. “Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences,” by L. Lloyd Morgan, Santosh Kesari and Devra Lee Davis was published in the Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure, with Open Access funded by King Abdulaziz University’s Saudi Society of Microscopes.

The article is not scaremongering and relies on a compilation of the facts from multiple research studies worldwide. The article abstract is clear: “Computer simulation using MRI scans of children is the only possible way to determine the microwave radiation (MWR) absorbed in specific tissues in children. Children absorb more MWR than adults because their brain tissues are more absorbent, their skulls are thinner and their relative size is smaller. MWR from wireless devices has been declared a possible human carcinogen. Children are at greater risk than adults when exposed to any carcinogen. Because the average latency time between first exposure and diagnosis of a tumor can be decades, tumors induced in children may not be diagnosed until well into adulthood. The fetus is particularly vulnerable to MWR. MWR exposure can result in degeneration of the protective myelin sheath that surrounds brain neurons. MWR-emitting toys are being sold for use by young infants and toddlers. Digital dementia has been reported in school age children. A case study has shown when cellphones are placed in teenage girls’ bras multiple primary breast cancers develop beneath where the phones are placed. MWR exposure limits have remained unchanged for 19 years. All manufacturers of smartphones have warnings which describe the minimum distance at which the phone must be kept away from users in order to not exceed the present legal limits for exposure to MWR. The exposure limit for laptop computers and tablets is set when devices are tested 20 cm away from the body. Belgium, France, India and other technologically sophisticated governments are passing laws and/or issuing warnings about children’s use of wireless devices.”

The article describes how MWR exposure is calculated and that the decades old exposure limits are based on “an assumption that the only biological effect from MWR exposure is acute (short-term) heating sufficient to cause tissue damage. There is no consideration of the effects from chronic (long-term) exposures. There are many scientific papers that report biological impacts tied with non-thermal (no measurable temperature change) effects.”

The article points out that including MWR, there are 285 agents listed by WHO’s IARC as Class 2B carcinogens. Exposures to almost all of these agents are regulated. Some of the commonly recognized agents are: carbon black, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, DDT, lead, nickel, phenobarbital, styrene, diesel fuel, and gasoline. How many children come into direct contact with any of these? The article advised that “average time between exposure to a carcinogen and the diagnosis of a resultant solid tumor is three or more decades.” Give your child a smartphone now with the added gift of cancer as a young adult.

The article details research on the topic of MWR globally. While many studies have focused on MWR and cancer, the article advises that “more than any other adverse health effect from exposure to MWR, damage to sperm is the most documented including in vitro, in vivo and human epidemiological studies.” Let your child play with a tablet computer now and possibly compromise future fertility. You might want to keep your smartphone away from your midsection as well.

The article concludes by commenting that while the warnings against children’s use of microwave radiating devices (MWR) have been issued, the public is generally unaware of the risks. Wireless device manufacturers understand the risks and have published warnings in their product manuals as protection in case of future legal action. Nevertheless, the manufacturers stand by watching as other companies create products that result in smartphones and tablets being marketed as children’s learning and entertainment devices.

“Wireless devices are radio transmitters, not toys. Selling toys that use them should be banned,” states the authors. “Exposure limits are inadequate and should be revised such that they are adequate.”

Just because something is a new technology doesn’t mean its use is best for our children.

Please read the article in its entirety at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213879X14000583
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Saudi Gazette, Molouk Y. Ba-Isa, 12 Aug 2014

Please take a few minutes to watch this new trailer about Cellphone´s/Cancer
Canada Created: 13 Aug 2014
A new film from Kevin Kunze.

Trailer link here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwmW_urthR4&feature=youtu.be&a

Click here to view the source article.
Source: Agnes Ingvarsdottir/Robert Riedlinger

Looking for EHS sufferers for research documentary & webplatform
Scotland Created: 12 Aug 2014
Hello all,

My name is Gemma Barendse and I work as a research assistant for filmmaker Marie Lidén in Glasgow.

We're working on a documentary and a webplatform about electrosensitivity. We would like to get in contact with people who are electrosensitive and would like to share their experiences. We're also interested in hearing from journalists, activists and researchers.

If this is something you'd be interested in, please contact me at gemmabarendse {-at-} gmail.com
(note: substitute {-at-} with @ )

All the best and thank you,

See also this forum thread:
Go to Forum topic »
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Gemma Barendse, 11 Aug 2014

«First  ‹Previous   Page 2 of 543   Next›  Last»