News for Israel

 Page 1 of 13   Next›  Last» 

The 5G dilemma for Israeli Environment Minister
Israel Created: 4 Apr 2022
The planned new broadband cellular standard is one of the least green technologies around and amounts to a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.

It has been a while since I last felt the need to add to my blog. The reasons have been many. University life always gets a little hectic once the semester opens. It is “grant season” that moment of the year when we academics must write application after application to various funding agencies in the hope that some of them may see fit to give us some money to keep our labs going. Academic freedom gives way to academic begging at this time of year. So I had many reasons not to write a blog post.

But Tamar Zandberg (Israeli Environment Minister, ed.) and COP26 raised me from my sloth. What a meeting it was! Grand declarations on how we will be zero emissions by 2050. Grander talk of how we can reduce plastic waste. Positively waxing lyrical on renewables! All in all a brighter and better future.

Which is why it is a shame that another of her fellow ministers, Yoaz Hendel, is about to preside over the introduction of the most ungreen of technologies ever. Namely, the rollout of 5G. Even more ironic is that after this monster of a technology is in place, it is Zandberg’s ministry that is responsible for overseeing it! Simply put, 5G, the new generation of cellphone technology, is an unparalleled energy hog that will push up the national electricity requirements by at least 10 percent. That’s a lot of carbon emissions to overcome. About 0.6 tones per person annually or about 5.3 million tones annually, given our current population.

I have written about the energy requirements of 5G before (see my blog) but I think the time is right to rub a politician’s nose in it. It is very easy to talk the talk when it comes to the environment. Much harder to walk the walk. So, Tamar, are you going to sit down and have a chat with Yoaz about this ungodly mess he is going to get you into? Probably not.

I am not the only one sounding the bell. In an eye-opening article by Sally Beare in the magazine Envirotec the same arguments are lain out, including statements by industry itself. For instance, this telling quote from a Huawei analyst: “…Once base stations, data centres and devices are added up, telecommunications could consume over 20% of the world’s electricity by 2025, says Huawei analyst Dr Anders Andrae (compared to approximately 11% currently). Compare that with global aviation’s 2.5% share of GHGs: In a worst-case scenario, 5G could create almost ten times that by 2030.”

I doubt that Zandberg is aware of this. What is for sure is that Yoaz isn’t. He may be politically savvy, but I imagine he is a novice when it comes to the nitty gritty of the communications world. He probably thinks that 5G is just what we need to give us the edge. Most likely because that is what his advisers have told him. But then industry tells you what it wants you to hear… Not all industry, sometimes the truth just slips out unintended, as Sally noted, “5G’s benefits have been exaggerated, according to Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei. ‘Human societies do not have an urgent need for 5G,’ he says. ‘What people need now is broadband, and the main content of 5G is not broadband.’”

What we actually need is fiber optic cables to every house for top line broadband (something that actually is being done today) and a better 4G system. 5G is just a tekkie’s wet dream. A solution for a problem that doesn’t exist.

Let’s get to the bone of the matter. 5G is supposed to grant us unparalleled data transmission on our phones and wireless devices. To do so it is going to implement two major changes. First, it will move to higher frequencies than those used for 4G. The current frequencies of transmission are around 700 MHz to 1.9 GHz. Ultimately 5G will work at around 27 to 29 GHz. Without getting too technical this means many more channels of data.

Second, new antenna technology will allow transmissions to be over directed beams from the base station to the user. This means that two people standing next to each other could use the same data channel concurrently, meaning more density of data. However, there is a downside. At those frequencies, signals do not travel so far. They are readily absorbed by the atmosphere, so the estimated range of these new antennas is up to 100 meters, compared to the km range of the current 4G. So that means densification. Many more antennas than at present, over 10 times more. In order to direct the beams to the user (this is the meaning of “MIMO” that appears in 5G blurbs, Multiple Input Multiple Output) you need a lot more power. In fact 3 times more power. As I mentioned in my original blog a typical 5G base station requires input power of 18 kW compared to 6 kW for 4G or the equivalent of the average power of 73 households. We have one example of a fully-fledged working 5G system and that is in China. The power requirements are frightful and this was confirmed by reports that the Chinese close down the network at night to save electricity.

And now for the punchline you never noticed. One imagines that people are going to object when 1000s of base stations are placed all around their towns. They will turn to their councils and their mayors demand to know how these monstrosities got planning permission?! What they will discover is that tucked into the Enabling law of the budget that was just passed is a clause placed there by the Ministry of Communications. That clause (more like a chapter) is a change to the building laws exempting the placement of small cell antennas that have a transmit power up to 6W from building permission. As long as the operator can show that they meet the Ministry regulations they can be placed where the operator wants and you cannot argue against it! Small cell antennas are the ones to serve 5G.

So Tamar, how green are you?

About the Author:
Originally from the UK, I made Aliyah 36 years ago. I am an Academic Staff member of the Physics Department of Ariel University, married with 3 children. I have authored of 80 publications in various fields of Physics and Chemistry. One of the subjects I specialize in is the interaction of Human skin and high frequency radio waves. I am also a scientific advisor for the Environmental Health Trust (
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Times of Israel blogs, Paul Ben Ishai, 20 Nov 2021

The day Don Quixote found his mark
Israel Created: 2 Mar 2021
Challenging powerful regulatory agencies is often like Don Quixote tilting at windmills. A futile attack on an immovable monolith. But sometimes, not often I’ll grant you, the lance finds its mark and the monolith teeters a little. Something like this happened recently in Washington D.C. and it is likely to have ramifications around the world.

On the 25th of January, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) stood up (figuratively) in the D.C. Circuit of Appeals and blithely claimed that the safety standards governing the exposure of the public to electromagnetic radiation originating from cellphones and wireless were good. The court did not buy it.

The petition, lead by the Environmental Health Trust, an NGO devoted to the collation and dissemination of scientific evidence on our impact on the environment and health with a particular emphasis on Electromagnetic radiation, challenged the right of the FCC to set into regulation the current radiation exposure limits for frequencies of 5G and above. The petition also demanded that the current limits also be reassessed.

The current very generous limits were first set in 1996 (In another post I will lay out the surprising history of exposure standards) and have been constantly challenged in the scientific literature. They now apply to devices that did not even exist back then. Worse still, there is now a solid bank of scientific evidence that cellphone radiation at the levels allowed, does indeed have a negative impact on our health. However, rather than challenge the industry and make them work at biologically acceptable levels, the FCC dismisses the evidence and coddles up to the industry. And they have now been called out on that.

I must be honest here and state that I am on the scientific advisory board of the Environmental Health Trust, a position I take most seriously.

Although the court has not handed down its decision yet, it is clear where the wind is blowing. An excellent Co-ed piece by Dr. Devra Davis in the Washington Post sums it up perfectly :

“In reviewing our case, Environmental Health Trust et al v. FCC, the court asked the agency to show what expert advice it had relied on to dismiss the NTP study and thousands of pages of peer-reviewed science. The FCC had invoked the Interagency Radiofrequency Radiation Work Group, but could provide no evidence that this loosely affiliated, unfunded informal federal Work Group has either met or offered the FCC any advice in the past two years.”

The study she is referring to is by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), an independent body of the American National Institute of Health, charged specifically with the identification and investigation of toxigenic materials and elements. It is probably the most eminent authority in the world for this kind of research. Succinctly put, the FCC commissioned the FDA who commissioned the NTP. The study was extensive and expensive. They took two populations of rats and mice, isolated them from all radio signals and let them live their lives, eat, breed and sleep. One of the populations was exposed for 10 minutes a day to cell phone transmissions like GSM and LTE at levels similar to those allowed by those same FCC rules. Now the unpleasant bit. At the end of 2 years, the populations were culled. In the animals exposed to the radiation, they found clear evidence of DNA damage and cancer. Anything that causes cancer in rats and mice causes cancer in us. That’s why we use them in animal studies. Now I have read those reports with the eye of a scientist and they convinced me. The experiments were excellent and professionally done. So much so that 2 sets of reviews by independent experts could find no faults. Yet the FCC and the FDA rejected them out of hand.

It goes on:

“The court then asked specifically whether the FDA had sought advice from its own Technical Electronic Product Radiation Safety Standards Committee, The FCC was forced to concede that that technical advisory committee has not met since 2016, is next scheduled to meet in fiscal 2021, and has never considered cellphone safety. In fact, that committee chiefly focuses on ensuring that electronic products do not interfere with each other. So you can be pretty sure that your phone will not block your tablet from working, but you have no idea whether either of them might interfere with your heart or cause damage to your DNA.”

