News for USA

«First  ‹Previous   Page 174 of 174 

A Physician Petition: the Freiburger Appeal
USA Created: 13 Mar 2006
A Physician Petition: the Freiburger Appeal
Hundreds of physicians have been signing a petition that raises health concerns over mobile phone technology: base stations, mobile phones and digital cordless phones. The appeal states:
We have observed, in recent years, a dramatic rise in severe and chronic diseases among our patients, especially:
* Learning, concentration, and behavioural disorders (e.g. attention deficit disorder, ADD)
* Extreme fluctuations in blood pressure, ever harder to influence with medications
* Heart rhythm disorders
* Heart attacks and strokes among an increasingly younger population
* Brain-degenerative diseases (e.g. Alzheimer–s) and epilepsy
* Cancerous afflictions: leukaemia, brain tumours
Moreover, we have observed an ever-increasing occurrence of various disorders, often misdiagnosed in patients as psychosomatic:
* Headaches, migraines
* Chronic exhaustion
* Inner agitation
* Sleeplessness, daytime sleepiness
* Tinnitus
* Susceptibility to infection
* Nervous and connective tissue pains, for which the usual causes do not explain even the most conspicuous symptoms
The Freiburger Appeal states: "We can no longer believe this to be purely coincidence, far too often do we observe a marked concentration of particular illnesses in correspondingly HFMR-polluted areas or Too often does a long-term disease or affliction improve orapartments. disappear in a relatively short time after reduction or elimination of HFMR Too often are our observationspollution in the patient's environment. confirmed by on-site measurements of HFMR of unusual intensity. On the basis of our daily experiences, we hold the current mobile communications technology (introduced in 1992 and since then globally extensive) and cordless digital telephones (DECT standard) to be among the fundamental triggers for this fatal development. One can no longer evade these pulsed microwaves. They heighten the risk of already-present chemical/physical influences, stress the body–s immune system, and can bring the body–s still-functioning regulatory mechanisms to a halt. Pregnant women, children, adolescents, elderly and sick people are especially at risk".
For more information/source: Mast Sanity, Affiliated to the Campaign for Planning Sanity; A copy of the 'Freiburger Appeal' can be obtained from the web site.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: James B. Beal EMF Interface Consulting

A Possible Association Between Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation and Autism
USA Created: 13 Mar 2006
A Possible Association Between Fetal/neonatal Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation and the Increased Incidence of
Autism Spectrum Disorders

Recently disclosed epidemiological data indicate a dramatic increase in the incidence of autism spectrum disorders. Previously, the incidence of autism has been reported as 4-5 per 10,000 children. The most recent evidence indicates an increased incidence of about 1 per 500 children. However, the etiology of autism is yet to be determined. The recently disclosed data suggest a possible correlation between autism incidence and a previously unconsidered environmental toxin.
It is generally accepted in the scientific community that radiofrequency radiation is a biologically active substance. It is also readily acknowledged that human exposures to radiofrequency radiation have become pervasive during the past twenty years, whereas such exposures were uncommon prior to that time. It is suggested that fetal or neo-natal exposures to radiofrequency radiation may be associated with an increased incidence of autism.
Prior to the twentieth century the only sources of radiofrequency (RF) radiation were the hyper-low levels of RF energy originating from our sun and the even lower levels of extra-solar RF noise. It is in this environment of low-level RF radiation that life on earth developed and exists to this day.
During the 1940s, primarily as a result of research and development performed as a part of the war effort, industry and the military establishment were successful in bringing the state of RF energy generation to maturity. From that time onward we have witnessed a broad range of commercial RF energy product applications including,
most notably, broadcast FM radio, radar, television, public-service mobile communication transceivers, residential microwave ovens, and the portable cellular telephone.
Initially, the contribution of each radiating device was imperceptible when weighed against the background of incoming solar radiation. However, over the span of decades the number of terrestrial RF radiation sources, now counted in the billions, has increased to the degree that, presently, the base radiation level is many thousands of times higher than from solar RF energy impinging on the earth.
Notwithstanding the proliferation of RF radiation sources during the early decades of the “radiofrequency age”, the 1940s through the 1970s, humans were seldom exposed to RF radiation at levels that might cause concern. Since the late 1970s a number of commercial products have become ubiquitous, which provide human exposures to levels of RF radiation that are significantly higher than either of the previous or present background levels. Research reports indicate that RF exposure levels, typically encountered from some commercial products, may induce alterations of biological processes or damage to the genome 1 – 13.
Concurrently the incidence of autism diagnoses demonstrates a pronounced, approximately linear, nearly three-fold increase occurring during the last twenty years. “The question as to when autism begins in any child remains to be answered. Some studies provide support for a prenatal or perinatal origin for autism.” 14 For several decades prior to 1980 autism incidence remained essentially invariant; reportedly at about one diagnosed case per 2000 children. Byrd has reported a present autism incidence of about one per 700 children.
RF radiation sources have become commonplace in the personal human environment from approximately 1980 to the present. Operation of an RF radiation source such as a two-way radio or a cell phone exposes the operator to levels of RF radiation shown to be biologically active. Operation of an RF radiation source also exposes others, in the near proximity, to similarly biologically active levels of electromagnetic field intensities 15.
Some of the known effects of exposure to RF radiation include cognitive impairment 16, memory deficit 17, EEG modifications 18, DNA damage 3 - 12, chromosome aberrations 6, micronucleus formation 7, 22, fetal malformation 1, 2, increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier 19, 23, altered cellular calcium efflux 20 and altered cell proliferation 21.
RF radiation exposures from residential microwave ovens are, typically, on the order of 1 milli-watt per cm2. RF radiation exposures from cell phones range from about 0.1 to 10.0 milli-watt per cm2. Portable two-way radios provide similar exposure levels. The scientific literature confirms that RF radiation exposures, at levels more than 1,000 times lower than described immediately preceding, or on the order of 1.0 micro-watt per cm2, induce significant changes in biological processes or molecular repair mechanisms 12.
During gestation the possibility of unobservable embryonic and fetal damage is increased as mothers-to-be utilize and are exposed to the emissions from RF radiation devices. Researchers have emphatically reported that an embryo or fetus should not be exposed to radiofrequency radiation such as that emitted by the portable cell phone or portable telephone. One particular reason to avoid RF radiation exposure during pregnancy is that an embryo or fetus may not be fully protected by amniotic fluid for extended periods of time due to the natural movement of the embryo or fetus within the womb. Secondly, the pelvic structure promotes deep RF radiation penetration and that
radiation can be absorbed within the developing embryo or fetus.
Other researchers have postulated that there may exist a previously unidentified environmental toxin associated with the observed increased incidence of autism. For example, the works of Byrd (California - 1999) 14, Bertrand 24, (New Jersey - 2001), Taylor 25, (United Kingdom – 1999), and Chakrabarti & Fombonne 26, (United Kingdom – 2001) clearly support the proposition that the identified increased incidence of autism has an origin at about 1980: an increased incidence that has its origin established at the very time the personal RF radiation devices came into popular use – about 1980. We propose that RF radiation, a new form of exposure of the human embryo, fetus, and infant, and an acknowledged environmental toxin under many exposure conditions, may be associated with the increased incidence of autism. This proposition is further based on the fact that these radiating products are periodically and typically utilized in the embryonic, fetal and neonatal environment. RF radiation is the only known toxin, exposure to which is wholly correlated with the repeatedly documented increased incidence of autism: now reported by at least some researchers as greater than 1 per 100 newborn.
Correspondence to:
Robert C. Kane, The Associated Bioelectromagnetics Technologists,
P.O. Box 133, Blanchardville, Wisconsin 53516-0133. FAX: 608 523-6500; E-mail:
1 Berman E, Kinn JB, and Carter HB, Observations of mouse fetuses after irradiation with 2.45 GHz microwaves, Health Physics, 35, pp. 791-801, 1978.
2 Kaplan J, Polson P, Rebert C, Lunan K, and Gage M, Biological and behavioral effects of prenatal and postnatal exposure to 2450-MHz electromagnetic radiation in the squirrel monkey, Radio Science, 17(5S), pp. 135S-144S, 1982.
3 Sagripanti JL, and Swicord ML, DNA structural changes caused by microwave radiation, Int J Radiat Biol, 50(1), pp. 47-50, 1986.
4 Leszczynski D, Joenväärä S, Reivinen J, and Kuokka R. Non-thermal activation of the hsp27/p38MAPK stress pathway by mobile phone radiation in human endothelial cells: Molecular mechanism for cancer and blood-brain barrier-related effects, Differentiation, 70, pp. 120 – 129, 2002.
5 Sagripanti JL, Swicord ML, and Davis CC, Microwave effects on plasmid DNA, Radiation Research 110, pp. 219-231, 1987.
6 Fucic A, Garaj-Vrhovac V, Skara M, and Dimitrovic B, X-rays, microwaves and vinyl chloride monomer: their clastogenic and aneugenic activity, using the micronucleus assay on human lymphocytes, Mutat Res 282(4), pp. 265-271, 1992.
7 Maes A, Verschaeve L, Arroyo A, De Wagter C, and Vercruyssen L, In vitro cytogenetic effects of 2450 MHz waves on human peripheral blood lymphocytes, Bioelectromagnetics 14(6), pp. 495-501, 1993.
8 Sarkar S, Ali S, and Behari J, Effect of low power microwave on the mouse genome: a direct DNA analysis, Mutat Res 320, (1-2), pp. 141-147, 1994.
9 Lai H, and Singh NP, Acute low-intensity microwave exposure increases DNA single-strand breaks in rat brain cells, Bioelectromagnetics, 16(3), pp. 207-210, 1995.
10 Lai H, and Singh NP, Single- and double-strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells after acute exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, Int J Radiat Biol, 69(4), pp. 513-521, 1996.
11 Repacholi MH, Basten A, Gebski V, Noonan D, Finnie J, and Harris AW, Lymphomas in E mu-Pim1 transgenic mice exposed to pulsed 900 MHz electromagnetic fields. Radiat Res, 147(5), pp. 631-640, 1997.
12 Phillips JL, Ivaschuk O, Ishida-Jones T, Jones RA, Campbell-Beachler M, and Haggren W, DNA damage in Molt-4 T-lymphoblastoid cells exposed to cellular telephone radiofrequency fields in vitro, Bioelectrochemistry and Bioenergetics, 45, pp. 103-110, 1998.
13 Hardell L, Hansson Mild K, Pahlson A, Hallquist A, Ionizing radiation, cellular telephones and the risk of brain tumours. Europ J Cancer Prevent 10, pp. 523-529, 2001.
14 Byrd RS, Sigman M. Bono M, et al, Report to the legislature on the principal findings from the epidemiology of autism in California: a comprehensive pilot study, M.I.N.D. Institute, University of California, Davis, 2002
15 Bawin SM, Kaczmarek LK, and Adey WR, Effects of modulated VHF fields on the central nervous system, Ann NY Acad. Sci, 247, pp. 74-81, 1975.
16 Chiang H, Yao GD, Fang QS, Wang KQ, Lu DZ, Zhou YK, Health effects of environmental electromagnetic fields. J. Bioelectricity 8:127-131, 1989.
17 Lai H, Horita A, and Guy AW, Microwave irradiation affects radial-arm maze performance in the rat, Bioelectromagnetics 15(2), pp. 95-104, 1994.
18 von Klitzing L, Low-frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields influence EEG of man, Phys. Medica, 11, pp. 77-80, 1995.
19 Salford LG, Brun A, Sturesson K, Eberhardt JL, and Persson BR, Permeability of the blood-brain radiation on cytolytic T lymphocytes, FASEB J , 10(8), pp. 913-919, 1996.
20 Paul Raj R, Behari J, and Rao AR, Effect of amplitude modulated RF radiation on calcium ion efflux and ODC activity in chronically exposed rat brain, Indian J Biochem Biophys, 36(5), pp. 337-340, 1999.
21 Cleary SF, Du Z, Cao G, Liu LM, and McCrady C, Effect of isothermal radiofrequency barrier induced by 915 MHz electromagnetic radiation, continuous wave and modulated at 8, 16, 50, and 200 Hz. Microsc Res Tech, 27(6), pp. 535-542, 1994.
22 d'Ambrosio G, Massa R, Scarfi MR, and Zeni O, Cytogenetic damage in human lymphocytes following GMSK phase modulated microwave exposure. Bioelectromagnetics, 23, pp. 7-13, 2002.
23 Persson BR, Salford LG, and Brun A, Blood-brain barrier permeability in rats exposed to electromagnetic fields used in wireless communication, Wireless Network 3, pp. 455-461, 1997.
24 Bertrand J, Mars A, Boyle C, Bove F, Yeargin-Allsopp M, Decoufle P., Prevalence of Autism in a United States Population: The Brick Township, New Jersey Investigation, Pediatrics, 108 (5), pp. 1155-1161, Nov. 2001.
25 Taylor B, Miller E, Farringdon et al, MMR Vaccine and Autism: No Epidemiological Evidence for a Causal Association, Lancet, 353, pp. 2026-2029, 1999.
26 Chakrabarti S, & Fombonne E, Pervasive Developmental Disorders in Preschool Children, JAMA, 285 (24), 2001.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: James B. Beal. Robert C. Kane, Ph.D.

What Americans Need to Know about Radiation (or EMR) from Wireless Communications
USA Created: 13 Mar 2006
I was gratified that you included the topic of electromagnetic effects on biology, particularly from high frequencies used in wireless transmissions, in Latitudes (Vol. 5, #4). What Americans need to know, and what they are not being told, is that three out of four independent (non-industry sponsored) research studies worldwide are showing biological effects from low-level, nonionizing radiation similar to that used in wireless communications. These are called "nonthermal effects" because they occur at levels too low to cause tissue heating. The telecom industry, and the FCC's safe exposure guidelines, recognize only thermal (heating) effects. That means that exposures at intensity (power) levels below that threshold are officially being considered "safe" while the research is suggesting otherwise.
For clarity's sake, the frequency range of nonionizing radiation used in wireless communications is referred to as "radiofrequency/microwave radiation" or RF/MW. Microwave ovens get their name from the fact that they use this type of radiation to cook food (you could call this an example of a thermal effect). Radar frequencies are also in this range.
While the FCC maintains that its guidelines are protective, and indeed may be heading toward relaxing them significantly in the near future, that is not the position that was put forth by a federal interagency workgroup of nonionizing radiation experts. In a letter to a standards setting committee in 1999 (1), they outlined fourteen points which they believed needed to be addressed before any FCC guidelines could be deemed credible and sufficiently protective of the public. Nothing was done with these recommendations.

In letters dated July and September 2002, scientists from the Radiation Protection
Division of the US Environmental Protection Agency (2) stated that they are concerned about the burgeoning exposure of the public to nonionizing radiation, and that claims that the FCC guidelines are protective of all possible mechanisms of damage are
unjustified. Do you think a wireless-happy public has any idea of this?

If this were all just theoretical and we had to wait years to see if there were any measurable effect, that would be one thing. However, I have talked to many down-to-earth, normal, professional and nonprofessional people who on their own have noticed headaches, dizziness, ear ringing, pain, and/or other symptoms when they use their cell or PCS phones. I just heard from a young man working in a telecom broadband department that he has fielded about 10 calls of this sort in the three months he has been there, and he is not even in the wireless department.

Since October, over a hundred doctors in Germany have signed a document stating that they are seeing increased health problems among patients related to cell phone use and chronic exposure to radiation from cell towers and antennas (3). In France, a first study was completed this past year correlating health symptoms with cell tower proximity (4). Clearly, something is going on.

If you look at the history of research on nonionizing radiation (the energy waves below the frequencies of visible light on the electromagnetic spectrum), you will see that nonthermal effects were first reported decades ago, but were deemed to be research mistakes. Over time, we have learned just how much the soviets knew about these effects as evidenced by their having beamed the U. S. embassy in Moscow with low levels of this radiation several decades ago. In fact, many in the embassy were found to have developed serious health conditions.You can read about this in Nicholas Steneck's 1986 book, "The Microwave Debate."

In the past twelve years there have been hundreds of studies showing these nonthermal effects--- such as DNA damage and nonrepair, opening of the blood-brain barrier (allowing toxins and pathogens to reach the brain), lowered immunity, decreased melatonin levels, effects on stress proteins (indicating cell damage), formation of micronuclei (aberrations in cell nuclei which are often markers for cancer), changes in calcium metabolism affecting communication between cells, changes in brainwave patterns as seen on EEG's, plus effects observed on many different systems of the body.

What is not clear is the degree to which these effects are cumulative given chronic exposure, and whether they are indeed linked to major health problems like cancer and neurological conditions. The bioeffects seen are, however, plausible precursors to such conditions, and some evidence suggests there may be an association. Even conservative researchers who have witnessed and studied nonthermal bioeffects say that this radiation is a "probable" cause of health problems.

Right now, many schools are financially strapped, and the promise of a monthly check in exchange for leasing a bit of space on the property or building for antennas seems very attractive. (This is also true of hospitals, office buildings, apartment buildings, churches, etc.). There is a big push for educational achievement right now that is leading schools that can afford it to get wireless internet computer networks installed, some of which transmit microwaves all day long. When children go home, many use cell phones (and cordless phones, which while lower power, also emit radiation) and may live in the close vicinity of cell towers and building-mounted antennas. Some may have their bedrooms over wireless remote-read utility meters. Even the "second-hand smoke" of others' use of wireless devices and phones can be affecting them.

Since children are more vulnerable to this radiation, because their bodies are still developing and the radiation can penetrate them more deeply, where is it going to end for them? Will their bodies be able to handle all this, so foreign to the radiation environment in which we humans evolved? This is a serious question.

Some countries discourage the use of wireless devices by children. And some prohibit
the placement of antennas near schools and day care centers. Meanwhile, in the U.S. it is actually illegal for zoning boards to consider possible health risks when deciding where to place mobile phone antennas. Thanks to the Telecom Act of 1996, such considerations are preempted by our federal government in order to give maximum freedom and opportunity to telecom companies. Some communities have been sued when trying to fight this. The Vermont delegation, with support from some other members of Congress, has recently introduced bills to reverse this ruling (5). It will take enormous support to offset the influence of telecom money and pass these bills.

I urge your Advisory Board members and other professionals to become familiar with this issue, and to help inform others. Some web sites providing information on the unheard side of this story are:
(1) June 1999 letter to the Institute for Electronic and Electrical Engineers (IEEE) from the Radiofrequency Inter-Agency Work Group (RFIAWG). See link at under "Press Releases: 8/12/02"
(2) July 2002 letter to Janet Newton from Norbert Hankin, Scientist, Radiation Protection Division of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in response to a letter to Administrator Christie Whitman. See above URL for (1). Also September 2002 letter to Margaret M. Glaser from Frank Marcinowski, Chief of the Division in response to a letter to Administrator Whitman (not posted).
(3) October 2002, the Freiburger Appeal. See
(4) R. Santini study published in "Pathologie Biologie." See
(5) Local Control of Cellular Towers Act (S3103) sponsored by Sen. Leahy,
Jeffords, Murray and Dodd, and (HR5631) sponsored by Cong. Sanders, Tancredo,
Shays and Davis.

Cell Towers: Wireless Convenience? or Environmental Hazard? edited by B.
Blake Levitt (2001)
Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette by Robert Kane, Ph.D. (2001)
Electromagnetic Fields: A Consumer's Guide to the Issues and How to Protect
Ourselves, by B. Blake Levitt (2002)

About the Author: Margaret Meade Glaser has a Masters in psychology and school psychology and serves as chair of Public Relations on the Board of Directors for the Electromagnetic Radiation Network. She explains how her interest in high frequency radiations developed: As the daughter of an electromagnetically savvy design engineer and a public health nursing administrator, it is not too surprising that I would be keyed into this issue, although it actually happened by accident!

A cellular provider selected the chimney of our vintage condo building as a prime site
for an antenna array two years ago and sought to negotiate a lucrative contract with our condo board to lease space. As a matter of course, I suggested we look a little further than the company's claims of complete safety before signing on the dotted line for twenty years. The more we looked, the more disturbing the picture. I realized there was a lot of information that was not reaching people in this country. After we defeated the antenna on our property, I joined the national EMR Network for information and support, and was eventually asked to join the Board of Directors. I have acted as Chair of Public Relations since.

In the course of my two years with the Network, I have been involved in Washington lobby efforts, assisted in a Congressional Briefing, participated in forums on wireless health issues, and met with researchers, government officials, attorneys, journalists, and grassroots organizers from around the world. In the Chicago area, I give talks and presentations on this topic.

As a school psychologist, I am particularly concerned with the impact of this proliferating radiation on young children, from exposure to cell phones, cordless phones, neighborhood (or even school property) antennas, wireless internet (WLANs) in classrooms, and an array of other wireless devices.

Margaret Meade Glaser
Chicago, Illinois
EMR Network (Board of Directors)

Click here to view the source article.
Source: Margaret Meade Glaser

Electrical Sensitivity: Arthur Firstenberg and Susan Molloy
USA Created: 13 Mar 2006
Electrical Sensitivity: Arthur Firstenberg and Susan Molloy
The founder and director of the Cellular Phone Taskforce (Firstenberg) and cofounder of the Environmental Health Network (Molloy) provide a concise, referenced article on this emerging condition. (From Latitudes, Volume 5 #4)
What Americans Need to Know about Radiation (or EMR) from Wireless Communications: Margaret Meade Glaser
The author contends that Europeons and Russians know more than Americans about this important issue—and she tells you where you can find the facts you need.
Consumer Reports on Cell Phone safety: February 2003 issue
One of the first mainstream publications to question cell phone safety.

Read the article!:

Electrical Sensitivity
Arthur Firstenberg and Susan Molloy
The 750,000-watt Doppler weather radar at Fort Dix, New Jersey, overlooks the Township of Brick. Why is that of interest to anyone but meteorologists? It’s not, except that eight out of every 1000 children born in Brick since the radar station was built in 1994 are autistic.
The Brick Township Autism Investigation (1), conducted in 1998 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, uncovered 60 cases of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) among children aged three through ten in this town of 77,000 residents. As in much of the rest of the world, autism is increasing here. But the prevalence of both ASD and classic autism in Brick Township were found to be dramatically higher than normal in the 3-to-5-year-old age group, i.e., those born since 1994.
Forward-thinking educators and parents have done a good job in recent years of tackling the difficult issues involved in protecting sensitive children from chemical contaminants, dyes, preservatives, and allergens in their food, medications, classrooms, and homes. However, an additional burden has been overlooked and even ridiculed as untenable as a factor in many children’s profound neurological and behavioral problems. Some readers may react with disbelief to our suggestion that the Fort Dix Doppler might qualify for a place on the “radar screen” of those scientists who are puzzled by the local epidemic of autism. (2)
The authors of this article are adults who are made extremely sick, sometimes incapacitated, from exposure to “normal” amounts of electromagnetic energy. We’ve seen some children respond as we do, as their well-meaning parents and teachers equip them with newer, faster, more powerful “safety” and communication devices, oblivious to the potential consequences for their children’s health and development. We’re not oblivious to these consequences because we ourselves respond directly and immediately, with debilitating pain, confusion, and neurological symptoms, to cell phones, cordless phones, computers, televisions, and other normal elements of today’s home, work and school environments. And we are in increasingly good company.
Gro Harlem Brundtland is director-general of the World Health Organization. A medical doctor with a master’s degree in public health, as well as former prime minister of Norway, she has recently been speaking in public about her own sensitivity to computers, cordless phones and cell phones. Not only has she warned parents against allowing their children to use cell phones or microwave ovens, but she said that she herself has become so sensitive to the radiation that she does not allow anyone to enter her office with a cell phone turned on. “If you enter my office, you are invited by me. No one who is invited would like to give me headaches,” she said at a news conference in Oslo on July 1, 2002, where she was attending an international conference on cancer.
Awakening to the potential of electricity to affect children’s health and development can be initially disheartening, because electromagnetic pollution is so inescapable, and its sources so often are “conveniences” for which we’ve eagerly expended considerable resources. It can also be empowering, because it gives parents and practitioners an additional tool and offers a new range of potential factors that may be influencing seemingly intractable health or behavior problems.
Both of us went to school and were graduated from college before personal computers, cell phones, the Internet, and everything that goes along with them even existed. As environmentally sensitive people, we feel lucky to have grown up before today’s conditions became the norm.
What Can We Do?
Computers in the classroom are practically unquestioned now, and that is fine for the durable. However, our society should provide computer-free classrooms for those vulnerable children for whom this is a necessary and effective accommodation.
In schools where wireless computers—or regular computers with wireless keyboards/mice—are installed, even a computer-free classroom will not be an effective intervention for a child whose Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder or Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is triggered or exacerbated by electromagnetic radiation. This is because the microwave frequencies used by these technologies, identical to the frequencies used in a microwave oven, pass through walls and do not respect the boundaries of classrooms.
What we suggest runs counter to the prevailing educational trend, which is to throw more and more computer-enabled devices at physically and developmentally disabled children in an effort to improve their functioning, without any consideration of the potential effects of the extra radiation on their developing nervous systems. When adult populations were sampled within the last year for the prevalence of electrical sensitivity, estimates by researchers varied from 1.5% (Stockholm, Sweden) to 3.3% (state of California) to 7% (Marin County, California) of the population. One patient group in Germany puts the number as high as 15% of the German population. Nobody knows exactly, because this is an isolating, disabling, and ridiculed problem that is still in the public health “closet,” along with most of its victims. Children are the most vulnerable segment of the population. They are also the most unaware of the potential effects of this invisible and largely unacknowledged pollutant coming from equipment that is so fervently sought by their peers and esteemed by their parents and teachers.
Medical facilities, also, are sites of electronics’ proliferation. The growing field of medical telemetry uses wireless technology to monitor the vital signs of hospital patients. But also, in hospitals, nursing homes, day care and elder care facilities, mental health institutions and group homes, remote monitoring of patients is in increasing use, not only for medical purposes, but simply to cut back on personnel costs.
New automobiles have much larger electromagnetic fields than they had ten or twenty years ago. This is due to multiple computer-controlled operating systems, GPS satellite-tracking devices, digital dashboard displays, and, commonly, a cell phone constantly charging in the car.
The situation is not hopeless.
At home, every parent can easily do the following experiment: tonight, before your family goes to bed, unplug all of these items you may have in your home: the TV, the computer, the base unit of the cordless phone, the entertainment center, and the baby monitor. Notice the quality of everyone’s sleep, how you feel in the morning on awakening, and note whether you and your child seem calmer. Appliances should be completely unplugged, not just turned off at a surge protector (which itself may be a source of electromagnetic fields).
If your child has a motorized wheelchair, don’t plug it in overnight next to his or her bed. Often these children are especially vulnerable as they may already have epilepsy, cerebral palsy, or other mobility-impairing conditions.
Electric floor or ceiling heaters, fluorescent lights, dimmer switches, and electronic security systems can all produce problematic electromagnetic fields. Finding all the sources and eliminating or avoiding them requires patience and may be time-consuming but is not necessarily difficult or expensive. Your basic measuring tools are a $40 magnetic field meter, or “gaussmeter,” and a cheap (poorer quality is better for this purpose) battery-operated AM radio. When the gaussmeter reads 0.2 milligauss or less, and the radio, when tuned between stations, remains silent (does not buzz or give loud static), you have a relatively calm environment—especially important in the sleeping area. These two measuring devices will not detect the very high frequency radiation produced by cordless phones, wireless computers, baby monitors, remote controls for appliances, radio-controlled toys, and other wireless equipment. We recommend eliminating wireless technology from the environment altogether.
Many homes will have ambient magnetic fields that cannot be reduced to 0.2 milligauss because of factors outside your control, most commonly nearby power lines and transformers. Neighbors’ activities may also be a factor. But reducing exposures to the extent possible within the home may still have a significant effect, especially on neurological or behavioral problems in developing children. Exposures outside our own control, such as from the street, a radar station or cell tower, at school, or in hospitals and medical facilities, can be dealt with effectively only on a societal level. We have a long way to go before these problems are given the serious attention they deserve.
Ironically, some of our societal problems, such as school violence and kidnappings of children—even before 9/11 added to our worries—are being used as reasons to attach more cell phones to our kids for their safety and our peace of mind. But these very devices, and the millions of towers and antennas that make their use possible, expose all of us to a level of radiation that we know (from studies and painful firsthand experience) can contribute to the anxiety, depression, irritability, impulsivity, confusion, and general unrest that feed the very concerns which led to the need for all those cell phones in the first place. This can begin to change as more of us turn them off and experience the difference.
1. Bertrand, J. et al., Prevalence of Autism in a United States Population: The Brick Township, New Jersey Investigation, Pediatrics 108:1155-1161 (2001).
2. The Doppler appears to be the latest addition to a number of radar facilities in the area. McGuire Air Force Base, Fort Dix Military Reservation, and Lakehurst Naval Air Warfare Center are all located west of Brick. Military jets from those bases, equipped with powerful radars of their own, also fly over Brick on their way out to sea.
George Carlo, Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age, Carroll & Graf, New York, 2001.
Jane M. Healy, Failure to Connect: How Computers Affect Our Children’s Minds—and What We Can Do About It, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1998.
B. Blake Levit, ed., Cell Towers: Wireless Convenience? Or Environmental Hazard?, New Century Publishing, Sheffield, MA, 2000.
Lucinda Grant, The Electrical Sensitivity Handbook, Weldon Publishing, Prescott, AZ, 1995.
Robert O. Becker and Gary Selden, The Body Electric: Electro-magnetism and the Foundation of Life, William Morrow, New York, 1985.
** Electromagnetic field (EMF) meters may be obtained from Alpha Lab, 1280 South 300 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84101, (800)-769-3754 Less EMF, Inc., 26 Valley View Lane, Ghent, NY 12075, (888) LESS-EMF.
About the authors:
Arthur Firstenberg is founder and director of the Cellular Phone Taskforce, a nonprofit organization that disseminates information about electromagnetic radiation and
advocates for electrically sensitive people. He is editor of the Taskforce’s publication, No Place to Hide, and the author of Microwaving Our Planet: The Environmental Impact of the Wireless Revolution.
After graduating Phi Beta Kappa from Cornell University in 1971 with a B.A. in mathematics, he went to medical school from 1978 to 1982. Injury by x-ray overdose cut short his career. Firstenberg explains that after receiving about 50 diagnostic x-rays during extensive dental work, he became sensitive to high-powered equipment in the hospitals where he worked. “I could literally feel the radiation from the equipment; it made me weak and dizzy, but I kept working. After several months I collapsed. I was 31 and no one knew the cause of my illness. I was bedridden for about three months and at first I was not sure if I would survive.”
Firstenberg’s symptoms included a slow heartbeat, chest pain, extreme shortness of breath on exertion, and weight loss. By reading Eastern European literature on the subject, he eventually discovered that he had the symptoms of radio wave sickness. He later learned that any type of electromagnetic field may provoke similar illness in sensitive people, which commonly manifests with nausea, dizziness, headache, irritability, insomnia, and difficulty with memory and concentration. He also gradually became chemically hypersensitive.
His therapeutic approach is strict avoidance. At home, he has no computer, no television, no wireless equipment, no microwave, and uses only incandescent lighting. He moved cross-country to Mendocino, California which has minimal electrical pollution, and he is symptom-free as long as he avoids exposure.
As is often the case in advocacy organizations, Firstenberg’s personal experience led him to study the condition that plagued him. He is now an international spokesperson and advisor on the subject of electrical sensitivity (ES). He can be contacted by phone at (707) 937-3990 or mail: P.O. Box 1337, Mendocino, CA 95460.
Susan Molloy has an MA in disability policy and provides referrals and troubleshooting for people with symptoms provoked by environmental exposures. She is cofounder of the Environmental Health Network (EHN) of California and edited EHN’s newsletter for 11 years. She served as chair of the Independent Living Council in Arizona and works at New Horizons Independent Living Center in Prescott Valley. She works from home due to her inability to withstand electromagnetic exposure, and uses a custom-shielded computer provided by Arizona Rehabilitation Services Administration.
Molloy has a history of allergies since childhood and was hospitalized with chemical sensitivities at age 31. ES symptoms emerged shortly after this. “When I go under power lines or fluorescent lights it feels like a blow to the top of my head,” she explains. Asked if she could run errands, Molloy explains, “I can go into stores and other buildings. It’s getting back out that’s the problem. I tend to lose coordination and would often be stumbling if I didn’t use a wheelchair. I get disoriented and my speech is also affected.”
Professional-grade ear protectors help soften the impact of auditory hypersensitivity to motor noises. She feels that living in the desert, where she keeps appliances to a minimum, has given her more stamina.
“I’d like to think that Arthur and I are just special cases, that people can stand back and distance themselves from our difficulties. I’d like to think that others won’t suffer similar problems. But we know better. The numbers are growing, and no one is listening.”
She can be reached at (928) 536-4625 or
Click here to view the source article.
Source: James B. Beal EMF Interface Consulting

How wireless technology may impact child development
USA Created: 12 Mar 2006
How wireless technology may impact child development and central nervous system functioning.

Some of you may have already seen this compilation of articles and personal experiences. I get so much useful information from many of you.

Some of the latest info on this issue of EHS is contained in my paper given last year at the Whole Person Healing Conference in Bethesda MD. This complete paper, plus about 30 mb of other papers, research, references and resources, are in my CD with a partial list of contents on my website...probably one of the most complete compilations of info available from my 45 yrs of networking, collecting and sharing data about artificial and rare-event natural effects on human body, mind and spirit conditions.......

Please check out my website for further details on the healing and harmful bioeffects of long-term EMF/EMR exposures.

For those of you in Canada, please check out the website. My wife, art therapist Roberta, and I, are presenting a joint paper there in early May: "Evolving the Paradigm to Include the Environment, Electromagnetic Fields and Human "Canaries" in Studies of Body, Emotions, Mind and Spirit"......we are open to further presentations in the Ottawa/Toronto area after May 15th.

James B. Beal
EMF Interface Consulting

<~~~~( + )~~~~>

ByJames Beal, EMF Interface Consulting, Wimberley, TX

Assisted by Marcus Barnes, P.E., Aerodyne Laboratories, Austin, TX &
Charles Wallach, Ph.D., Behavioral Research Associates, Canoga Park, CA.

Proposed presentation and poster board exhibit at the Whole Person Health Summit 2005, in the Science Arena Special Thematic Program “Electromagnetic, Acoustic, and Optical Healing”, Washington, D.C., April 14-17, 2005.


It will be proposed that Precambrian earth may have supplied intense electric and magnetic fields, as environmental factors and catalytic energy sources, for the beginning and subsequent evolution of living systems

Life cannot exist without evolution of the environmental energy detection, storage and transmission capabilities of the living cell, which contains a variety of biological liquid crystal (LC) forms. The lipid molecules of all biological membranes exist in various LC states, providing a matrix for information storage and environmental sensing. LCs may provide fundamental support and detection mechanisms for electric and magnetic fields. This includes sound and light, and may explain quantum-level sensitivity in some cases.

Hypotheses will be presented for several complementary, interacting mechanisms, which tend to support the development of LC electric and magnetic field detection and transmitting capabilities in all living systems.

The healing and hazardous aspects of electric and magnetic fields will also be briefly discussed.


1. To propose that the origins of terrestrial biological life may have required:

a. The presence of EMF flux of different waveforms and intensities [79] Figure 1

b. The prevalence and interaction, within the living cell, of a variety of biological liquid crystal (LC) forms, which provide fundamental support and/or detection mechanisms for quantum-level sensitivity.
To present hypotheses for several mechanisms which appear to support the evolution of ultra-sensitive, probably interacting, EMF detection mechanisms.

3. To present a brief overview about effects of EMFs on and from biosystems with an emphasis on the existence and increase of the human Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Syndrome (EHS)
<~~~~( + )~~~~>
Click here to view the source article.
Source: James B. Beal EMF Interface Consulting

Cell phone headaches, cell tower blues
USA Created: 12 Mar 2006
Imagine a world identical to our own with one exception--everyone is deaf. There is no radio and television remains at the level of the silent movie.
Telephone communication is visual but beyond that the world is very much like our own.

What would such a world be like?
It would probably be very noisy, since there would be no need for noise control and no regulations to limit noise. Car engines would still roar, perhaps louder
than they do now, tires would squeal, birds would sing, and thunder would rumble across the sky but we would not be able to hear any of this.

Now, imagine that some people in this world can hear. They don't realize they are any different except in a few subtle ways. They can predict the coming of storms. They claim to "hear" thunder at a distance. They have difficulty sleeping. In the middle of the night they hear roaring engines, squealing tires, horns blaring and other things that are silent to the rest of us. Because of their poor sleep, they are tired during the day. They become anxious and worried. The noise frightens them but only they can hear it so they begin to question their sanity.

One sufferer, John, confides in a friend who is sympathetic and tells him to visit his family doctor. But the doctor doesn't know what to make of this.
The sleeping pills and tranquilizers she prescribes don't stop the noise during the day. Another, less sympathetic doctor recommends a psychiatrist for mental problems. But John doesn't think he's crazy, or is he?

Now, instead of noise, imagine a world where people can't sense radio frequency energy. That is the world we live in. We hear radio frequencies only when they are converted to sound by our radios, televisions, or telephones. If we could hear them this would be a very noisy planet. In the middle of a street in any major city you would hear thousands of simultaneous telephone conversations, hundreds of radio and television stations. It would probably drive most of us
Fortunately most of us can't "hear" radio frequencies, but some people can sense them. And just like in our make believe world of the deaf,
the few individuals who can sense these frequencies can't sleep, develop headaches, and are under constant stress.

The syndrome is called "Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity" and some people are gravely affected. Those who see their doctor are often dismissed, given sleeping pills or sent to a psychiatrist. These people are not crazy. They just happen to be more sensitive than the rest of us to the electromagnetic noise pollution generated by our technological advances.
Below is a quote from a man in Abbotsford, B.C. who has some of the classic symptoms of Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Syndrome.

"We live one property away from a cell phone tower and have another a half mile down the road...I have been having strange unexplained health
issues for three or four years that conventional medical tests cannot solve. Along with these I developed cancer on my right breast when a
brown spot that had been there for 35 years suddenly went bad. The following are symptoms that have been occurring over a period of time
since these towers were installed and have had no relief to date: headaches, nausea, unsteadiness, pressure in head over eyes, ears,
cheeks and back of head. Sometimes blurred vision. General feeling of fatigue and aches for no apparent reason. Have undergone complete
blood workup, X-ray, CT Scan. Have tried various alternative medical practices, chiropractic, acupuncture, herbal remedies, exercise,
watching diet closer, lose weight and drinking plenty of water. Nothing seems to work. Don't know if the towers are responsible for
the above mentioned but I do feel somewhat better when I leave the area for a period of time."

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity has not yet been accepted by our medical professionals. Just like chronic fatigue syndrome, chemical hypersensitivity, and seasonal affective disorder (SAD) it will take some time and many complaining patients before that changes. In the meantime, those suffering need to reduce their exposure to radio frequency radiation not a simple thing to do in our highly technical society.

Our government can play a vital role by restricting the installation of antennas for cell phones on high rise buildings and by increasing
the distance of cell phone and broadcast antennas on towers near built
up areas. We need "cell phone restricted" areas on trains, buses, and in buildings that have regular phone lines. The levels allowed for radio frequency radiation need to be reduced. Our guidelines are among the worst in the world, along with Great Britain, the U.S.A., Germany and Japan. The more we come to rely on the cell phone, the more antennas that are needed for their use. We have more than 300 transmitting antennas in the City of Peterborough. In Toronto, the number exceeds 10,000 and most were erected since 1980. There is some evidence to suggest that as our exposure to electromagnetic energy increases so will our sensitivity.
Sweden recognizes this disorder and has a Web site to provide suffers with information. If you think you are sensitive to electromagnetic energy, please contact me for more information.

Magda Havas is an associate professor at Trent University in the Environmental and Resource Studies program. She can be reached by e-mail at or by phone at 705 748-1011 x 1232.
Source: by Magda Havas. from the Peterborough Examiner.

Brain and Eye Tumors on the Rise
USA Created: 10 Mar 2006
Brain and Eye Tumors From Cell Phone Use on the Rise.

Last year there were 30,000 cases of brain and eye tumors reported as a direct result of cell phone use. 2006 will see about 50-75,000 new cases of brain and eye tumors and estimates are that by 2010 there will be 300,000 to 500,000 cases of tumors. These numbers are based on an adult averaging 500 minutes per month. Adults do not use their phones as much as children ages 12-17 whose brain tissues are still developing and use an average of 1,000 minutes per month now. These numbers come from Dr. George Carlo who headed the wireless industry research team in the early 90`s and discovered definitively that cell phone use does cause cancer. The cell industry distanced themselves from Dr. Carlo`s research (they paid for it - $28 million dollars) when the results came in. Dr. Carlo authored a book called Cell phones-Invisible Hazards of the Wireless Age in the mid 90`s. He recently founded the non-profit organization -- Safe Wireless Initiative -- to bring this information to the public.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Dr. George Carlo

Doctor finds wireless threat a myth
USA Created: 10 Mar 2006
Doctor finds wireless threat a myth

N.Y. anesthesiologist finds cell phones' threat to hospital equipment more hangup than fact.

In an era when cell phones are ubiquitous and physicians rely on telemedicine for updates on medical advances, is it realistic to ban cell phones in hospitals? Can a cell phone conversation kill a person on a ventilator or send a patient with a pacemaker into cardiac arrest?

Those questions weighed on Dr. Roy Soto, an anesthesiologist at Stony Brook University Hospital on Long Island, N.Y., whose hunch was, no, to all of the above.

Policies at many hospitals around the world -- including those at the institution where Soto is on staff -- ban use of wireless devices, fearing disruption of vital medical equipment. Soto searched the scientific literature to find why anti-mobile phone warnings are so pervasive. He found no basis for prohibition.

"All these stories of interference were unfounded," said Soto, who referred to them as urban legends.

Like any legend, those involving cell phone use in hospitals are based on a kernel of truth. Hospital administrators have prohibited mobile phones because of concerns about electromagnetic interference. But Soto found the only genuine problem involved using a phone behind a ventilator. If answered near the breathing machine's on-off switch, the ventilator shuts off.

Pagers remain the communication device of choice in hospitals, Soto said, because "pagers are passive receptive devices. They don't put out any power, whereas your cell phone, when you hit the send button or answer button, emits energy, and that's electromagnetic energy.

"But it's crazy when you think about this urban myth of cell phones harming people with pacemakers. Guess what? There are a lot of people with pacemakers walking around talking on cell phones."

He decided to conduct a study to develop a sense of how doctors themselves communicate in hospitals, and whether older communication systems are more likely to result in errors.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: S: S: Delthia Ricks / Newsday

Cell phone health-related lawsuits sent back to state courts
USA Created: 6 Mar 2006
US: Cell phone health-related lawsuits sent back to state courts
WASHINGTON—Major mobile-phone carriers and manufacturers have petitioned U.S. District Judge Catherine Blake to reconsider her decision last week to have two health-related lawsuits sent back to state courts in California ..."
Read more on RCR News
Click here to view the source article.
Source: S:

Aircraft mobile ban ought to stay - study
USA Created: 2 Mar 2006
A study by a US university has concluded that mobile phones and other portable electronic devices are liable to interfere with the operation of critical aircraft components.
Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University found the effects of mobile transmissions of devices such as Global Positioning System receivers were worse than previously thought, after monitoring transmissions on a number of short-haul US flights. They tracked radio emissions via a broadband antenna attached to a compact portable spectrum analyzer held in a carry-on bag (which we trust didn't itself generate emissions).

The researchers found that on average one to four cell phone calls were made during commercial flights in the north-east US. Some of these calls are made during critical flight stages such as the climb after take-off, or on final approach, potentially placing an aircraft in danger.
The study focused mainly on in-flight mobile use but it also unearthed evidence that the use of devices such as laptops and DVD players, especially during critical flight stages, were also a potential hazard.
"We found that the risk posed by these portable devices is higher than previously believed," said Bill Strauss, an expert in aircraft electromagnetic compatibility at the Naval Air Warfare Center in Patuxent River, Maryland, and a recent doctoral graduate from Carnegie Mellon.
"These devices can disrupt normal operation of key cockpit instruments, especially Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers, which are increasingly vital for safe landings."
The study comes as the US Federal Communications Commission is considering lifting the ban on the use of mobile phones during flights. Granger Morgan, head of the EPP Department at Carnegie Mellon, reckons this is a bad move.
"We feel that passenger use of portable electronic devices on aircraft should continue to be limited for the safety of all concerned," said Morgan.
Although use of mobile phones, much less electronic devices, have never been linked to an aircraft accident the Carnegie Mellon boffins reckon the risk is all too real. Researchers behind the study advise the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Aviation Authority begin to coordinate electronic emission standards. They also recommend routine monitoring of on-board radio emissions by flight data recorders. The study will be featured in an article due to appear in the March issue of IEEE Spectrum magazine.

Link to study:
Click here to view the source article.
Source: The Register, John Leyden, 2 mar, 2006

«First  ‹Previous   Page 174 of 174 
 News item: