World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified cell phone radiation as a ‘Possible Human Carcinogen’ (Class 2B) (http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/iarc-rf-carc/). This provides the 1st official scientific basis on which governments, schools and parents can now legitimately call for precautionary behavior regarding these radiation-emitting devices.

IARC Press Release: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf.

IARC Director Dr. Christopher Wild stated, “Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and finding it is important that additional research be conducted into the long-term, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands-free devices or texting.”

The IARC decision was a true watershed event. IARC’s own 13-country Interphone study downplayed brain tumor risk when published last May, with news headlines heralding “No Risk Found”. While that statement was true for overall results, what much of the media coverage, and the press announcement, omitted to mention was that in the category of people who had used cell phones for 10 years or longer, the research showed a clear increased risk for brain tumors in heavy users. It is important to note that was considered ‘heavy use’ in these studies would be considered common exposures today.

Two of the lead authors of the Interphone study, Drs. Elizabeth Cardis and Dr. Siegal Sadetski, later boldly took it upon themselves to publish a clarification of risks found in the Interphone study, urging caution. http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/interphone-scientists-urging-caution/.

The WHO’s classification of cell phone radiation as a ‘possible carcinogen’ was based on science showing increased risk for glioma, or brain tumors.  While gliomas can be either malignant or benign, they always carry a poor prognosis according to experts. (Ohgaki H and Kleihues P. Population-based studies on incidence, survival rates, and genetic alterations in astrocytic and oligodendroglial gliomas.  Review article. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol, Vol 64, N° 6, June 2005, pp 479-489).

The IARC Working Group was not asked to quantify the magnitude of the cancer risk, though independent assessments of the science indicate a doubled risk of both glioma and acoustic neuroma after 10 years of cell phone use.

Besides gliomas, other cancers linked in research to cell phone use include meningiomas, acoustic neuromas, salivary gland tumors, eye cancer, testicular cancer and leukemia, though there evidently was not sufficient evidence to classify cell phones as a cancer risk for these types of cancer now, nor occupational exposures, which were also reviewed by IARC.

While health advocates are pleased with the recognition of cancer risk from cell phones, several scientific experts, such as 20+ year IARC veteran, Dr. Annie J. Sasco, MD, DrPH, cancer researcher at the Bordeaux Segalen University, France, say the present evidence actually justifies a class 2A classification, or “Probably Carcinogen”.

Sasco says the fact that much of the research was sponsored by the cell phone industry may have impacted the classification.

“That may explain why there is not sufficient evidence in experimental animals, but that’s not good enough for automatically going down to 2B. I, myself, feel it would have been appropriate to have a 2A classification.”

Sasco says, “Industry funded studies are more likely not to demonstrate any detrimental effects of EMF and even when an effect is found and reported, it is common to find in the paper a discussion of why such an effect could be the result of bias (competing causes of death, benign rather than malignant tumors and the like), rather than a true effect. This may have led the animal evidence to be classified as less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity.”

The Elephant in the Room

Microwave radiation emitted by cell phones is the same kind of radiation emitted by other wireless technologies, such as WiFi routers, portable phones, wireless baby monitors and cell towers. The distinction is that the cell phone has more power at the head, and they operate at different frequencies. Given society is blanketing itself in this radiation, and the radiation is known to cause DNA damage, cancer, impaired fertility, cognitive impairment, such as memory changes, interference with learning and wildlife and ecosystem effects, we feel it is urgent that federal research funding be immediately allocated to examining this issue.

See the range of symptoms from exposures to cell towers, which are similar to exposures to Wi-Fi, below:

Frequency of Electromagnetic Sensitivity Symptoms
Based on Distance to a Cell Phone Base Station

Source: Santini 2001, La Presse Medical, graphically depicted by Dr. Magda Havas (www.magdahavas.com)

Joel Moskowitz, PhD, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at University of California, Berkeley, is calling for a $1 annual surcharge on all cell phones to fund research on cell phones. This would handily fund a $300m U.S. research program on biological impacts of the microwave radiation to which we are constantly being exposed.

See recent recommendations by Dr. Moskowitz : “Cell Phone Radiation and Health Recommendations”.

Why have global public health bodies not acted sooner, allowing a trillion dollar industry to emerge, now deeply intertwined with our economy, without sufficient pre-market health testing? What is it about the human psyche that creates a deep resistance to look at the truth, where proper steps to protect human health and the planet are taken far too little and far too late?

With electromagnetic fields from cell phones and wireless technologies, we are taking risk of unacceptable proportions for the DNA and fertility of the human species, as well as for the ecosystem, such as the crop pollinators (i.e. bees) which are necessary for our food supply.

If you would like to see the U.S. Congress focus more on this important public health concern, please sign the EMF Petition to Congress at www.ElectromagneticHealth.org.

Please ask your representatives in Congress to:

1. Mandate the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) revisit its exposure guidelines for radiofrequency radiation (RF) immediately.

2. Repeal Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which took away the rights of state and local governments to stop the erection of cell towers and wireless antennas in their communities based on “environmental” grounds (defined by FCC as “human health”).

3. Declare a national moratorium on further wireless infrastructure build-out, including the Wi-Max roll-out currently underway, a joint venture of Sprint, Time Warner Cable, Google, Clearwire and others.

4. Establish cell phone and wireless-free neighborhoods, transportation options, government buildings, and public spaces; require employers to establish wireless free zones; and, mandate the removal of cellular and wireless technologies from public schools and their properties.

Camilla Rees is founder of ElectromagneticHealth.org (www.ElectromagneticHealth.org) and the Campaign for Radiation Free Schools (Facebook), co-author of “Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution” and co-founder of the International EMF Alliance.

The scientific journal Reviews on Environmental Health has published a report by international scientists calling for greatly reduced exposure limits for electromagnetic radiation from power line and telecommunications technologies, including cell phones and wireless technologies. The statement, called The Seletun Scientific Statement, was written by scientists in five countries based on a large and growing body of evidence of biological effects. They say governments should take decisive action now to protect biological function as well as the health of future generations.

The Seletun Scientific Statement includes “10 Key Recommendations to Protect Public Health”. See the Video Announcement by Seletun Scientific Panel, Chair, Olle Johansson, PhD of The Karolinska Institute in Sweden, which is now circulating on every continent. The warning very strongly states the global population is at risk, that there is serious disruption to biological systems occurring, and gives guidance to governments as to what levels of RF (radiofrequency) and ELF (extremely low frequency fields) are acceptable based on a review of the science showing biological effects. The scientists say the former means of assessing risk, looking at heating effects of radiation, is not valid, and that biological effects must be at the heart of exposure guidelines to protect public health from serious, and possibly irreversible DNA level damage to our species.

Dr. Johansson says, “Biological effects are occurring at exposures many orders of magnitude below existing global safety limits.”

Here are the 10 Key Points from the Seletun Scientific Panel Consensus Agreement:

1. The Global Population Is At Risk
2. Sensitive Populations Are Currently Vulnerable
3. Government Actions Are Warranted Now Based on Evidence of Serious Disruption to Biological Systems
4. The Burden of Proof for the Safety of Radiation-Emitting Technologies Should Fall on Producers and Providers, Not Consumers
5. EMF Exposures Should Be Reduced in Advance of Complete Understanding of Mechanisms of Action
6. The Current Accepted Measure of Radiation Risk—the Specific Absorption Rate (‘SAR’)—Is Inadequate, and Misguides on Safety and Risk
7. An International Disease Registry Is Needed To Track Time Trends of Illnesses to Correlate Illnesses with Exposures
8. Pre-Market Health Testing and Safety Demonstration Needed for All Radiation-Emitting Technologies
9. Parity Needed for Occupational Exposure Standards
10. Functional Impairment Designation Needed for Persons with Electrohypersensitivity

Read more at ElectromagneticHealth.org:
http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/the-seletun-statement

Heart Rate Variability Graph:

On exposure to microwave radiation from a DECT portable phone, Subject A evidenced no change in heart rate, whereas note Subject B shows a dramatic increase in heart rate during each exposure interval. Arrhthmia (irregular beats) and/or tachycardia (rapid heart rate) are two symptoms that some but not all people who are electrically sensitive experience.

Experiencing EHS or Electrohypersensitivity

If you experience pressure or pain in the chest, rapid or irregular heartbeat, and feelings of anxiety, you might think that you are having a heart attack. Not necessarily, says Dr. Magda Havas. According to Dr. Havas, who is Associate Professor of Environmental and Resource Studies at Trent University in Canada, you might be experiencing EHS or Electrohypersensitivity.

The Study

This week at the American Holistic Medical Association conference in Cleveland, as well as the EMR Policy Institute conference in Golden, CO, Havas will present Phase I results of a 100-person study that exposed patients to DECT cordless phone radiation while monitoring heart rate variability, or the space between the heart beats. In the image above, you see an example of an electrohypersensitive person’s response. Immediately upon exposure, the subject’s heart rate sped up, and on removal of the exposure, the heart rate went back to the baseline. The study was blinded, meaning that the volunteers did not know when the nearby cordless phone was on or off.

Impact of Microwave Radiation

Havas states, “While not everyone who is electrically sensitive responds in this manner, those who do will have difficulty being in environments where microwave radiation is present, which is virtually everywhere in our modern, wireless culture.” She adds, “Cordless phones and cell phones as well as wireless computers and wi-fi networks generate this form of microwave radiation.”

Havas’ research on wireless phone radiation’s impact on heart rate is scheduled to be published early next year. The dramatic impact of wireless phone radiation on heart rate shown in this study will surely add to the growing interest in health effects of cell phones, broadening the discussion from the cellphone-brain tumor connection to include microwave radiation’s impact on other systems in the body, including the heart. Importantly, it gives clinicians a tool with which to first discern if a patient’s cardiac symptoms are related to electromagnetic fields before prescribing symptom-suppressing pharmaceuticals or invasive cardiac procedures.

Over and over again, in my own work assessing electromagnetic fields, a wide range of symptoms are routinely found to be linked to a portable phone at the bedside, wireless routers, wireless computer and printers, radiation-emitting Compact Fluorescent Bulbs, and usually the completely overlooked wireless equipment of neighbors. For electrohypersensitive people, sometimes a return to wellness is as close as turning off the wireless, or shielding from the wireless radiation of neighbors. To learn about EMF meters, and shielding fabrics, paints, films for the windows, and bed canopies, visit www.EMFSafetyStore.com or www.LessEMF.com.

ElectromagneticHealth.org Press Release: http://sn.im/t0fzw

EMR Policy Institute Conference Agenda:

Sign EMF Petition to Congress here: www.ElectromagneticHealth.org

Stay tuned for discussion of a new retrospective research study by epidemiologist Sam Milham, MD on the historic role of electrification in the incidence of many chronic illnesses in the 20th century.

If you have diabetes you are not alone. 350 million people globally are projected to have diabetes by 2025. This is up from 30 million in the late 1980s. What is driving it?

The new video by Dr. Magda Havas, PhD of Trent University of Canada (http://www.youtube.com/user/magdahavas#p/u/10/gJcM6RZwyfA) outlines startling insights into the connection between diabetes and the growth in electromagnetic fields. This video is based on a study published by Dr. Havas in Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine (27: 135–146, 2008) called “Dirty Electricity Elevates Blood Sugar Among Electrically Sensitive Diabetics and May Explain Brittle Diabetes”.

One astonishing finding showed that in diabetic patients who exercised by walking outdoors, blood sugar went down as expected, but in those who exercised on a treadmill, impacted by electromagnetic fields, the blood sugar went up. Dr. Havas suggests there may not just be a Type I Diabetes and a Type II Diabetes, but also a new ‘Type III’ Diabetes related to external environmental factors.

Diabetics who are electrically sensitive get increased blood sugar in the presence of electromagnetic fields. Testing for this on a treadmill in the clinical setting can give clinicians an important new piece of clinical information with which to guide treatment. Diabetics who are electrically sensitive should be advised to minimize exposure to electromagnetic fields.

Increasing medical costs for diabetes in US:

In the United States alone, there are 24 million people with diabetes, accounting for $113 billion dollars in direct medical costs.

Dr. Elbert Huang of the University of Chicago has projected these costs will triple by 2034, straining the viability of Medicare. Huang says: “Diabetes is a major public health problem right now, but it’s important for the country and for policymakers to have an idea of what will happen in the next couple of decades.” If diabetes costs triple, they will be $336 billion annually by 2034.

Research on the electromagnetic field impact:

While much emphasis has been placed on dietary and lifestyle changes for diabetics as a way to stem progression of the disease, the electromagnetic field impact until now has been little known and little investigated.

Experts expect research into this frontier may provide very important new information linking the widespread proliferation of electronic and wireless technologies to the unexplained rapid growth in diabetes—and possibly obesity—over the last 20 years.

Dr. Havas is Associate Professor of Environmental and Resource Studies at Trent University in Canada and a leading expert in electromagnetic fields, including ELF Fields, Dirty Electricity, Radio Frequency Radiation, Microwave Radiation, and Ground Current. She is the Co-author of “Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution” (http://snurl.com/uztp9) with Camilla Rees, Founder of Electromagnetichealth.org, a primer on electromagnetic fields and health sent to Congress last June.

You Tube Video of Dr. Havas on Diabetes and EMF
http://www.youtube.com/user/magdahavas#p/u/10/gJcM6RZwyfA

—————

Abstract from Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine:

Dirty Electricity Elevates Blood Sugar Among
Electrically Sensitive Diabetics and May Explain
Brittle Diabetes

MAGDA HAVAS

Environmental & Resource Studies, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada

Transient electromagnetic fields (dirty electricity), in the kilohertz range on electrical wiring, may be contributing to elevated blood sugar levels among diabetics and prediabetics. By closely following plasma glucose levels in four Type 1 and Type 2 diabetics, we find that they responded directly to the amount of dirty electricity in their environment. In an electromagnetically clean environment, Type 1 diabetics require less insulin and Type 2 diabetics have lower levels of plasma glucose. Dirty electricity, generated by electronic equipment and wireless devices, is ubiquitous in the environment. Exercise on a treadmill, which produces dirty electricity, increases plasma glucose. These findings may explain why brittle diabetics have difficulty
regulating blood sugar. Based on estimates of people who suffer from symptoms of electrical hypersensitivity (3–35%), as many as 5–60 million diabetics worldwide may be affected. Exposure to electromagnetic pollution in its various forms may account for higher plasma glucose levels and may contribute to the misdiagnosis of diabetes. Reducing exposure to electromagnetic pollution by avoidance or with specially designed GS filters may enable some diabetics to better regulate their blood sugar with less medication and borderline or pre-diabetics to remain non diabetic longer.

New interest by consumers in cell phone safety

Just prior to the recent Senate hearings on cell phone safety, Chaired by Senator Tom Harkin, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) released a new database for consumers ranking over 1,000 cell phones by the Specific Absorption Rate, known as the SAR value.

The SAR value is a measure of the power of the cell phone and its potential for heating tissues.

The SAR value has been available for some time through the FCC’s own databases but has never before been made available in one central, easily accessible source in the United States. Nor is the SAR value listed on box packaging of cell phones at the point of sale for comparison purposes.

All that has changed.

Within days of the EWG launching the new SAR value database, and issuing its 42-page report titled “Cell Phone Radiation Science: Review of Cancer Risks and Children’s Health”, almost 500,000 people had accessed the database, indicating very encouraging new interest by consumers in cell phone safety.

Consumers’ new awareness of the SAR value will be certain to influence phone selections going forward (though sales reps at T-Mobile and Verizon I quizzed a week later still knew nothing about it.)

It is important consumers realize that the SAR value, while providing information for comparison purposes between phones, is very limited in its usefulness as a measure of ‘safety.’ We are greatly concerned that people may be turning to the EWG database in droves not understanding just how limited a measure the SAR value is.

What You Need to Know about Your Phone’s SAR Value

1. The SAR value is only comparing the heating effect of different phones and does not give an indication that a cell phone is ‘safe,’ or for that matter anything about the biological effect of cell phone use in a given person.
2. The power, or heating effect, of the phone is only one of many possible factors impacting cell phone ‘safety.’ Certainly it is useful to know if your phone has a high SAR value, but exposures to the radiation from the cell phone at non-heating levels have been linked to many serious biological effects, and the SAR value is not capturing anything about these harmful non-thermal exposures.

3. SAR values are reported to the FCC by the manufacturer and have been known to vary from the reported number by a factor of two across models of the same phone.

   There is little or no ongoing monitoring of the SAR values submitted by manufacturers.

   In one case, Canada found cell phones with SAR’s of 2.5 W/kg (the limit is 1.6 W/kg) and rejected them, albeit a year after they had been on the market. According to Lloyd Morgan, B.Sc., in the U.S. the lack of independent monitoring would have assured this would never have even have been detected.

4. The SAR value varies with the source of exposure and the person using the phone. For example, if you are in a rural area or in an elevator or a car, where the cell phone uses more power, your brain will get a greater exposure from the higher power required in these instances.

   Likewise, if you use a low SAR value phone for long durations, you will be more exposed than someone who uses a low SAR value phone infrequently. Neither is indicative of safety.

5. Holding the phone in a slightly different way can actually render the worst SAR value phone better than the best SAR value phone.

   Lloyd Morgan, B.Sc., lead author of the new report “Cell phones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern” says:

   “If someone has a cell phone at max SAR of 1.6 W/kg and another has the lowest SAR cell phone (0.55 W/kg), it is certainly better to use the latter. However as a result of the inverse square law, just holding the phone in a slightly different way can mean that the worse phone is better than the best phone.

   For example if the worst phone is normally held 2 mm from the head but a particular user holds it 3.4 mm from the head, the effective SAR becomes 0.55 W/kg. The distance overwhelms the different SAR values.”

6. SAR values have been created based on simulations of exposure in a plexiglass head filled with fluid, not a human head, and many scientists consider them to be inaccurate and irrelevant at determining actual biological effects.

Scientists Revisit SAR Values

At the recent “International Expert Conference on Cell Phones and Health” in Washington, D.C., organized by Dr. Devra Davis, PhD, MPH and others, the SAR value was discussed by many participating scientists.

Dr. Martin Blank, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons stated:

“The SAR is a measure of the energy deposition in radiofrequency. It is a pretty good measure of that but it is not a measure of biological effect — biological activity. And when it’s being used that way, it gives results that are totally misleading or irrelevant.”

He adds:

“By and large, more SAR means there is more energy around. Higher SAR is probably correlated with higher damage but it is not a measure of the damage and it may be not correlated at all with the damage.”

Alvaro Augusto A. de Salles, PhD, Professor, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul-UFRGS in Brazil, stated:

“SAR values are based only on thermal effects. SAR is not a good reference to protect the population. Perhaps if they lower this 1.6 W/kg SAR limit at least 10-20x, I think it would be safer for the population. I think it would be reasonable. We have made calculations.

Cell phones can operate with energy at least 100x lower. The technology is there—good quality communication and higher protection to the user. I am unable to tell you that this level will be safer, but the risk will be lower.”

Wilhelm Mosgoeller, MD of the University of Vienna Cancer Institute, who spoke at the International Expert Conference on genetic damage at non-thermal levels of exposure, had this to say about SAR:

“SAR value is very good as long as we are talking about heating effect, like effects from the microwave oven.

In the low dose, in the low intensity range we are dealing with biological effects which are clearly not linear to the SAR value, they are not linear to the energy transmitted and measured and communicated by the SAR value. So for the low intensity experiments, or the so called ‘athermal’ effects, we are very suspicious whether the SAR value is valid at all.”

He didn’t rule out using the value of SAR for the time being, however, saying:

“The problem is we don’t have a better measure than the SAR value at the moment. Before we skip the SAR value we need an alternative measure.”

EMF expert Stan Hartman in Boulder, CO says:

“From my perspective, comparing the “safest” cell phones is like comparing the “safest” cigarettes. None of them are safe, and these kinds of comparisons only serve to whitewash how irresponsible and inexcusable the whole technology is.

Using the word ‘safer’ to apply to any brand just encourages peoples’ denial of the fact that all cell phones are a health menace from which we have hardy begun to see the consequences.”

How You Can Minimize the Risks to Your Health

As Magda Havas, PhD and I suggested in our book “Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution,” if you are concerned about the heating effect of cell phones, as measured by the SAR, we recommend you minimize your use of cell phones.

Another option is to use an air tube earpiece to keep the cell phone away from your head, or alternatively, get in the habit of using the cell phone’s speakerphone.

Physical distance of the phone from your brain, and less usage of the cell phone overall, more so than simply choosing a phone with a lower SAR value, is probably a far better insurance policy.

Dr. Havas, who is Assoc. Professor of Environmental and Resource Studies at Trent University in Canada, says exposure guidelines for microwave radiation in the U.S. are based exclusively on short-term exposure to prevent thermal effects.

“If the radiation doesn’t heat your tissue it is assume to be safe. Scientific studies demonstrate that this assumption is false.

The antiquated guidelines developed decades ago need to be revised to take into account recent scientific studies. While lower exposure to microwave radiation may be “safer” it may not be “safe.”

It is important we recognize this and that we weigh the value of the SAR measurement in this light.

Many, many biological effects occur at non-heating levels of exposure, including leakage in the Blood Brain Barrier and neuron death at only 0.012 W/kg (compared to the FCC exposure limit for this form of radiation of1.6 W/kg).

The blood brain barrier leakage has been shown to continue as long as 50 days after exposure.

Also of note, in a study by Henrietta Nittby et al (2009), the lowest exposure SARs were worse than the higher SAR exposures. Some scientists consider blood brain barrier effects at these very low levels of radiation exposure (i.e. 30-45x lower than the ‘Top 10’ lowest SAR phones ranked by the Environmental Working Group) to be of equal or even greater concern for the population than the increase in brain tumors from cell phone use that is expected.

I would recommend limiting use of cell phones to emergencies.

Personally, I use SKYPE as a substitute for a cell phone. SKYPE gives me the portability of one phone number and voicemail whether I am at home, the office or traveling, and by plugging in to a hard wire connection, I minimize my brain’s direct exposure to microwave radiation significantly.

Camilla Rees, Founder, www.Electromagnetichealth.org

Co-author, “Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution”

Co-author, “Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern”

EMF Adviser, Citizens for Health

]]> http://www.drfranklipman.com/top-safe-cell-phones-that-arent-safe/feed/ 0 http://www.drfranklipman.com/what%e2%80%99s-wrong-with-this-picture/ http://www.drfranklipman.com/what%e2%80%99s-wrong-with-this-picture/#comments Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:00:55 +0000 Camilla Rees
There are thousands of studies showing electromagnetic fields are biologically active and yet growth in wireless technologies in the United States continues unchecked.]]>




There are thousands of studies showing electromagnetic fields are biologically active. And yet growth in wireless technologies in the United States continues unchecked.

Independent studies by Hardell et al. in Sweden show significantly increased risk of brain tumors from 10 or more years of cellphone or cordless phone use on the same side of the head as the phone was used.

For every 100 hours of cellphone use, the risk of brain cancer increases by 5%. For every year of cellphone use, the risk of brain cancer increases by 8%. After 10 or more years of digital cellphone use, there was a 280% increased risk of brain cancer. For cellphone users who were teenagers or younger when they first starting using a cellphone, there was a 420% increased risk of brain cancer.

These numbers and much more can be found in a new report released this week called, “Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern, Science, Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone“. It was written by eight EMF health advocates on two continents (including myself) to set the record straight and explain the design flaws in the 13-country, industry funded Interphone research study. More Interphone research is expected soon. We are concerned about 11 design flaws in the Interphone study that underestimate risk of brain tumors, outlined in detail in this report. Download PDF here.

Lead author of “Cellphones and Brain Tumors”, Lloyd Morgan, a member of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, says, “The largest health experiment ever undertaken, without informed consent, has some 4 billion participants enrolled. To date science papers have shown an increased risk of brain tumors, eye cancer, salivary gland tumors, testicular cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and leukemia from cellphone use. The public must be informed”

Interest is brewing in Washington on this subject. Last year, Rep. Dennis Kucinich held hearings on cell phone-cancer links, where Ronald Herberman, MD, Director Emeritus of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer testified. However, recently, in July 2009, our FDA declared, “Whereas high levels of RF can produce health effects (by heating tissue), exposure to low-level RF that does not produce heating effects causes no known adverse health effects.” Senator Arlen Specter, a survivor of a brain tumor himself, is reported to be planning Senate hearings on cellphone health risks for this September .

The ‘thermal issue’ is at the heart of the debate about harm from wireless technologies of all kinds. Government and international health bodies set exposure standards using a long since discredited ‘thermal standard’, based on physics, not on biology. The thermal standard has been discredited over and over again. The Bioinitiative Report , published in August 2007, reviewed over 2,000 studies demonstrating biological effects of electromagnetic fields at non-thermal levels, but our FCC and other global regulatory bodies still maintain a defensive posture, in effect supporting the interests of the telecommunications and electronics industries.

When the truth of this matter comes out, it will be difficult for governments to explain why there was no pre-market health testing of cell phones and wireless technologies. People will learn that electromagnetic fields impact the body; how the science has been known for decades; how industry’s own research, and internal government recommendations, have been suppressed; and how independent scientists have been intimidated, with their funding dried up when they have published positive findings about biological effects from electromagnetic fields, or when they have spoken to the media.

Many countries, but not yet the United States, are now feeling a sense of urgency to exercise precaution, especially when it comes to children’s health.

The European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety last spring voted overwhelmingly to recommend precautions be taken to protect human health with regard to wireless technologies, such as mobile phones, Wi-Fi/Wi-Max, Bluetooth, DECT portable phones and cell towers.

In the United States, all eyes are on Washington. This is because a provision of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Section 704, took away state and local governments rights to limit towers and antennas on health or environmental grounds. Many local governments across the country are agitating for repeal.

Devra Davis, PhD, MPH of the University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health is gathering leading international EMF scientists in Washington for a meeting this September called, “The Expert Conference on Cell Phones and Health: Science and Public Policy Questions”. The conference will be held September 13-15th, recessing for Monday afternoon during the reportedly planned U.S. Senate Hearings on Cell Phones and Health, chaired by the Honorable Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

Physicians and health advocates are hoping that out of this will emerge legislation and recommendations similar to those from the European Union last spring, which included funding for a ‘wide-ranging’ awareness campaign aimed at young people; that certain establishments be kept free of wireless radiation, including schools, day care centers, retirement homes and health care institutions; that an independent body be given the additional task of assessing scientific integrity of studies in this field; and recognition for persons with Electrical Sensitivity as ‘disabled’
 so as to assure them protection and equal opportunity under law.

I’ll end with a quote from Paul J. Rosch, MD, Clinical Professor of Medicine and Psychiatry, New York Medical College; Full Member, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences; Fellow, The Royal Society of Medicine; and Emeritus Member, The Bioelectromagnetics Society

The health of all living systems (ranging upward from a cell, tissue, organ or person, to a family, organization or nation) depends on good communication – good communication within, as well as with the external environment. All communication in the body eventually takes place via very subtle electromagnetic signaling between cells that is now being disrupted by artificial electropollution we have not had time to adapt to. As Alvin Toffler emphasized in Future Shock, too much change in too short a time produces severe stress due to adaptational failure. The adverse effects of electrosmog may take decades to be appreciated, although some, like carcinogenicity, are already starting to surface. This gigantic experiment on our children and grandchildren could result in massive damage to mind and body with the potential to produce a disaster of unprecedented proportions, unless proper precautions are immediately implemented.

For those of you wanting to learn more, please visit www.electromagnetichealth.org. While there, consider signing the EMF Petition to Congress to lend your support to this issue.

]]> http://www.drfranklipman.com/what%e2%80%99s-wrong-with-this-picture/feed/ 1