In other words, not only did the FCC ignore the scientific evidence to the contrary, including its own, but failed totally to use any advice at all. Yet that didn’t stop it from making a regulation that is so important. It is important. Because without the regulation by the FCC to maintain current dangerous exposure standards for high frequencies, the 5G rollout in the States is virtually illegal. Big money involved here, in the range of trillions of dollars and that is now in danger if the court follows its earlier direction and punishes the FCC for its failure. As the court then pointedly noted,

“The judge noted that agencies get a lot of discretion: “You get a long leash. But, at some point that leash goes too far and becomes unreasonable without a little bit of followup by the FCC — to make… to verify… just to pin down that the information is responsive.”

It doesn’t look good for the FCC.

You can read the full transcript here:

What happens in the States has a direct impact on what happens in Europe and here. Already there are a number of European states who have effectively stopped the rollout of 5G pending a comprehensive health assessment. For instance, in Switzerland. The special advisory expert group BERENIS to the Swiss Environmental agency has just issued a report that states that Electromagnetic radiation from cellphones leads to reactive oxidation species in the blood leading to oxidative stress. And this has been linked to illness and to cancers. The ruling of this court case will only accelerate this.

And, who knows? Maybe the monolith will fall and Don Quixote will be triumphant……
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Times of Israel / blogs, Paul Ben Ishai, 26 Feb 2021

The 5G Morass – tales and tattles or reasons for concern?
Israel Created: 31 Jan 2021
Last week someone sent me a WhatsApp link to an article by Avior Abu in the Calcalist - Quietly, under the cover of our political chaos, an interdepartmental committee is trying to overthrow the right of a municipality to decide where a cell phone antenna will be erected in its jurisdiction. Their reasons being that while we want our cellphone, we don’t want to see their base stations or antennas in our backyard, even as we complain about poor coverage and slow data speeds. In this age of Corona, improved coverage sounds a good thing …. or is it? Will such a power be abused at industry’s whim? During the early 2000 the cellphone companies in Israel routinely exploited a loophole in the law to place cellphone antennas inside apartments. It took a Knesset law to stop that and so one cannot rely on industry playing fair. It is a pertinent question because in the next few years industry is promising us a 5G revolution. And this revolution will demand a massive deployment of antenna infrastructure. And that sort of power is easily abused. All in the name of “progress” so that nothing will stop the deployment of 5G networks here is Israel.

And why the need for such a drastic step to be taken by this committee? Because there is already public opposition to 5G cellular networks and it is increasing difficult to receive municipal planning permission for cellphone towers. The reasons for public concern range from the frankly ridiculous conspiracy theories to a genuine worry about the effect of cellphone radiation on our health.

So, should we be worried about this? Well frankly yes. There are some very real health concerns linked to our love of cellphones and they are being roundly ignored in the mad dash for a Brave New Cellular World.

I am a physicist who specializes in the interaction of matter with radio waves and I have been in this field for more than 20 years. In particular I have studied the interaction of biological systems from cells up to tissues with radio waves and that puts me in a unique position to pick apart the consequences of our love of cellphone communication. I have also come to realize that this story is not just one of pure science, but also one of technological arrogance, economics and social science. I write like a scientist, so there are references at the end of this missive for anyone who wants to know more.

The mobile and cellular industry is full of the promise of a Brave New 5G World, where wireless serves man and machines talk to each other for our comfort. While is technological utopia makes for slick marketing, few question if it is really a boon to the public or a financial boon to the industry. The are some topics that need to be assessed in the cold light of fact, rather than marketing hype:

Does 5G answer the Public need?
Is 5G “Green”, i.e. Environmentally sound?
Is 5G safe for the Public health?

Does 5G answer the Public need?

We, as a public, will all eventually transfer to 5G networks because we will not be given a choice if we want to stay relevant. Yet nobody seems to ask if this is what we want or need? As a public we are being treated as infantile by an industry that is dictating to us what we “want”. A simple internet search looking for information on 5G or cellphones for that matter, reveals very fast that the top search results come from industry sources that lecture to the consumer on the benefits only. However, the insurance and business intelligence websites are more phlegmatic:

A Price Waterhouse consumer report in 2018 [1] found that the average American household wants better connectivity in the home and didn’t find that 5G is an immediate need. Two thirds of the respondents were not willing to pay extra for 5G coverage and, for the consumer, coverage was the key: something more easily obtainable by 4G LTE expansion.
A Global Web Index survey [2] in 2020 found that reliability and speed are of most concern to the consumer and so -at least for now – household broadband is the better option. It also found that consumers are greatly concerned at the increase in price of cellphones for compatibility with 5G, with price hikes of up to 40%. The implementation of 5G networks will cost over $1.3 trillion in the States alone over the next 7 years.
The magazine ‘Politico’ conducted a similar survey [3] and here too, the consumer is concerned with connectivity rather than the promise of IoT (Internet of Things) applications.

So does 5G deliver the 100x download speeds it promotes?

According to the Washington Post [4], 5G is still painfully slow, despite the hype. Slower than 4G networks….
In a technical report submitted in 2017 by the NTCA to the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) [5] , the American regulator, the reality of wireless was put in stark light. It can never compete with broadband wired access. The complexity of a 5G MIMO wireless cell design is such that it will be resource intensive for only a fractional improvement. The boasts of 100x faster downloads are a myth. Moreover, its infrastructure depreciation and densification point to it being a labour intensive and very expensive network to maintain.
Forbes found that real world 5G speed in the US are far lower than expected [6].
The Chinese experience is showing that the real world 5G networks are not living up to their promise [7]
An assessment in the Netherlands of 5G performance compared to LTE networks found only a 40% increase in performance [8]
5G networks are easily disrupted by user position, rainfall and topology. [5,6,8]

Despite industry claims, it is clear that 5G does not deliver and in many areas it make no economic sense. Enhanced broadband and a continual evolution of 4G LTE cells would most likely serve the public better.
Is 5G “Green”, i.e. Environmentally sound?

At the moment the only fully operational 5G is in China and they are not happy.

The Chinese experience with 5G densification and energy cost is not positive. The Chinese finance minister, Lou Jiwei, has expressed public concerns. 5G base stations in Luoyang province have be switched off at night to save money [7,9]. In 2020 there were significant increases in energy costs with an increase of 13% for China’s mobile utilities [9]. Estimates for the increases in power consumption range from a two to three fold increase to nine times increases [9,10]. Coupled to the expected densification of the infrastructure, linked to the relatively small cell size for 5G compared to 4G [5] , it is clear that 5G in not a green technology. Its increased energy consumption will lead to increased emissions and a clear environmental impact.

There are very real concerns for the effect of 5G on wildlife and tree life [11–13], especially bees [14,15]. Simulation and real measurement show that the dimensions of these important insects coupled with the wavelength of the radio waves used by 5G will lead to heightened absorption in the insect body. The result of this will be to raise their body temperatures to a point where their vitality will be compromised. The resulting impact on agriculture cannot be underestimated. Yet it is not a concern for the FCC or industry. This represents an example of how blithely our environmental is viewed by industry. With the backing of the regulator, they dismiss any impact as “not their problem”.
Is 5G safe for the public health?

There is a premise underlying the regulation that governs the level of exposure of the public to electromagnetic radiation emanating from wireless, cellphones and their infrastructure. It is based on a belief that there are only thermal effects to consider, i.e. local and minor heating of the flesh. I choose the word ‘belief’ with care. A belief can ignore the facts that might negate it. The regulations governing the level of exposure to low intensity RF radiation (300 Hz – 3 GHz and soon to be extended to 3 THz [16,17]) are derived from the recommendations of the the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) [18], first established in 1996 and virtually unchanged since. This opinion was adopted as regulation by the FCC in America in 1997 [19] then accepted by the rest of the world. However, a growing body of research negates this premise and demonstrates long term impacts on public health arise from exposure. Industry and regulation, including the FCC, prefer the “belief”.

According to the industry and private sector supported extensive database of relevant literature, provided by the EMF-Portal [20], there is currently an inventory of 31,195 publications and 6,724 summaries of individual scientific studies on the effects of electromagnetic fields. A recent research review on the health risks of Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR), involving independent verification based on 5,400 studies in the MedLine database, concludes that “the literature shows there is much valid reason for concern about potential adverse health effects from both 4G and 5G technology” and that extant research “should be viewed as extremely conservative, substantially underestimating the adverse impacts of this new technology” [21].

Not the rosy picture we are being painted by the Cellphone Industry or the Ministry of Communications……


1.PricewaterhouseCoopers. Consumer Intelligence Series: The promise of 5G: Consumers are intrigued, but will they pay? PwC

2.Hype aside, what do people actually think about 5G? GWI (2020).

3.The 5G World: What People Care About. POLITICO

4.Fowler, G. A. Review | The 5G lie: The network of the future is still slow. Washington Post.

5. 02.13.17 NTCA Submits 2017 Technical Paper, WC 10-90. NTCA – The Rural Broadband Association

6.O’Donnell, B. Real-World 5G Speeds Are Slower Than Expected. Forbes

7.Chinese 5G Not Living Up to Its Hype | Voice of America – English.

8.Oughton, E., Frias, Z., van der Gaast, S. & Berg, R. Assessing the capacity, coverage and cost of 5G infrastructure strategies: Analysis of The Netherlands. Telematics and Informatics (2019) doi:10.1016/j.tele.2019.01.003.

9.Clark 11/3/2020, N. A. R. China aims to drive down 5G power cost. Light Reading

10.DayDayNews. At this stage 5G technology is immature and high operating costs. (2020).

11.Balmori, A. Electromagnetic pollution from phone masts. Effects on wildlife. Pathophysiology 16, 191–199 (2009).

12.Waldmann-Selsam, C., Balmori-de la Puente, A., Breunig, H. & Balmori, A. Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations. Sci. Total Environ. 572, 554–569 (2016).

13.Iyyanki, M., Jayanthi, P., Singh, D., Tumula, S. & Megham, P. Poisson and Logistics Regression Analysis on Electromagnetic Field Radiation: A Case of Environmental Pollution. in 1250–1255 (2020). doi:10.1109/ICCSP48568.2020.9182393.

14. Thielens, A. et al. Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz. Scientific Reports 8, 3924 (2018).

15.Thielens, A., Greco, M. K., Verloock, L., Martens, L. & Joseph, W. Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure of Western Honey Bees. Scientific Reports 10, 461 (2020).

16.FCC Maintains Current RF Exposure Safety Standards. Federal Communications Commission (2019).

17.Proposed Changes in the Commission’s Rules Regarding Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields; Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies. FCC-19-126A1 (2019).

18.Wireless Devices and Health Concerns. Federal Communications Commission (2011).

19.Russell, C. L. 5 G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications. Environmental Research 165, 484–495 (2018).

20.EMF-Portal | Home.

21.Kostoff, R. N., Heroux, P., Aschner, M. & Tsatsakis, A. Adverse health effects of 5G mobile networking technology under real-life conditions. Toxicology Letters 323, 35–40 (2020).
Click here to view the source article.
Source: The Times of Israel, Paul Ben Ishai, 31 Jan 2021

Children are dying because parents are on their phones
Israel Created: 13 Aug 2019
Safety experts from around the globe have issued warnings time and again that drowning is most often silent.

Smartphones make connecting and communicating with other people much easier. Whether it is social media, email or gaming, more and more people are attached to their phones at all times. However, it has recently been shown that cellphone usage by parents during their children’s swim time has resulted in an alarming number of deaths by drowning.

Last year, the German Lifeguarding Association published findings that drew a direct link between children dying in the water and parents cellphone usage at the time of death. For years, lifeguards have warned parents that using a phone while children are swimming causes the parent to lose focus on the child, and in many cases of children drowning this was one of the causes.
Safety experts from around the globe have issued warnings time and again that drowning is most often silent. There are many examples of children who drowned in packed pools without anyone noticing. Sometimes, these incidents even happen at home in an inflatable pool with just a few centimeters of water, or even in a washing bucket.

Authorities around the world are now explicitly warning people against using their smartphones whenever a child is near water, whether that be the bathtub, an inflatable pool, while washing the floor, and of course, when the family is at the beach or poolside.

Israel has had its fair share of drowning incidents in which parents were using cellphones instead of watching their children. These instances and the resulting deaths were preventable and tragic. Over the past year-and-a-half, United Hatzalah volunteers have responded to 738 drowning or near-drowning incidents with almost half of these involving children.

As a first responder, I can attest that there is no worse emergency call to respond to than the preventable death of a young child. Nothing is worse than that. Those are the calls that leave even the toughest first responders with nightmares.

Once a person begins to drown, it is incredibly difficult to save them. Even if they are revived, there is often serious brain damage due to prolonged lack of oxygen. This is often more severe in children than in adults. It is incredibly difficult to turn back the clock once a child begins to drown. Therefore, as the founder and president of an emergency first response organization, I urge everyone to shut off their phones when taking children to a pool, beach, or even while playing in an inflatable pool on the balcony. The risks far outweigh the momentary indulgence of using one’s phone.

In a recent interview with the Walla news site, Prof. Yehezkel Weisman, who heads the emergency room at Schneider’s Children’s Hospital, said, “The best treatment for a drowning victim is prevention.”

Water is something that we all enjoy, especially in summertime. However, as much as we enjoy it, water brings with it a host of dangers, the worst of which occur when children who are not receiving the amount of supervision that they need drown. Small children need to be watched every moment when they are near water. In order to do that, parents must turn off their phones.

The writer is a social entrepreneur and the president and founder of United Hatzalah of Israel, an independent, non-profit, fully volunteer organization that provides fast and free emergency first response throughout Israel.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Jerusalem Post, ELI BEER, 03 Aug 2019

Radio frequency radiation-related cancer: assessing causation in the occupational/military setting
Israel Created: 19 Apr 2018
Highlights: The findings support a case for classifying RFR as a human carcinogen.
Carcinogenicity of radio frequency radiation (RFR) was examined.
The focus was on hemolymphatic cancers in the occupational and military settings.
Unusually high proportion of hemolymphatic cancers was found in a case series.
Similar unusually high proportions were reported in three previous cohort studies -


Background and aim

We reexamine whether radio frequency radiation (RFR) in the occupational and military settings is a human carcinogen.

We extended an analysis of an already-reported case series of patients with cancer previously exposed to whole-body prolonged RFR, mainly from communication equipment and radar. We focused on hematolymphatic (HL) cancers. We used analysis by percentage frequency (PF) of a cancer type, which is the proportion of a specific cancer type relative to the total number of cancer cases. We also examined and analyzed the published data on three other cohort studies from similar military settings from different countries.

The PF of HL cancers in the case series was very high, at 40% with only 23% expected for the series age and gender profile, confidence interval CI95%: 26–56%, p<0.01, 19 out of 47 patients had HL cancers. We also found high PF for multiple primaries. As for the three other cohort studies: In the Polish military sector, the PF of HL cancers was 36% in the exposed population as compared to 12% in the unexposed population, p<0.001. In a small group of employees exposed to RFR in Israeli defense industry, the PF of HL cancers was 60% versus 17% expected for the group age and gender profile, p<0.05. In Belgian radar battalions the HL PF was 8.3% versus 1.4% in the control battalions as shown in a causes of deaths study and HL cancer mortality rate ratio was 7.2 and statistically significant. Similar findings were reported on radio amateurs and Korean war technicians. Elevated risk ratios were previously reported in most of the above studies.

The consistent association of RFR and highly elevated HL cancer risk in the four groups spread over three countries, operating different RFR equipment types and analyzed by different research protocols, suggests a cause-effect relationship between RFR and HL cancers in military/occupational settings. While complete measurements of RFR exposures were not available and rough exposure assessments from patients interviews and from partial exposure data were used instead, we have demonstrated increased HL cancers in occupational groups with relatively high RFR exposures. Our findings, combined with other studies, indicate that exposures incurred in the military settings evaluated here significantly increased the risk of HL cancers. Accordingly, the RFR military exposures in these occupations should be substantially reduced and further efforts should be undertaken to monitor and measure those exposures and to follow cohorts exposed to RFR for cancers and other health effects. Overall, the epidemiological studies on excess risk for HL and other cancers together with brain tumors in cellphone users and experimental studies on RFR and carcinogenicity make a coherent case for a cause-effect relationship and classifying RFR exposure as a human carcinogen (IARC group 1).
Click here to view the source article.
Source: ScienceDirect, Michael Peleg / Or Nativ / Elihu D.Richter, 22 Feb 2018

Study shows a significant ongoing decline in sperm counts of Western men
Israel Created: 27 Jan 2018
In the first systematic review and meta-analysis of trends in sperm count, researchers from the Hebrew University-Hadassah Braun School of Public Health and Community Medicine and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai report a significant decline in sperm concentration and total sperm count among men from Western countries. The study [under embargo until July 25 at 1 pm EDT] is published today in Human Reproduction Update, the leading journal in the fields of Reproductive Biology and Obstetrics & Gynecology.

By screening 7,500 studies and conducting a meta-regression analysis on 185 studies between 1973 and 2011, the researchers found a 52.4 percent decline in sperm concentration, and a 59.3 percent decline in total sperm count, among men from North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand who were not selected based on their fertility status. In contrast, no significant decline was seen in South America, Asia and Africa, where far fewer studies have been conducted.

The study also indicates the rate of decline among Western men is not decreasing: the slope was steep and significant even when analysis was restricted to studies with sample collection between 1996 and 2011.

The research was led by Dr. Hagai Levine, Head of the Environmental Health Track at the Hebrew University-Hadassah Braun School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Jerusalem, with Dr. Shanna H Swan, Professor in the Department of Environmental Medicine and Public Health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and an international team of researchers from Brazil, Denmark, Israel, Spain and the United States.

While declines in sperm count have been reported since 1992, the question has remained controversial because of limitations in past studies. However, the current study uses a broader scope and rigorous meta-regression methods, conservatively addresses the reliability of study estimates, and controls for factors that might help explain the decline such as age, abstinence time, and selection of the study population.

"Given the importance of sperm counts for male fertility and human health, this study is an urgent wake-up call for researchers and health authorities around the world to investigate the causes of the sharp ongoing drop in sperm count, with the goal of prevention," said Dr. Hagai Levine, the lead author and Head of the Environmental Health Track at the Hebrew University-Hadassah Braun School of Public Health and Community Medicine, in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem's Faculty of Medicine.

The findings have important public health implications. First, these data demonstrate that the proportion of men with sperm counts below the threshold for subfertility or infertility is increasing. Moreover, given the findings from recent studies that reduced sperm count is related to increased morbidity and mortality, the ongoing decline points to serious risks to male fertility and health.

"Decreasing sperm count has been of great concern since it was first reported twenty-five years ago. This definitive study shows, for the first time, that this decline is strong and continuing. The fact that the decline is seen in Western countries strongly suggests that chemicals in commerce are playing a causal role in this trend," Dr. Shanna H Swan, a professor in the Department of Environmental Medicine and Public Health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

While the current study did not examine causes of the observed declines, sperm count has previously been plausibly associated with environmental and lifestyle influences, including prenatal chemical exposure, adult pesticide exposure, smoking, stress and obesity. Therefore, sperm count may sensitively reflect the impact of the modern environment on male health across the lifespan and serve as a "canary in the coal mine" signaling broader risks to male health.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Medicalxpress, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 25 Jul 2017

Quiz: How well do you know the WHO RF/EMF health evaluation core group?
Israel Created: 12 Oct 2017
Test yourself with these 5 Q&A...

1) Who of the WHO RF core group called "the shrill cry" to end epidemiological studies of breast cancer risks from power-frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF EMFs)?

2) Who of the core group declared to SCENIHR on research funded by Telecom Italia and CTIA?

3) Who of the assisting experts included in CEFALO study a very long questionnaire, including questions about contact with sheep, goats, reptiles and snakes, 38 questions about exposure to cigarette smoke. Then replied to an investigative Swedish journalist, that investigating more than the 3 first years use of cordless phone exposure would demand too much resources?

4) Who of the assisting experts declared to SCENIHR he has shares in the mobile British industry?

5) Who of the core group was critisized by Prof Roger Santini for leading a formal French report in 2001, that systematically critisized studies that found biological effects but never critisized negative studies? "For them, false negative does not exist only false positive", Santini wrote.

1) M. Feychting (ICNIRP main commission member)
2) M. Scarfi (former ICNIRP)
3) M. Röösli (ICNIRP main commission member)
4) Z. Sienkiewicz (ICNIRP main commission member)
5) D. Zmirou (WHO public health)
Source: Iris Atzmon, via email, 12 Oct 2017

Caution: some GPS antenna's are Active and emit RF
Israel Created: 25 Jun 2017
Few weeks back I got a new Car DVD/GPS unit for my small Fiat Panda.
I am an EHS person and the car was already tested and found to be low EMF car.
In addition I have installed RF protection film over the windows to block the RF coming from cellphone towers along the side of the road.
2 weeks ago I installed the new system in my car and was amazed that the system emitted RF radiation even after the WIFI was turned OFF and the Bluetooth was not operating.

*SNIP* read the article and watch the video via the source link below...
Click here to view the source article.
Source: NoRad4U blog, Amir Bohrenstein, 24 Jun 2017

Research Presented at International Conference Link Cell Phone Radiation To Cancer, Low Birth Weight & Sperm Damage
Israel Created: 23 Feb 2017
Scientists from 10 nations evaluated the latest peer reviewed body of evidence linking adverse health effects to wireless radiation at an expert forum that was held in late January at Hebrew University. The scientists call for policy actions to reduce exposure were recommended, such as legislation that significantly and more protectively reduces human exposure to RF, minimization of wireless in schools and public places, and national campaigns about screen time and children’s health.

Experts call for strong policy action to protect the public and especially children who are more vulnerable.

The event was organized in cooperation with the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and Environmental Health Trust (EHT). Findings included the large $25 million study by the US National Toxicology Program, and other investigations confirming cancer-promoting effects, along with substantially increased cancer risks to regular long-term cell phone users, and important new studies indicating potential human health risks of 5G communication systems, wireless in schools, and the physical and psychological effects of screen time

According to Dr. Anthony Miller— long-term advisor at the World Health Organization’s IARC, and advisor to Environmental Health Trust detailed the current epidemiological research on long-term cell phone users stated that his overall conclusions are that in terms of the 2011 IARC classification, today Radiofrequency fields should be considered probable causes of human cancer. Lecture videos are now available at the Environmental Health Trust conference website.

Evidence of Increased Malignancies and DNA Damage

Dr. Linda Birnbaum, Director of the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, prepared a presentation shared by Dr. Ron Melnick on the National Toxicology Program (NTP) study’s research findings on rats exposed to wireless radiation at levels mimicking long- term cell phone exposures. Findings include: increased highly malignant cancers of the brain; increased highly malignant cancer of the heart nerve sheath; and DNA damage in the brain. In addition to increased malignancies and DNA damage, lower litter weights were found in the wireless exposed rats of the NTP study.

“We feel obliged to call for strong actions of precaution by international regulators, above all for children and pregnant women,” stated Dr. Fiorella Belpoggi, Director of the Research Department of the Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Centre Ramazzini Institute.

At the Dr. Fiorella Belpoggi of the Italian Ramazzini Institute released new partial findings of their cell phone radiation studies, which found, like the NTP study, lower birth weight in rats prenatally exposed to cell phone radiation. The Ramazzini study radiation exposures were orders of magnitude lower density of Radiofrequency (RF) fields than the NTP study exposures and were set to mimic cell tower radiation exposure levels.

The meeting was co-chaired by Devra Davis, PhD, MPH, visiting Professor of Medicine of The Hebrew University, who provided an update on research findings that link wireless radiation to brain, liver and skin damage in prenatally exposed animals, and Professor Emeritus of Medicine, physician-researcher Charles Greenblatt, an acclaimed basic researcher and discoverer of ancient DNA.

Videos of Lectures and Presentation Slides are available at the Conference website here:
Click here to view the source article.
Source: EHTrust, 22 Feb 2017

Haifa to Shut School Wireless Networks
Israel Created: 21 Apr 2016
Are wireless networks hazardous to students’ health? The data is not clear, with studies indicating that exposure to the radio waves that allow for unwired connectivity have either no effect on people, or can be a link in the formation of numerous diseases such as cancer. Until a convincing argument on either side of the issue is presented, the Haifa Municipality is removing wireless connectivity from its schools.

The roots of the decision go back to a 2013 petition by parents in four schools who claim that such networks are harmful. The case eventually made its way to the High Court, which has postponed a final decision on the matter. But due to public pressure that has occasionally erupted into protests, the city has decided to suspend wireless connectivity for the time being.

The movement has spread from Haifa to other cities as well, and petitions have been signed by parents in dozens of cities demanding the removal of the networks. Haifa is the first city to take action on the matter.

Haifa Mayor Yona Yahav said that the city would replace the wireless network with a wired connection that will provide safer options to students.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Hamodia, Dror Halavi, 19 Apr 2016

 Page 1 of 13   Next›  Last» 
 News item: