Most home appliances have become more efficient over the past 30 years, but those gains have been offset by the influx of personal computers, televisions and related devices, according to data released recently by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Over the past three decades, the share of residential electricity used by appliances and electronics in U.S. homes has nearly doubled from 17 percent to 31 percent.

In the latest update to its Residential Energy Consumption Survey, which is has updated periodically since 1979, EIA found that:

• 58 percent of U.S. homes had energy-efficient, multi-pane windows, up from 36 percent in the 1993 survey.
• 76 percent of the 114 million U.S. homes had at least one computer, 8 percent more than just four years prior; 35 percent had multiple computers. (Hewlett-Packard announced last week that it has reduced the energy its products need to operate by 50 percent over the past five years.)
• 68 million homes have energy-efficient compact fluorescent (CFL) or light-emitting diode (LED) lights.
• 44 percent of all U.S. homes had three or more televisions. Screen size and average energy consumption per television continue to grow.

The bottom line? Our “needs” for the latest gadgets elevate our energy consumption, even with the onslaught of energy-efficient appliances in recent years. Our behaviors and actions will make the most difference. Here are some simple tips for lowering your energy use:

1. Buy Energy Star computers, appliances and power adapters, which can consume half the electricity of standard models.
2. Fully shut down your printer and computer when not in use. (“Sleep” uses standby energy.) Plug them into an easy-to-reach power strip so you only have to do it once.
3. Reduce. How many phones and remote controls do you need?
4. Unplug stuff you don’t use.
5. Unplug the charger. Remove battery-powered rechargeable devices from their docks when fully charged. A charger without a device attached still pulls electricity.

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.

When it comes to electromagnetic frequencies (EMFs) there’s not much good to say about them and plenty of cause for alarm. Amid the concern about the short-term effects of EMFs, there’s growing evidence to suggest that EMF’s long-term effects may include a rise in malignant brain tumors, some cancers and neurological disorders. While the debate rages on and studies continue, my advice is to be smart about EMFs and limit exposure as much as possible.

Why so cautious? Well, think of it this way: every day we’re being virtually steeped in a bath of “electro-smog” emanating from the gadgets of modern life. For the sake of convenience, we’re soaking up EMFs from wi-fi connections, Blackberry’s, Iphones, cordless phones, laptops, game consoles, plus refrigerators, blenders, coffee grinders, dishwashers, washer/dryers, microwave ovens, electric stoves, air conditioners, electric toothbrushes, electric blankets, baby monitors and so on. You may not be able to see it, but I and many others believe that your body responds as if it were a mass of toxins. If exposure to EMFs is as dangerous as I and many scientists believe, then it’s our duty to educate everyone we can on how to reduce exposure. Here’s a roundup of the current thinking on what to do to keep the ‘waves at bay and put a layer of protection between you and EMFs:

Ditch and switch.
Reduce exposure to radio frequencies by ditching the cordless phone and switching back to an old-fashioned, corded phone, just like the ones we used way back in the early 90’s. If the thought of being tied to a corded phone is too impossibly retro, at minimum keep the cordless phone far away from where you sleep (some suggest several rooms away) and use it only for short conversations. When friends and relatives call for a long chat, answer on the cordless, but quickly switch over to the corded phone to minimize exposure.

Say farewell to the cell.
Not bloody likely for most people, but the idea is to cut your cell phone usage as much as you possibly can – it could save your brain plus a few bucks on the monthly cell phone bill. Avoid long conversations on your cell. If you must have a long one, put the cell on speaker to expand the distance between your cell and your brain. Text rather than talk as much as possible. When in standby mode, keep your cell phone in a bag or briefcase, and off your body to lessen exposure. At night, turn the cell off completely. Most important, restrict cell phone use during pregnancy.

Manage your bars.
If the signal on your cell is weak, say only one or two bars worth of reception, wait till you’re in an area with a full deck of bars before dialing. Calling from areas where reception is weak forces the phone to work harder to get and maintain the connection, and delivers more potentially damaging EMFs to your body.

Turn off the juice.
If you’re not using it, unplug it. By keeping the majority of your appliances, gadgets and non-essentials turned off and unplugged from the wall will help reduce the EMF influx, but may save a little money too. Most of us forget that plugged-in appliances, even though they’re turned off, still pull power that you wind up paying for.

Sleep smarter.
Consider switching over to a metal-free futon, all-fabric mattress or tatami mat, as some studies suggest that traditional, metal spring mattresses and box springs may act as giant in-home EMF antennas – not an appealing thought. If a new bed isn’t in your immediate future, EMF-minimizing alternatives include bedding made with Swiss Shield Wear fabric, a Faraday fabric canopy or a microwave protection sleeping bag. And your trusty alarm clock? Switch to a battery-operated one to rise and shine without the EMFs.

“You may not be able to see electropollution, but your body responds to it as though it were a cloud of toxic chemicals.”

–Ann Louse Gittleman, author of Zapped: Why Your Cell Phone Shouldn’t Be Your Alarm Clock and 1,268 Ways to Outsmart the Hazards of Electronic Pollution.

The latest form of environmental pollution — and one that industry, government and wireless consumers don’t like to acknowledge — may be the most devastating threat to health yet: electromagnetic fields (EMFs). A few years ago, I was so concerned that I took a certification course in the detection and harmful effects of EMFs. What it taught me, above all, was how much the scientific community is learning daily, and how little we in the medical profession knew. This area was both frightening and daunting in its scope. I’m grateful that following Devra Davis’s Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation we now have Zapped to educate the public on this serious issue.

The UK’s BioInitiative Report of July 2007 (updated in 2009) describes hundreds of studies that link EMF exposure to Alzheimer’s disease, ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease), brain fog, cardiovascular disease, miscarriage, infertility, insomnia, learning impairment, as well as anxiety and depression. Wireless technologies — like cell and cordless phones — produce microwaves that increase the permeability of the blood-brain barrier, leading to changes in brain chemistry. Even low-level EMFs can cause brain cells to leak.

That’s not all: Although actual tissue heating does not occur, EMFs also cause breaks in DNA, speed up cell division, disrupting the orderly process of chromosome matching and detaching, and activate stress protein or heat shock proteins. And as Anne Louise Gittleman writes in Zapped:
Most disturbing of all, the Swedish National Institute for Working Life found that people using cell phones for 2,000 hours — a total most of us could easily rack up over the years — had a 240 percent increased risk for malignant brain tumors on the side of the head where they usually held their phone.

So, what do we do to avoid these dangers? I’m relieved that Gittleman, my friend and colleague and author of over 30 bestselling books, has tackled this topic. We’ll learn that most of us don’t need to give up all the digital and electronic gadgets that make life so much easier. To protect ourselves, we first need to recognize the risks and then make smart choices in how we use all the available technological wonders.

Why Are EMFs So Dangerous?

What most people don’t realize is the human body is naturally electrified. From the organic computer that is your brain, which sends out sensory messages like hunger and pain, to the energy that pumps your heart and makes your muscles contract, electricity powers your body. This innate electromagnetism within you is so critical to your daily functioning that modern medicine uses it in diagnostic testing (including electrocardiograms and MRIs) and, increasingly, to heal.

The “body electric” is an exquisitely tuned and sensitive creation, but unfortunately, human beings (and animals) respond favorably to only a very small range of electromagnetic frequencies. And there’s a big difference between the body’s natural electricity and the man-made electromagnetic frequencies that surround us 24/7 today. According to New York Times reporter B. Blake Levitt in Public Health SOS:
Most living things are fantastically sensitive to vanishingly small EMF exposures. Living cells interpret such exposures as part of our normal cellular activities (think heartbeats, brainwaves, cell division itself, etc.) The problem is, man-made electromagnetic exposures aren’t “normal.” They are artifacts, with unusual intensities, signaling characteristics, pulsing patterns, and wave forms. And they can misdirect cells in myriad ways.

Some of this radiation — extremely low frequency (ELF) radiation in power lines, the radio frequency (RF)/microwave range where all things wireless live, intermediate frequencies (“dirty electricity” or freaky frequencies linked to sick building syndrome), and the highest frequencies (gamma and X-rays) — is more damaging than natural frequencies to which humans (and animals) have adapted over millennia. Today, most Americans are constantly exposed to artificial frequencies, given the rapidly escalating pace of microwave and wireless expansion.

The bottom line is that electropollution — from cell towers, computers, cordless and mobile phones, PDAs, Wi-Fi, even the electrical appliances and wiring in our homes, offices and public buildings — continuously disturbs the sympathetic nervous system. This, in turn, elevates the body’s fight-and-flight response, raising levels of the stress hormone cortisol. Fluctuations in cortisol lead to a wide range of health concerns ranging from belly fat and thinning skin to accelerated aging, blood sugar imbalance, cardiovascular problems, erratic sleep patterns and mood disturbances. Dr. Stephen Sinatra elaborates on this issue in his new book, Earthing.

Your body responds to EMFs as though they were public enemy number-one, triggering what two-time Nobel Prize nominee Robert Becker, M.D., in his 1998 book The Body Electric, called “subliminal stress.” While intellectually you don’t recognize this kind of stealth stress the way you would overwork or being stuck in traffic when you’re late for an important appointment, your body’s internal antennae pick up on it in several ways, according the late scientist, Dr. W. R. Adey, from Loma Linda University:

• The flow of blood and oxygen shuts down to all except major organs like the brain and heart.
• Any systems — including digestion and immunity — that aren’t necessary for fight or flight response are put on hold.
• Blood pressure and heart rate as well as blood sugar levels increase to prepare your body for danger.

Recent research by Magda Havas, Ph.D., associate professor of Environmental and Resource Studies at Trent University in Canada, shows that dirty electricity — EMFs in electrical wiring — can raise blood sugar levels in diabetics and people at risk for diabetes. “Exposure to electromagnetic pollution in its various forms may account for higher plasma glucose levels and contribute to the misdiagnosis of diabetes,” she writes. Dr. Havas’ website is a goldmine of information on the entire topic of EMF pollution, as is Dr. Mercola’s EMF site!

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

There are “canaries in the coal mine” — hypersensitive individuals who are severely weakened by EMFs, and find themselves marginalized by the medical profession and society in general. Some must live in areas far from cell towers, Wi-Fi and the like. On a cellular level, these individuals have measurable damage to the mitochondria, the energy factories in each cell, and require reparative nutrients, for starters. I recently heard from a concerned family member of a man who had been exposed over time to a cell tower beaming through his office window. Quite ill, he was nonetheless unwilling to move his office location as I suggested, and I didn’t hear from them again. Ignoring the messenger, however, doesn’t solve the problem.

Zap-Proof Your Children

Today, an estimated 31 millions kids are on their cell phones close to four hours a day. Mobile phone companies are even marketing phones to preschoolers. Gittleman writes:
The trouble is, kids absorb 50 percent more electropollution than adults. One study finds that a cell phone call lasting only two minutes can cause brain hyperactivity that lasts up to an hour in children. Because their skulls are smaller and thinner than adults, EMFs penetrate much deeper into children’s brains. Kids’ brains are also more conductive due to their higher water and ion concentration.

The Toronto Board of Health recommends that children under eight use cell phone only for emergencies and that teens limit calls to under 10 minutes. If your kids have cell phones, encourage them to use the same smart tips you do.

Smart Use of Technology

The good news is most of us don’t have to give up our smartphones if we use them wisely. Here are some of the many tips Gittleman highlights in Zapped:

• Text, don’t talk, whenever possible.
• Use speaker mode to keep your phone as far away from your head as possible.
• Go offline — turn off your cell phone when you’re not using it and shut off your wireless router at night. (You’ll be amazed how much more soundly you’ll sleep.)
• Get your phone out of the your pocket; men who carry their mobile there have lower sperm counts than those who don’t carry a cell phone.
• Avoid tight spaces (buses, elevators, trains, and subways) where your phone has to work harder to get a signal out through metal.
• Buy low, choosing a phone with a low SAR (specific absorption rate) number.
• Replace your cordless phones with corded land line phones.
• Don’t cradle your laptop–putting it on your lap exposes your reproductive organs to EMFs.
• Most important of all, restrict cell and cordless phone use during pregnancy. Heavy phone use then has been linked to increased risk of miscarriage and birth defects. And a 2008 survey of more than 13,000 children found that those whose mothers used a cell phone during pregnancy were more likely to have behavior problems like hyperactivity and trouble controlling their emotions.

Don’t rely on the many stick-on devices available for your cell phone or computer that claim to protect you. Most are sold via network marketing, and I have yet to see the level of scientific proof that could convince me. You’ll likely see comments to this blog, advertising them. Caveat emptor!

Even if you go back to wired technologies at home, Wi-Fi is expanding rapidly into schools and other public buildings. If the telecommunications industry has its way, we will all be bathed in a sea of artificial radiation from nonstop EMF exposure.

Due to their lobbying efforts, Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 makes state and local governments powerless to prohibit cell towers and wireless antennas based on “environmental (i.e., human) health concerns.” Write your congressmen and senators to change this legislation and to require the FCC to reduce exposure guidelines for EMFs.

Don’t wait for the government to protect you, though. Get your copy of Zapped and take action!

The media is abuzz with the latest research news on the potential impact of cell phone use on human health. The most recent research study by the Radiation Research Trust, a UK-based charity, focuses on the health effects of electromagnetic fields from wireless technologies. The report released on August 25th, 2009, and signed by global researchers, builds on the work by Swedish researchers that was presented in September 2008 at the first international conference on mobile phones and health, headed by Professor Lennart Hardell of the University Hospital in Orebro, Sweden. The Swedish study stated that “children and teenagers” are five times more likely to get brain cancer if they use mobile phones”. The report, experts say, raises fears that today’s young people may suffer an “epidemic” of the disease in later life.

The European Parliament voted last year by 522 to 16 to urge ministers across Europe to bring in stricter limits for exposure to radiation from mobile and cordless phones, Wi-fi and other devices, partly because children are especially vulnerable to them. Children are more at risk because their brains and nervous systems are still developing and because – since their heads are smaller and their skulls are thinner – the radiation penetrates deeper into their brains.

The following is from University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute Based on Advice from an International Expert Panel

Analysis Of Recent Studies

Electromagnetic fields generated by cell phones should be considered a potential human health risk. Sufficient time has not elapsed in order for us to have conclusive data on the biological effects of cell phones and other cordless phones — a technology that is now universal.
Studies in humans do not indicate that cell phones are safe, nor do they yet clearly show that they are dangerous. But, growing evidence indicates that we should reduce exposures, while research continues on this important question.
Manufacturers report that cell and wireless phones emit electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic fields are likely to penetrate the brain more deeply for children than for adults.

Modeling in the diagram below estimates that young children are more susceptible to electromagnetic fields due to smaller sized brains and softer brain tissue.

1) Electromagnetic fields from cell phones are estimated to penetrate the brain especially in children.

Figure 1. Model estimate of the absorption of electromagnetic radiation from a cell phone based on age (Frequency GSM 900 Mhz) (On the right, color scale showing the Specific Absorption Rate in W/kg).

2) Living tissue is vulnerable to electromagnetic fields within the frequency bands used by cell phones (from 800 to 2200 MHz) even below the threshold of power imposed by most safety standards ( 1.6 W/Kg for 1g of tissue), notably an increase in the permeability of the blood-brain barrier and an increased synthesis of stress proteins.

The most recent studies, which include subjects with a history of cell phone usage for a duration of at least 10 years, show a possible association between certain benign tumors (acoustic neuromas) and some brain cancers on the side the device is used.

However, human epidemiological studies on cell phones conducted to date cannot be conclusive. Due to their recently increased use, we are not yet able to evaluate their long term impact on health. Even where an association between exposure and cancer is well established and the risk very high — as with tobacco and lung cancer — under similar study conditions (in other words with people who smoked for less than 10 years) it would be difficult, if not impossible, to identify an increased risk of cancer, as the risk appears mostly 15 to 35 years later.

The Ten Precautions

Given the absence of definitive proof in humans of the carcinogenic effects of electromagnetic fields of cell phones, we cannot speak about the necessity of preventative measures (as for tobacco or asbestos). In anticipation of more definitive data covering prolonged periods of observation, the existing data press us to share important prudent and simple measures of precaution for cell phone users, as have been variously suggested by several national and international reports.

These measures are also likely to be important for people who are already suffering from cancer and who must avoid any external influence that may contribute to disease progression.

1. Do not allow children to use a cell phone except for emergencies. The developing organs of a fetus or child are the most likely to be sensitive to any possible effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields.

2. While communicating using your cell phone, try to keep the cell phone away from the body as much as possible. The amplitude of the electromagnetic field is one fourth the strength at a distance of two inches and fifty times lower at three feet.
Whenever possible, use the speaker-phone mode or a wireless Bluetooth headset, which has less than 1/100th of the electromagnetic emission of a normal cell phone. Use of a headset attachment may also reduce exposure.

3. Avoid using your cell phone in places, like a bus, where you can passively expose others to your phone’s electromagnetic fields.

4. Avoid carrying your cell phone on your body at all times. Do not keep it near your body at night such as under the pillow or on a bedside table, particularly if pregnant. You can also put it on “flight” or “off-line” mode, which stops electromagnetic emissions.

5. If you must carry your cell phone on you, it is preferable that the keypad is positioned toward your body and the back is positioned toward the outside of your body. Depending on the thickness of the phone this may provide a minimal reduction of exposure.

6. Only use your cell phone to establish contact or for conversations lasting a few minutes as the biological effects are directly related to the duration of exposure. For longer conversations, use a land line with a corded phone, not a cordless phone, which uses electromagnetic emitting technology similar to that of cell phones.

7. Switch sides regularly while communicating on your cell phone to spread out your exposure. Before putting your cell phone to the ear, wait until your correspondent has picked up. This limits the power of the electromagnetic field emitted near your ear and the duration of your exposure.

8. Avoid using your cell phone when the signal is weak or when moving at high speed, such as in a car or train, as this automatically increases power to a maximum as the phone repeatedly attempts to connect to a new relay antenna.

9. When possible, communicate via text messaging rather than making a call, limiting the duration of exposure and the proximity to the body.

10. Choose a device with the lowest SAR possible (SAR = Specific Absorption Rate, which is a measure of the strength of the magnetic field absorbed by the body). SAR ratings of contemporary phones by different manufacturers are available by searching for “sar ratings cell phones” on the internet.

Conclusion

The cell phone is a remarkable invention and a breakthrough of great social importance. Our society will no longer do without cell phones. None of the members on the expert committee has stopped or intends to stop using cell telephones. This includes Dr. David Servan-Schreiber, a 16 year survivor of brain cancer. However, we, the users, must all take precautionary measures in view of recent scientific data on the biological effects of cell phone use, especially those who already have cancer.

In addition, manufacturers and service providers must also assume responsibility. It is their responsibility to provide appliances and equipment with the lowest possible risk and to constantly evolve their technology in this direction. They should also encourage consumers to use their devices in a way that is most compatible with preserving their health.
In the early 1980’s, the owners of asbestos mines were reduced to bankruptcy as a result of lawsuits brought by the families of deceased exposed workers. A few years later, a key executive of Johns Manville, the most prominent company, drew lessons from the years of struggle of his industry against medical data and the scientists who were drawing attention to the risks of asbestos. He concluded with regret that greater warnings for the public, the establishment of more effective precautions, and more extensive medical research “could have saved lives, and probably also shareholders, the industry, and the benefits of its product.”

We call on the cell phone companies to provide independent access to records of use so that appropriate studies can be carried out.
That is what we wish for today’s cell phone industry. We do not need to ban this technology, but to adapt it – to harness it – so that it never becomes a major cause of illness.

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/adopt-the-precautionary-principle/ http://www.drfranklipman.com/adopt-the-precautionary-principle/#comments Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:00:45 +0000 Frank Lipman http://www.drfranklipman.com/?p=3083
A new way of thinking about health and the environment. It focuses on making conscientious environmental decisions that will have a positive effect on tomorrow.]]>




The Precautionary Principle is a new way of thinking and making decisions about health and the environment. Precaution is a translation of a German term, which literally means “forecaring”, exercising foresight and care. We teach our children to be kind, respectful, caring, responsible and to look before they leap. The Precautionary Principle embraces these qualities and focuses on making conscientious environmental decisions today, that will have a positive effect on tomorrow.

“When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken, even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”

Chinese Medicine teaches that humans are a microcosm of the earth, and each of us is part of this wider web of life, the macrocosm. When the web is healthy, we are more likely to be healthy. All life is interconnected and human health is dependant on planetary or environmental health.

This is an extension of the Ubuntu philosophy: we are responsible for our world, our fellowman and the environment.

“Man did not weave the web of life — he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.”
– Chief Seattle

]]> http://www.drfranklipman.com/adopt-the-precautionary-principle/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 http://www.drfranklipman.com/legislators-and-journalists-are-told-that-wireless-technologies-cause-harm-to-children-and-adults/ http://www.drfranklipman.com/legislators-and-journalists-are-told-that-wireless-technologies-cause-harm-to-children-and-adults/#comments Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:59:44 +0000 Frank Lipman
Resources on reviewing the independent science on the health hazards of wireless radiation and offers recommendations to the public on how to live more safely in a wireless world.]]>




On Wednesday June 30th, The National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy (NISLAPP) mailed a report on the health hazards of wireless technologies to Governors, Members of Congress, President Obama and his Administration, as well as to thousands of health and environmental journalists.

Legislators and journalists are being urged to learn about the health consequences of microwave radiation exposure from cell phones, neighborhood antennas, wireless networks, wireless routers, DECT portable phones, and the potential health consequences of further chronic exposures from wireless broadband and new wireless utility technologies.

The National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy is encouraging all to become engaged with this important public health issue impacting adults and children, as well as animals and nature.

A new book, Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution co-authored by Dr. Magda Havas, Assoc. Professor of Environmental and Resource Studies at Trent University in Canada, and Camilla Rees, a future guest blogger on this site and Founder of ElectromagneticHealth, reviews the independent science on the health hazards of wireless radiation and offers recommendations to the public on how to live more safely in a wireless world.

Related Links

• Electromagnetic Health
• Camilla’s Book: Public Health SOS
]]> http://www.drfranklipman.com/legislators-and-journalists-are-told-that-wireless-technologies-cause-harm-to-children-and-adults/feed/ 0