Welcome to Mast Sanity
We are the primary national organisation opposing the insensitive siting of mobile phone and Tetra masts in the UK. Read more...
Phone Mast News Feeds
Powerwatch
** New** ES-UK
MS Research
MS News
Donate
Please consider supporting our efforts.
Or Send Donations by post to:
Brantham Hill,
Manningtree, EssexCO11 1SD
Press Release 11th September 2007 - MTHR Publication vs. BioInitiative Report
- Details
- Parent Category: Media
The
results of the Industry and Government funded Mobile
Telecommunications and Health Research Programme (MTHR) is to be
published on Wednesday 12th September at the Wellcome Trust in
conjunction with the Science Media Centre.
We
do not expect the MTHR report to be representative of real research
carried out into relevant areas of the Mobile Phone Mast / Health
issue. The MTHR studies have largely avoided the research areas where
actual health effects from microwave emissions would be seen. The
Electrical Engineering bias of the MTHR is apparent in the studies
they have commissioned. Humans are biological organisms not machines
or computers. Biologists and Biophysicists would carry out more
useful studies.
The
MTHR's recent release of the University of Essex study into
electrosensitivity, which was carried out from a psychological
viewpoint, proved hugely controversial, with accusations of
misrepresentation and spin to present findings required by Government
and the Industry, who funded the study. According to the published
results electrosensitivity has no connection with phone masts.
Mast
Sanity stringently contests the validity of the study, and the
results, noting participants who could not complete the tests due to
illness
(at least partially from the microwave exposure given to them as part
of the study) were eliminated. Studying the complete publication
rather than just the press release, reveals that the information
publicising the study is at odds with the actual findings.
Given
the disingenuous press release, the tone of the subsequent reports
has been predictably biased, generally writing off electrosensitivity
as the product of a psychological problem rooted in a belief that the
technology was harmful.
Unfortunately,
we expect no better from the rest of the MTHR reports. We would
strongly suggest that the results of the MTHR report be discounted,
due to the conflict of interest of most of its members[1],
who are also part of the very bodies that would be adversely affected
by any critical findings, and of its funding, which comes from
Industry and Government. The British Public and Press would be better
served by looking at the Independent
and more representative "Bioinitiative" report[2],
by an international working group of Independent scientists,
researchers and public health policy professionals (The BioInitiative
Working Group) which was released on 31st August this year. They
document serious scientific concerns about current limits regulating
how much electromagnetic field (EMF) is allowable from power lines,
mobile phones, mobile phone masts, wi-fi and many other sources of
EMF exposure in daily life.
Mast
Sanity Spokesperson Yasmin Skelt says “Why
do we listen to industry-funded research reports from the likes of
the MTHR? In all other aspects of our lives we would ignore reports
that come from the interested party. If an Alternative Therapy group
reported on the success of its therapy, it would be immediately
dismissed as untrustworthy because of its bias. This happened
recently. The Tobacco Companies told us that smoking was safe . So
why are we prepared to listen to researchers using Mobile Phone
Industry money on research chosen by the industry itself? It is
ludicrous and dangerous.”
The
Bioinitiative report documents scientific evidence raising worries
about childhood leukaemia (from power lines and other electrical
exposures), brain tumours and acoustic neuromas (from cell and
cordless phones) and Alzheimer’s disease. There is evidence that
EMFs, such as from Mobile Phone Masts, is a risk factor for both
childhood and adult cancers. Public health expert and co-editor of
the Report Dr. David Carpenter, Director, Institute for Health and
the Environment at the University of Albany, New York says “this
report stands as a wake-up call that long-term exposure to some kinds
of EMF may cause serious health effects. Good public health planning
is needed now to prevent cancers and neurological diseases linked to
exposure to power lines and other sources of EMF [such as Mobile
Phone Masts 'Cell Towers']. We need to educate people and our
decision makers that “business as usual” is unacceptable.”
The
crux of the Bioinitiative report is that the existing ICNIRP
guidelines followed by the UK and other countries for their microwave
emission limits is far too high. It confirms the position of the
Benevento
Resolution[3]
and the late Dr. Neil Cherry[4]
who said “the
ICNIRP guideline exposure level is set many orders of magnitude too
high to accomplish this [protection of public health]. This [view]
has been intransigently maintained in the face of compelling
laboratory and epidemiological evidence of adverse health effects
that would have had a chemical declared carcinogenic,
neuropathogenic, cardiogenic and teratogenic for humans many years
ago.”
The
MTHR – containing many ICNIRP
members - will attempt to reiterate the current status-quo, we
believe.
Mast
Sanity Spokesperson Yasmin Skelt says "We
see the publication of the MTHR report at this time as a cynical
attempt to contradict the BioInitiative Report and its calls for much
lower microwave emission limits. It will serve as nothing more than
an attempt by the Mobile Phone Industry and other Wireless pedlars to
target young children, the sick and the elderly as the adult and
teenage markets reach saturation point. Mast Sanity believe that
vulnerable groups in particular and the Public in general should be
protected from microwave emissions and unsafe mobile/wireless devices
which should carry clear warning labels like cigarettes now do. The
Swedish and German precautionary approaches are much more enlightened
than that for the UK."
Mast
Sanity AGAIN reiterate their call on the Government to stop ignoring
and dismissing the health issues and start acting to protect public
health. The UK should adopt the Precautionary Principle and halt the
roll-out and proliferation of microwave transmitters of all types.
If the Brown Government is serious about protecting public health
then they will readily
do this, accept our recent request for urgent talks and take action.
Too many lives have been blighted or completely ruined already.
END.
Read more: Press Release 11th September 2007 - MTHR Publication vs. BioInitiative Report
Serious Public Health Concerns Raised Over Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) from Cell Phones
- Details
- Parent Category: Health
PRESS RELEASE By The BioInitiative:-
University of Albany, New York– August 31 / Serious Public Health Concerns
Raised Over Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) from Power
Lines and Cell Phones
An international working group of scientists, researchers and public health policy
professionals (The BioInitiative Working Group) has released its report on
electromagnetic fields (EMF) and health. It raises serious concern about the
safety of existing public limits that regulate how much EMF is allowable from
power lines, cell phones, and many other sources of EMF exposure in daily life.
Electromagnetic radiation from such sources as electric power lines, interior
wiring and grounding of buildings and appliances are linked to increased risks for
childhood leukemia and may set the stage for adult cancers later in life. A report
from the BioInitiative Working Group (www.bioinitiative.org) released on Friday,
August 31st documents the scientific evidence that power line EMF exposure is
responsible for hundreds of new cases of childhood leukemia every year in the
United States and around the world.
The report provides detailed scientific information on health impacts when people
are exposed to electromagnetic radiation hundreds or even thousands of times
below limits currently established by the Federal Communications Commission
(US FCC) and International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection in
Europe (ICNIRP). The authors reviewed more than 2000 scientific studies and
reviews, and concluded that the existing public safety limits are inadequate to
protect public health. From a public health policy standpoint, new public safety
limits, and limits on further deployment of risky technologies are warranted based
on the total weigh of evidence.
The report documents scientific evidence raising worries about childhood
leukemia (from power lines and other electrical exposures), brain tumors and
acoustic neuromas (from cell and cordless phones) and Alzheimer’s disease.
There is evidence that EMF is a risk factor for both childhood and adult cancers.
Public health expert and co-editor of the Report Dr. David Carpenter, Director,
Institute for Health and the Environment at the University of Albany, New York
says “this report stands as a wake-up call that long-term exposure to some kinds
of EMF may cause serious health effects. Good public health planning is needed
now to prevent cancers and neurological diseases linked to exposure to power
lines and other sources of EMF. We need to educate people and our decisionmakers
that “business as usual” is unacceptable.”
Health questions about power line EMFs were initially raised by Nancy
Wertheimer, a Colorado public health expert and Ed Leeper, an electrical
engineer in 1979. Wertheimer noticed that children were twice or three times as
likely to have leukemia tended to live in homes in the Denver, CO area close to
power lines and transformers. Now, there are dozens of studies confirming the
link, but public health response has been slow in coming, and new standards to
protect the public are necessary.
Brain tumor specialist Dr. Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD and Professor at University
Hospital in Orebro, Sweden is a member of the BioInitiative Working Group. His
work on cell phones, cordless phones and brain tumors is widely recognized to
be pivotal in the debate about the safety of wireless radiofrequency and
microwave radiation. “The evidence for risks from prolonged cell phone and
cordless phone use is quite strong when you look at people who have used these
devices for 10 years or longer, and when they are used mainly on one side of the
head.
Brain tumors normally take a long time to develop, on the order of 15 to 20 years.
Use of a cell or cordless phone is linked to brain tumors and acoustic neuromas
(tumor of the auditory nerve in the brain) and are showing up after only 10 years
(a shorter time period than for most other known carcinogens). “This indicates
we need research on more long-term users to understand the full risks” says Dr.
Hardell.
Dr. Hardell’s work has been confirmed in other studies on long-term users. A
summary estimate of all studies on brain tumors shows overall a 20% increased
risk of brain tumor (malignant glioma) with ten years of use. But the risk
increases to 200% (a doubling of risk) for tumors on the same side of the brain
as mainly used during cell phone calls. “Recent studies that do not report
increased risk of brain tumors and acoustic neuromas have not looked at heavy
users, use over ten years or longer, and do not look at the part of the brain which
would reasonably have exposure to produce a tumor.”
Wireless technologies that rely on microwave radiation to send emails and voice
communication are thousands of times stronger than levels reported to cause
some health impacts. Prolonged exposure to radiofrequency and microwave
radiation from cell phones, cordless phones, cell towers, WI-FI and other wireless
technologies have linked to physical symptoms including headache, fatigue,
sleeplessness, dizziness, changes in brainwave activity, and impairment of
concentration and memory. Scientists report that these effects can occur with
even very small levels of exposure, if it occurs on a daily basis. Children in
particular are vulnerable to harm from environmental exposures of all kinds.
Co-editor of the report, Cindy Sage of Sage Associates says “public health and
EMF policy experts have now given their opinion of the weight of evidence. The
existing FCC and international limits for public and occupational exposure to
electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation are not protective of public
health. New biologically-based public and occupational exposure are
recommended to address bioeffects and potential adverse health effects of
chronic exposure. These effects are now widely reported to occur at exposure
levels significantly below most current national and international limits.”
Biologically-based exposure standards are needed to prevent disruption of
normal body processes. Effects are reported for DNA damage (genotoxicity that
is directly linked to integrity of the human genome), cellular communication,
cellular metabolism and repair, cancer surveillance within the body; and for
protection against cancer and neurological diseases. Also reported are
neurological effects including changes in brainwave activity during cell phone
calls, impairment of memory, attention and cognitive function; sleep disorders,
cardiac effects; and changes in immune function (allergic and inflammatory
responses).
Sage says “the Working Group recommends a biologically-based exposure limit
that is protective against extremely-low frequency (power line) and
radiofrequency fields which, with chronic exposure, can reasonably be presumed
to result in significant impacts to health and well-being”.
Contributing author Dr. Martin Blank, Columbia University professor and
researcher in bioelectromagnetics says “cells in the body react to EMFs as
potentially harmful, just like to other environmental toxins, including heavy metals
and toxic chemicals. The DNA in living cells recognizes electromagnetic fields at
very low levels of exposure; and produces a biochemical stress response. The
scientific evidence tells us that our safety standards are inadequate, and that we
must protect ourselves from exposure to EMF due to powerlines, cell phones and
the like.” He wrote the section on stress proteins for the BioInitiative Report.
Contact: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. (open on August 31, 2007)
Report: available at www.bioinitiative.org (on August 31, 2007)
Title: BioInitiative: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure
Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF)
The Dangers of Electromagnetic Smog
- Details
- Parent Category: Health
Andrew Goldsworthy, August 2007
Weak non-ionising electromagnetic radiation in the environment can be linked to more‘modern illnesses’ than even the pessimists thought possible. Modern science can now beginto explain how.
magnesium) ions from cell membranes, making them weaker and more prone to transient
pore formation. This makes them leaky to even large molecules. Prolonged exposure to
mobile phone radiation causes serious damage to the DNA in living cells, probably
because of digestive enzymes leaking from lysosomes. This may be responsible for the
reduction in sperm quantity and quality found in recent studies of people using mobile
phones for more than a few hours a day. We might also expect it lead to an increase in the
incidence of cancer, but this may not become apparent for many years. Electromagnetic
exposure also increases the permeability of the blood‐brain barrier to large molecules and
allows potentially damaging substances to enter the brain from the bloodstream. The
blood‐brain barrier is characterised by having cells joined by ‘tight junctions’, where the
gaps between the cells are sealed by impermeable materials. Equivalent layers of cells
with tight junctions cover all of our body surfaces and a similar increase in their
permeability could allow the entry of a wide range of potential toxins, allergens and
carcinogens from the environment. There is evidence that this increase in permeability is
mediated by the loss of calcium from cell membranes and should also be enhanced by
electromagnetic exposure. This effect can link the current rise in the incidence of multiple
chemical sensitivities, various allergy‐related diseases and skin cancer to the
electromagnetic environment. Electrosensitive individuals can be thought of as people
who have abnormally weak permeability barriers that are more easily compromised by
electromagnetically‐induced calcium or magnesium loss. In general, the symptoms
resemble those of hypocalcaemia and hypomagnesaemia, which suggests a common
aetiology based on a reduction in membrane stability. Low concentrations of either
calcium or magnesium ions in the blood may be predisposing factors, but once the
condition is established, it can be progressive with increasing exposure to radiation. It
then appears to be irreversible.
Introduction
of electrical appliances and even the wiring in our own homes. If we could see it, it would
look like a fog over almost everything, with particularly dense patches around people
using mobile phones and DECT cordless phones. There would be other dense patches
hovering permanently over their base stations and Wi‐Fi routers. People have dubbed this
‘electromagnetic smog’ and, like real smog, it can have serious effects on our health.
Electrosensitive people have known this for a long time because they experience pain and
other symptoms when they are exposed to the denser patches. However, the dangers go
well beyond that. Many people have attributed the recent rise in the incidence of a large
number of medical conditions such as asthma, other allergies, various cancers, diabetes
and multiple sclerosis to electromagnetic exposure. However, until very recently no one
has been able explain just how this could happen, but we are now learning about the
likely mechanisms and just how serious the situation is.
Calcium loss makes cell membranes porous
The most important factor giving adverse health effects from electromagnetic exposure
seems to be the electromagnetically‐induced loss of calcium ions (electrically charged
calcium atoms) from cell membranes. We have known for over thirty years that weak
electromagnetic fields remove calcium ions from the surfaces of cell membranes (Bawin et
al. 1975.; Blackman et al. 1982; Blackman 1990). In theory, magnesium ions can be
removed by a similar mechanism (See Goldsworthy 2006). However, divalent ions (ions
with a double charge) such as calcium are important in maintaining membrane stability
(Steck et al. 1970; Lew et al. 1988; Ha 2001) and their loss would make the membranes
more prone to the formation of transient pores and increase their general permeability to a
wide range of materials.
Pore formation can have many biological effects
Spontaneous pore formation has already been reported in stationary artificial
phospholipid membranes exposed to DC fields (Melikov et al. 2001) and we would expect
an even greater effect on the membranes of living cells, which are routinely subjected to
stresses and strains from being adjacent to moving cytoplasm. If these membranes were in
addition suffering from electromagnetically‐induced calcium depletion, we would expect
pore formation to be more frequent and give rise to larger pores that are slower to heal. In
this way, exposure to weak non‐ionising radiation would give a non‐specific increase in
membrane permeability. Such an increase can explain a large number of non‐thermal
biological effects of electromagnetic fields, ranging from changes in the growth rate of
plants to accelerated rates of healing and changes in gene expression in animals (See
Goldsworthy 2006; 2007). However, it can also cause serious damage.
Mobile phone radiation can damage DNA
Low‐level, non‐thermal (i.e. not strong enough to generate significant heat) microwave
radiation similar to that from mobile phones has been shown to do serious damage to the
DNA in cultures of living cells. Lai and Singh (1995) were the first to show this in rat brain
cells, but many other workers have since confirmed it. The most comprehensive study on
this was the Reflex Project sponsored by the European Commission and replicated in
laboratories in several European countries. They found that radiation from GSM mobile
phone handsets caused both single and double stranded breaks in the DNA of cultured
human and animal cells. Not all cell types were equally affected and some seemed not to
be affected at all (Reflex Report 2004). The degree of damage depended on the duration of
the exposure. With human fibroblasts, it reached a maximum at around 16 hours.
Intermittent exposure (5 minutes on, ten minutes off) was considerably more damaging
than continuous exposure, thus emphasising its non‐thermal nature. (Diem et al. 2005).
Because of the high stability of DNA molecules, the only plausible mechanism for this so
far is the release of DNAase and possibly other digestive through the membranes of
lysosomes (organelles that digest waste) that had been perforated or ruptured by the
radiation. If this is correct, there is likely to be considerable collateral damage to other
cellular systems.
If similar DNA fragmentation were to occur in the whole organism, we would expect a
more or less immediate reduction in male fertility as developing sperm become damaged,
an increased risk of cancer, which (by analogy with tobacco and asbestos) may take
several years to appear, and genetic mutations that will appear in future generations. It
would be unwise to assume that exposures of less than 16 hours are necessarily safe, since
covert DNA damage to give aberrant cells could occur long before it becomes obvious
under the microscope. Claims made by the mobile phone industry that their devices are
safe because not all cells are affected are rather like clutching at straws, since very few
genetically aberrant cells are needed to initiate a tumour.
Mobile phones can reduce fertility
We might expect DNA damage to result in a loss of fertility. Recent studies have shown
significant reductions in sperm motility, viability and quantity in men using mobile
phones for more than a few hours a day (Fejes et al. 2005; Agarwal et al. 2006; Agarwal et
al. 2007) so it is advisable to keep your mobile calls to a minimum. Since similar
experiments have not yet been performed with mobile phone base stations, it would be
premature to assume that they are necessarily safe, particularly since living near one will
involve a considerably longer exposure.
Electromagnetic exposure disrupts tight junction barriers
We might expect radiation that is strong enough to disrupt lysosomes also to be strong
enough to disrupt the outer membranes of cells so that these too are made more
permeable to large molecules. The effects of this would be most serious in the cells of the
various barriers within our bodies that prevent the passage of unwanted substances.
These are characterised by cells joined by ‘tight junctions’, in which the gaps between the
cells are sealed with impermeable materials to prevent leakage around their sides. One
such barrier is the blood‐brain barrier, which normally prevents unwanted substances in
the bloodstream from entering the brain. We know that the radiation from mobile phones
can increase the permeability of this barrier even to protein molecules as large as albumin
(Persson et al. 1997) and this increase in permeability can damage the neurones beneath
(Salford et al. 2003).
Calcium ions control barrier tightness
The loss in tightness of the blood‐brain barrier could be due to an increase in membrane
leakiness as proposed by Goldsworthy (2006; 2007) and/or to a disruption of the tight
junctions themselves, either of which could be triggered by an electromagneticallyinduced
loss of calcium from their membranes. The central role of membrane‐bound
calcium in controlling the ‘tightness’ of these layers is supported by an observation by
Chu et al. (2001). They found that either low levels of external calcium or the addition of
EGTA (a substance that removes calcium ions from surfaces) caused massive increases in
the electrical conductance and permeability to virus particles of respiratory epithelia,
which also has tight junctions.
We have many other tight junction barriers
There is a protective layer in the skin in the stratum granulosum, which is the outermost
layer of living skin cells, in which the cells are connected by tight junctions (Borgens et al.
1989; Furuse et al. 2002). In addition to this, virtually all of our other body surfaces are
protected by cells with tight junctions, including the nasal mucosa (Hussar et al. 2002), the
lungs (Weiss et al. 2003) and the lining of the gut (Arrieta et al. 2006). A similar
electromagnetically‐induced increase in the permeability of any of these would allow the
more rapid entry into the body of a whole range of foreign materials, including allergens,
toxins and carcinogens.
Loss of tightness can exacerbate many illnesses
Electromagnetically induced losses of barrier tightness at our body surfaces can explain
how the general increase in public exposure to electromagnetic fields may be responsible
for our ever‐increasing susceptibility to various allergies, multiple chemical sensitivities,
asthma, skin rashes and bowel cancer to name just a few. In addition, a non‐specific
increase in the permeability of the gut has been linked to type‐1 diabetes, Crohns disease,
celiac disease, multiple sclerosis, irritable bowel syndrome and a range of others (Arrieta
et al. 2006). The list is truly horrendous and points to a very real need to reduce our
exposure to non‐ionising radiation.
Electrosensitivity
which some people experience a wide range of unpleasant symptoms when exposed to
weak non‐ionising radiation. Only a small proportion of the population is electrosensitive
(currently estimated at around three percent) and an even smaller proportion is so badly
affected that they can instantly tell whether a device is switched on or off. At the other
end of the scale, there are people who may be electrosensitive but do not know it because
they are chronically exposed to electromagnetic fields and accept their symptoms
(headaches, pins and needles, numbness, fatigue, irritability and many others.) as being
perfectly normal. Electrosensitivity is in effect a continuum and there is no clear cut‐off
point.
Causes and symptoms of electrosensitivity
they seem to be characterised by having skins that have an unusually high electrical
conductance (Eltiti et al. 2007). This is consistent with them having a stratum granulosum
which is abnormally leaky, and may account for the high incidence of allergies and
chemical sensitivities commonly found in this group. One explanation for this is that they
normally have asymptomatic low levels of calcium and/or magnesium in their blood,
which gives low concentrations of these ions on their cell membranes. This means that less
has to be removed by electromagnetic exposure to produce biological effects; hence their
greater sensitivity.
The range of electromagnetically‐induced symptoms reported by electrosensitives, which
includes skin disorders, various paresthesias (pins and needles, numbness, burning
sensations) fatigue, muscle cramps, cardiac arrhythmia, and gastro‐intestinal problems are
remarkably similar to those from hypocalcaemia (low blood calcium)
(http://tinyurl.com/2dwwps ) and hypomagnesaemia (low blood magnesium)
(http://tinyurl.com/3ceevs ). This suggests that they share a common aetiology, that being
that there are inadequate concentrations of these divalent ions on the cell membranes to
maintain stability, which promotes poration and gives rise to an unregulated flow of
materials across them. If a patient reporting symptoms of electrosensitivity is diagnosed
as having sub‐clinical low levels of either of these ions in the blood, and if caught at an
early stage, it may be possible to mitigate the effects of electromagnetic exposure by
conventional treatment for hypocalcaemia and/or hypomagnesaemia.
Unfortunately, it does not end there. When electrosensitive people to are subjected to
further exposure to electromagnetic fields, it seems to do permanent damage. This could
be due to DNA or other cellular damage from ruptured lysosomes. The affected cells may
then not function properly and become incapable of protecting themselves fully from
further damage. This could include an ever‐increasing loss of their ability to form
adequate tight junction barriers, so making the victim progressively more sensitive to the
radiation. It is important, therefore, to protect electrosensitive people from further
electromagnetic exposure, but sadly, there is no Government provision for this in the UK
because the condition is not officially recognised.
Postscript
I obtained them in my retirement by piecing together the findings from many scientific
papers, often on unrelated topics, for which I thank the Library at Imperial College.
However, there has been very little research specifically directed at discovering, either the
full range of the adverse health effects of electromagnetic exposure or of the mechanisms
by which they occur. I hope that the time for this will soon come. In the meantime, if you
would like to learn more about electromagnetic fields and how to avoid them, visit
www.powerwatch.org.uk . If you want to know more about electrosensitivity, visit
www.electrosensitivity.org.uk .
References
‘Relationship between cell phone use and human fertility: an observational study’.
The Dangers of Electromagnetic Smog 6
Fertility and Sterility 86 (3) Supplement 1 S283. Data also available at
http://tinyurl.com/28rm6n
Agarwal A, Deepinder F, Rakesh K, Sharma RK, Ranga G, Li J (2007), ‘Effect of cell phone
usage on semen analysis in men attending infertility clinic: an observational study’.
Fertility and Sterility. In press (available online ‐ doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.01.166)
Arrieta MC, Bistritz L, Meddings JB (2006), ‘Alterations in intestinal permeability’. Gut 55:
1512‐1520
Bawin SM, Kaczmarek KL, Adey WR (1975), ‘Effects of modulated VHF fields on the
central nervous system’. Ann NY Acad Sci 247: 74‐81
Blackman CF (1990), ‘ELF effects on calcium homeostasis’. In: Wilson BW, Stevens RG,
Anderson LE (eds) Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields: the Question of
Cancer. Battelle Press, Columbus, Ohio, pp 189‐208
Blackman CF, Benane SG, Kinney LS, House DE, Joines WT (1982), ‘Effects of ELF fields
on calcium‐ion efflux from brain tissue in vitro’. Radiation Research 92: 510‐520
Borgens RB, Robinson, KR, Vanable JW, McGinnis ME (1989), Electric Fields in Vertebrate
Repair. Liss, New York
Chu Q, George ST, Lukason M, Cheng SH, Scheule RK, Eastman SJ (2001), ‘EGTA
enhancement of adenovirus‐mediated gene transfer to mouse tracheal epithelium
in vivo’. Human Gene Therapy 12: 455‐467
Diem E, Schwarz C, Adlkofer F, Jahn O, Rudiger H (2005), ‘Non‐thermal DNA breakage
by mobile phone radiation (1800 MHz) in human fibroblasts and in transformed
GFSH‐R17 rat granulosa cells in vitro’. Mutation Research / Genetic Toxicology and
Environmental Mutagenesis 583: 178‐183
Eltiti S, Wallace D, Ridgewell A, Zougkou K, Russo R, Sepulveda F, Mirshekar‐Syahkal D,
Rasor P, Deeble R, Fox E (2007), ‘Does short‐term exposure to mobile phone base
station signals increase symptoms in individuals who report sensitivity to
electromagnetic fields? A double blind provocation study’. Environmental Health
Perspectives http://www.ehponline.org/members/2007/10286/10286.pdf
Fejes I, Zavaczki Z, Szollosi J, Koloszar S, Daru J, Kovaks L, Pal A (2005), ‘Is there a
relationship between cell phone use and semen quality?’ Arch Andrology 51: 385‐
393
Furuse M, Hata M, Furuse K, Yoshida Y, Haratake A, Sugitani Y, Noda T, Kubo A,
Tsukita S (2002), ‘Claudin‐based tight junctions are crucial for the mammalian
epidermal barrier: a lesson from claudin‐1‐ deficient mice’. J Cell Biol 156; 1099‐
1111
Goldsworthy A (2006), ‘Effects of electrical and electromagnetic fields on plants and
related topics’. In: Volkov AG (ed) Plant Electrophysiology – Theory and Methods.
Springer‐Verlag, Berlin
The Dangers of Electromagnetic Smog 7
Goldsworthy A (2007), ‘The biological effects of weak electromagnetic fields’.
http://tinyurl.com/2nfujj
Ha B‐Y (2001), ‘Stabilization and destabilization of cell membranes by multivalent ions’.
Phys Rev E 64: 051902 (5 pages)
Hussar P, Tserentsoodol N, Koyama H, Yokoo‐Sugawara M, Matsuzaki T, Takami S,
Takata K (2002), ‘The glucose transporter GLUT1 and the tight junction protein
occludin in nasal olfactory mucosa’. Chem Senses 27: 2‐11
Lew VL, Hockaday A, Freeman CJ, Bookchin RM (1988), ‘Mechanism of spontaneous
inside‐out vesiculation of red cell membranes’. J Cell Biol 106: 1893‐1901
Lai H, Singh NP (1995), Acute low‐intensity microwave exposure increases DNA singlestrand
breaks in rat brain cells. Bioelectromagnetics 16: 207‐210
Melikov KC, Frolov VA, Shcherbakov A, Samsonov AV, Chizmadzhev YA,
Chernomordik LV (2001), ‘Voltage‐induced nonconductive pre‐pores and
metastable single pores in unmodified planar lipid bilayer’. Biophys J 80: 1829‐1836
Persson BRR, Salford LG, Brun A (1997), ‘Blood‐brain barrier permeability in rats exposed
to electromagnetic fields used in wireless communication’. Wireless Networks 3:
455–461
Reflex Report (2004), http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/reports/20041222_reflex.pdf
Salford LG, Brun AE, Eberhardt JL, Malmgren K, Persson BRR (2003), ‘Nerve cell damage
in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones’.
Environmental Health Perspectives 111: 881‐883
Steck TL, Weinstein RS, Straus, JH, Wallach DFH (1970), ‘Inside‐out red cell membrane
vesicles: preparation and purification’. Science 168: 255‐257
Weiss DJ, Beckett T, Bonneau L, Young J, Kolls JK, Wang G (2003), ‘Transient increase in
lung epithelial tight junction permeability: an additional mechanism for of
enhancement of lung transgene expression by perfluorochemical liquids’.
Molecular Therapy 8: 927‐935
Andrew Goldsworthy BSc PhD is an Honorary Lecturer in Biology at Imperial College
London
(Produced with permission - original article here )
MP's Petition Against Phone Mast
- Details
- Parent Category: Actions
We have been asked to give members of the Public, particularly in Swindon, the rare opportunity to sign an MP's petition against a mobile phone mast in the Woodhall Park area of Swindon. Please register your support if you can. Thanks. The petition is here .
Press Release - Essex Study Examined - The Publicised Conclusions are NOT Supported by the Results
- Details
- Parent Category: Media
With the help of experts we have now examined the Essex study and can see that the conclusion made in their Press Release[3] and widely reported in the media is NOT supported by the data that they present.
In short, Essex University have MISREPRESENTED - 'SPUN' - their Press Release regarding the data and results contained in their study - presumably to please their Industry and Governmental pay masters.
The Essex University Study was initiated by the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme (MTHR)[2] and was funded half by the Mobile Phone Industry and half by the Government. The Mobile Phone Industry generates an estimated £1 Billion every month, a significant proportion of which is taken by the UK Government in tax revenue. This fact makes the Study very much open to undue 'influence'.
In summary, there are now many people who claim that exposure to emissions from Mobile Phone Masts and similar make them ill - even seriously ill. These claims were being investigated by the Study:
The Essex Study[4] was looking at whether reactions of two different groups i.e. Electrosensitives (ES) and non-ES (controls) differed in the way they coped with and perceived Mobile Phone Mast signals 2G/GSM, 3G/UMTS and Sham (no signal). The study was structured to try to show that there was no significant difference between the responses of ES to those three signal types and the responses of the control group to the same signals - this is known as a "null hypothesis". If the hypothesis proved true then that would effectively show that the ES were no more aware of which exposure was which than the controls were.
The hypothesis was, however, actually proved false[1] in the study, particularly for UMTS/3G, yet reported as true in their Press Release. I.e. Electrosensitive people are more aware of, and sensitive to, Mobile Phone Mast exposures than other people, as they claim to be - completely opposite to what was publicised and reported.
The basis of the study appears to have been altered in the later stages - an unwise and unsound course of action - when it was realised by researchers that the computer randomised UMTS/3G signals were given to nearly half of the Electrosensitive volunteers in the first session. Using a subjective, and frankly lame, excuse that Electrosensitive people must have been more nervous in the long first session, the stronger reactions to the UMTS/3G signals are summarily dismissed. The 12 Electrosensitive volunteers eliminated (in the words of several who withdrew) some, if not all, were made ill by the effects of the exposure to the Mobile Phone Mast signals were likely to be the most sensitive. The removal of the 20% most sensitive Electrosensitive volunteers was always going to invalidate the study, produce a near negative result and match the "null hypothesis".
These are quotes from 4 Electrosensitive volunteers who took part in the study - 2 were excluded from the final results because they had to withdraw from the study because its EMF tests made them too ill to continue, and 2 were included in the final results:-
Brian Stein (excluded): "FACT I used a mobile phone for 15 years. 14 years not a problem, no issues. 15th year. Severe pain in my head and ear, only when I put the mobile to my head. Why is my pain, psychosomatic?"
"When you become hypersensitive to something, it is not confusing, it is not a case of I don't feel well, I wonder what it is, can it be microwaves!!! It's use a [mobile] phone for 5 minutes- pain in ear and head. Don't use the phone - no pain. Use the phone- pain. Don't use the phone - no pain. After you have done this experiment on yourself a few hundred times, it becomes more than a coincidence. ...Believe me it is not confusing."
"I signed up for the test at Essex University and attended the first of three sessions to prove this condition."
"THE RESULT : I have been made permanently worse; I had to pull out of the remaining tests. Although double blind I knew that the mast was on. How, I bled internally for two weeks. That is what happens to me when I get too close to a mast for too long. Bleeding internally, can this be psychosomatic I ask myself? Perhaps my gut has decided to join in on this misinformation? Maybe my gut is in league with my brain in deluding me?"
"The [Essex] tests have been devised so that the people who are best able to prove this condition are precluded. People find it inconvenient to be more thorough. Don't ask the obvious questions, simply dismiss it and trust the scientists investigating this, sponsored by the mobile phone industry. No reason to be concerned."
Volunteer 2 (included): "[Prof.] Elaine Fox said only four people got all six tests correct, I got five as during the first three five minute tests on session one, I stated "not sure" after the first five minutes, which was marked as NO, but on session two three and four I got it 100% right and actually identified the type of signal, so are the Essex numbers meaningful?"
Volunteer 3 (excluded): "I dropped out of the first experiment. They did do a double blind study at the end 5 mins with mast off, 5 mins with GSM, and 5 mins with UMTS [3G]. I was able to tell when the mast was off."
"The biggest inadequacy of the experiment was that it only looked at the short term immediate effects."
Silvia Wilson (included): "It is very sad to hear how the Essex results were manipulated. [Prof.] Elaine Fox is not telling the truth, [in the study] she says ´the evidence is really not found´ [the quote "evidence that ... symptoms are indeed caused by rf-emf exposure is yet to be established." P7 of study] what evidence is she talking about? they found evidence on me and surely on many others EHS [electrosensitive volunteers] , it is so frustrating to realise that they just used us, and gave us so much pain, not only the physical pain when we were under their testing ! And prolong our suffering and keep the profits of the government and industry going."
"I was also shocked to read Dr. James Rubin comments, he is so inexperienced on matters of EMFs and also too young to understand this very complex subject, his own [King's College][6] study was not appropriate to find whether people are affected or not with mobile signals. I am disappointed at the BBC for asking his opinion - he is not an independent scientist."
Don Maisch[7], an independent scientist in the EMF research field, had this to say: "In my opinion the Essex study, though well intentioned, was far too crude in its methodology to find anything significant. I think where the majority of EHS people are hiding is in that growing body of people being treated for symptoms of CFS [Chronic Fatigue Syndrome / M.E.] - and that is where the research should look."
Mast Sanity Spokesperson Yasmin Skelt says: "I am shocked by how the results have been interpreted by the Media - even Professor Fox says people in trains get a headache and they just think it is a mobile phone causing it. Now that is way over interpreting the Essex study. The laboratory and questionnaire may be well designed (better than Rubin's non-shielded lab) but the execution of the study and analysis of a very small group of volunteers would suggest that after 5 or 20 minutes some people could not identify certain types of signal. Nothing more. And that analysis was done very badly. What should happen is that those 12 volunteers who dropped out should be investigated further - without damaging them further of course."
"A couple of interesting analogies were suggested to me: A study is done on disability. It is held on an upper floor of a building with stairs and no lift. All the people appearing for testing can walk, therefore the study concludes that severe disability does not exist. Another study is done on lung cancer. People show no obvious ill effect after 1 hour of smoking cigarettes, therefore the study concludes that there is no link between smoking and cancer. Both of these conclusions are obviously nonsense, as are the Essex Study's publicised conclusions. It is science in its poorest form."
"Professor Fox should come clean and apologise for the spin applied to this study in its Press Release and for the anguish caused to genuine ES sufferers not only in the UK but throughout the World"
"And
major media organisations such as the BBC[5]
- already less trusted by the British Public than ever - should be
more careful in quoting word-for-word from Press Releases without
first scrutinising the data contained within the studies they claim
to represent, or the credentials of those 'Scientists' that they
choose to quote"
END.
Flawed Essex Study Eliminates Worst Affected Electrosensitve Sufferers to Get Desired Result
- Details
- Parent Category: Media
changes to the skin and heart rates have been found in other research. Presumably the psychologists 'believe' this is all in the mind and this is what they set out to 'prove'.
The BBC quote Dr. Rubin - the psychologist and author of at least one other similarly flawed study - to give the thumbs up. His agenda is somewhat transparent where he states that "This should be reassuring news for anyone who is concerned about the possible short-term health effects of masts". We don't think Dr. Rubin is qualified to comment on the Essex study as he didn't even use a shielded room for his own experiments at King's College and the so called 'sham' (zero) exposure was not a zero signal as people have been led to believe.
Mast Sanity Spokesperson Yasmin Skelt says "All in all the Media release of this study has been an exercise in spin and propaganda and a poor one for science."
"It is the long term health effects where people are forced to live near real Mobile Phone Masts that count and this study in no way covers those."
See the BBC's account here .
Read Powerwatch's comments here .
Press Release 24th July 2007 - MTHR Essex University Study & Updated Comments
- Details
- Parent Category: Media
The
results of the Industry and Government funded Mobile
Telecommunications and Health Research Programme (MTHR) study "to
investigate whether emissions from mobile phone base stations can
elicit a variety of symptoms in those exposed to them"[1]
run by Professor of Psychology Elaine Fox at the University of
Essex[2]
is to be published on Wednesday 25th July at the Science Media
Centre.
Firstly
we should state that we don't know why this research is being done by
psychologists as there is already evidence showing changes in the
important mast cells in human skin upon exposure to microwaves[3].
This
Essex study will not be able to give us any insights into the long
term effects such as cancer and genetic damage as has been
highlighted in other research and so we think is just tinkering at
the edges.
In
doing this research one is subjecting the volunteers to harm. As such
this research is unethical. We
know of at least one person who had to stop doing it because it made
him so unwell. Lab tests have already identified disruptions to the
immune system, surely if this were a drug we would not go on to do
further tests on human subjects as there is already enough evidence?
Some
subjects of the study were sent summaries showing 90-100% ability to
identify the 3G(UTMS) and 2G (GSM) signals from the SHAM (No signal)
conditions without prior knowledge of which was which. Additionally,
physical markers such as anxiety was 2-4 times higher, tension and
arousal 1.5 times higher, discomfort 4-6 times higher and fatigue 3.5
- 5.5 times higher under the 2G and 3G signals. Clearly these
individuals experienced real effects, not psychological problems.
Yet
being unable to complete the study has led to the exclusion of these
individuals from the results, we believe.
As
Dr Carlo, Safe Wireless Initiative and former Chairman of the US $28
million
research programme into mobile phone research, says:
"Because of the imprecisions in the Essex study[4],[5], findings of 'no effect' are likely to be false negatives in that the study was not designed well enough to pick up all of the effects among the participants."
"Any findings of 'effect' are likely underestimates of the true risk for the same reasons of imprecision in the study design."
We also do not know how much of a part has been played by the so-called 'Wessely School' of psychiatry in separate earlier comparable studies with sufferers from farm Organophosphate Poisoning, Gulf War Syndrome and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME / CFS)[6] . In each case the researchers' conclusion was that each condition was just a case of unfounded mental anxiety, which would be relieved by their form of psychotherapy and exercise. This in spite in every case findings of physical evidence of nerve system damage. In the case of electrosensitivity studies undertaken in Sweden are able to pinpoint the sort of damage that sufferers endure[7].
Mast Sanity Spokesperson Yasmin Skelt says "Isn't it time that the Government woke up to the reality of electrosensitivity instead of attempting to persuade sufferers that it is all in their minds?"
"History has shown that many now commonly accepted physical conditions were initially dismissed as psychological, with the patients subjected to all kinds of tests and quack remedies."
"Electrosensitivity has been recognised by medics in Sweden since 2000, and its government calculates 3.1 per cent of its population - 200,000 people - suffer from the condition. In fact this figure has more recently been revised upwards to nearer 9%. That is an awful lot of people."
"This study has been such a waste of money. The World Health Organisation already recognise electrosensitivity[8]. Why was the money not used to translate the 1500-subject Russian long-term epidemiological studies into English?"
Mast Sanity reiterate their call on the Government to stop talking and start doing something. The UK should adopt the Precautionary Principle and halt the roll-out and proliferation of microwave transmitters of all types. If the new Brown Government is serious about protecting public health then they will readily accept our recent request for urgent talks and take action. Too many lives have been blighted or completely ruined already.
END.
Dr George Carlo has released the following comments as his reaction
to the Essex EHS study in absence of the results findings:
'The following comments relate to the interpretation of the results of the Essex study.
1. Based on what we have learned from our clinical experiences and the symptoms
reported by patients in our registry, a key to the integrity of the
Essex study is in how a 'sensitive' person was defined at the outset. We
believe that the pathology of these sensitivities is cell membrane based,
but that the same pathology is present in conditions including multiple
chemical sensitivities, alcoholism, drug addiction, and neuro-behavioral
syndromes like ADHD and Autism. In addition, there appears to be a familial
predisposition component that involves inability to clear metals from the
system through methylation and an inability to adapt to oxidative stress.
Thus, the definition of patients selected in the Essex study is a key
point. And, in the analyses, it would be important to categorize the
patients on the severity scale in terms of these other conditions that have
similar underlying pathology. The point is that there is a continuum we are
seeing in terms of severity of effects, and the level of hypersensitivity to
the various types of EMR also scales along that continuum. Thus, without
either controlling for these other conditions statistically or through
subject category restriction, it is likely that associations that are
present would not be identified.....false negative findings because of
imprecision in the measurement of the dependent variables. That is one of
the main difficulty with the majority of provocation studies that have been
done. Measurement imprecision and bias toward the null.
2. The other key is that depending on the severity of the
hypersensitivity...and that in large part is related to the points raised
above....different EMR effect windows will have varying effects on the
persons being provoked with EMR. Thus, the EMR that is used in the exposure
scenario needs to be precisely defined as well. We know, for example, that
ELF operates through a field intensity dependent mechanism that exerts
direct magnetic effect on tissue (including disruption of gap-junction
intercellular communication) and thus the ensuing pathology. But there is a
threshold for ELF effects. RF has two different pathology mechanism
components: raw microwaves or RFR act through thermal mechanisms dependent
on field intensity -- there is a thermal effects threshold; microwaves that
carry information from wireless devices act through a biological mechanism
that is triggered as a protective cellular response -- for this response,
there is no threshold. Thus, in the Essex study, the provocation exposures
would have needed to be defined along these effect windows, otherwise there
is a likely bias also toward false negative findings because of the lack of
precison in the measurement of the independent variables. For example, from
what they define, the question of base station 'on or off' is key. For the
effect windows of ELF and raw microwaves, 'on or off' would have an effect
if there was adequate field intensity to provoke the mechanistic pathways --
in other words to go above the threshold. However, for the information
carrying radio waves, there would have to be talking on the signal or there
would be no biological protective pathway triggered. It is the modulation
associated with the carried information that we now know triggers the
non-thermal effect pathways. So, without talking on the signal,
the biological pathway would not be triggered. The result in the study
would be a false-negative finding.
3. Overall, the electrohypersensitivity response is dependent then on the
severity of the patients cellular pathology -- and that from all sources
including the conditions detailed in Number 1 above. The observed response
is also dependent on the mechanism that the EMR exposure provocation likely
will act through. At this point, we don't believe that a precise enough
definition of the conditions in the patients recruited to allow for proper
controlling. We don't believe that the exposure provocations were defined
well enough in terms of EMR effect windows and the likely pathological
pathways triggered by the provocations.
Because of the imprecision in the measurements in the Essex study, any
findings showing 'no effect' are likely false negative or the result of the
study not being able to pick up the real underlying pathology. Any finding
showing an 'effect' is likely an underestimation of the actual effect
because the study is biased toward the null or 'no effect' finding.'
__________________
Dr. George L. Carlo
Science and Public Policy Institute
1101 Pennsylvania Ave. NW -- 7th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20004
www.sppionline.org
202-756-7744
~~~~~~~~~~~
Read more: Press Release 24th July 2007 - MTHR Essex University Study & Updated Comments
Wireless Laptops and Their Transmitters Using Microwaves in Schools - A Report By Barrie Trower
- Details
- Parent Category: Wi-fi, DECT and Smart meters
|
I
have heard many times from planning inspectors, government spokes
persons, school governors and appointed representatives that
illnesses from microwave transmitters are usually based on anecdotal
evidence from selective research causing anxiety and psychosomatic
disorders.
Nothing
could be further from the truth. I suggest that these decision makers read the documents of the NRPB (04) which states....."account should be taken not only of peer reviewed papers but also of non
peer
reviewed and anecdotal evidence." Appendix H p. 101. NB. All
studies start from anecdotal evidence, e.g. smoking, alcohol,
asbestos, BSE and aids.
Similarly,
according to the WHO 80% of their epidemiological data on microwave
transmitters show illnesses ranging from microwave sickness to a
fourfold increase in cancers. That is 8 out of 10 research papers ~
hardly selective. It is not difficult to find the sponsors of the
remaining research papers which show this communications industry in
good light.
My
argument with evidence follows.
All
these transmitters emit microwaves. I will look at general microwave
problems first and then specific problems regarding Wi-fi. During the Cold War the Russian Embassy in Moscow micro waved the American Embassy from across the road. After many changes of staff for cancers to both male and female employees and their children, the late Professor Goldsmith was invited to investigate this matter. His report showed that continuous long term low level microwaves were responsible for those illnesses. John Goldsmith held 11 Professorships and was the WHO representative for Europe. Interestingly the power of the microwaves used by the Russians is in some cases less that the power used by modern day transmitters.i [1]ii
After
an extensive study the US Defence Intelligence Agency warned all of
its personnel of the risk from low level microwaves. Illnesses
ranging from microwave sickness (flu like symptoms, depression,
suicidal tendencies) to cancers and leukaemia. xliv [2]
As soon as ordinary
microwave transmitters became common place residents started to
complain of illnesses and cancer clusters. Independent researcher Sue
Webster took data from just 19 transmitters and found approx 92
cancers (breast, thyroid, bowel, leukaemia) the average age of those
affected was roughly 39. iii[3]
In June 2000 Professor
Cherry investigated this issue and presented his evidence to the
parliaments of New Zealand, Italy, Austria, Ireland and the EU. He
warned of significant illnesses and death from these microwaves. iv[4]
Following a spate of
illnesses in their surgeries, a group of doctors produced the
FREIBURGER APPEAL. It is a warning to decision makers concerning
illnesses from low level microwaves. It was singed by 36990
signatories of which approx 3000 were doctors, consultants and
scientists. v[5] At this time: • 47 cancer clusters were reported around schools in Spain; vi[6] • Approx. 138 clusters of cancers and other illnesses (miscarriages, brain, breast and teachers ill) were reported internationally; vii[7] (Again schools) • 165 die in Osafia; viii[8] • Scientists like Wolf and Wolf (2004) and Eger et al. (2004) carried out epidemiological studies around transmitters over many years. Their conclusion was a threefold increase of cancers within a 400 m radius of transmitters, for breast cancer a tenfold increase was found. ix[9] • D. Cornelia Waldmann-Selsam, the originator of a further doctors’ appeal, this time in the German city of Bamberg, wrote an open letter expressing her concern to the Prime Minister of Bavaria. x[10] • Hutter (2006) showed sleeping problems and cognitive performance decline for residents near transmitters; xi[11] • Other scientists such as Gandhi Gursatej, a group of Flemish paediatricians, Dr. HaJs from Germany and the Colorado State University warn of genetic damage and brain tumours from transmitters;xii [12] • The Nobel Prize winning Irish Doctors Association listed 70 research papers showing the dangers from low level microwaves. Dr. Santini listed 20 similar studies, the EM. Radiation Research Trust listed 9 studies, Dr. Blackwell listed 6 similar studies in his report and finally 4 international universities completed the Spanish Study which verified all of these known illnesses. The authors of the Spanish study (The Microwave Syndrome-Further Aspects of a Spanish Study 2004) recommended a level of radiation 100 million times below our maximum level. 10 million below ICNIRP. Dr. Gerd Oberfeld, one of the authors of the study, is the Director of the Public Health Office in Salzburg, Austria, which lowered its precautionary value for indoor exposures to GSM frequencies to comply with the recommendation made by the study. ; xiii[13] • Published in the Journal of the Australasian College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine, Hallberg and Johansson studied a country before and after radio transmitters were introduced. (Cancer Trends during the 20th Century, 2002). They found increased cancers (breast, bladder, prostate, lung, colon). Their conclusion was that this was due to the introduction of FM radio frequencies. Both these professors also produced a report showing that they believed this radiation also contributed to skin cancer;xiv [14] • 2 very recent studies have shown that people underneath the transmitter (i.e. transmitter on the roof) suffer neurobehavioral problems (headache, memory changes, tremors, depression, sleep disturbance and neuropsychiatric problems). I mention this because children often sit underneath their transmitters, which can be on the wall of a classroom. Also problems can arise where damage occurs to the formation of the foetus; xv[15] (Female teachers) • Professor Cherry published a list of dose related illnesses; xvi[16] • Doctors Monnet, Ruz and Gautier published mechanisms showing how microwaves cause these illnesses;xvii [17]
•
Permanent
low level microwave exposure induces chronic nitrosative and
oxidative stress (Warnke 2005xviii).
It is known that chronic nitrosative/oxidative stress damages the
mitochondria, the “powerhouses” of each cell in the body.
Mitochondropathy is at the root of many of today’s chronic
illnesses, such as MS, Alzheimers, Parkinsons, Fibromyalgia,
Diabetes, Artherosclerosis and Obesity. (Kuklinsli 2004xix).
Even more disturbingly, when chronic nitrosative and oxidative
stress is present, irreversible mitochondrial DNA damage will occur
sooner or later (see also Kuklinski 2004 and Kremer 2003). The
mitochondrial DNA is ten times more susceptible to nitrosative /
oxidative stress than the DNA in the cell nucleus. Whilst regular
cell DNA has in-built repair mechanisms, mitochondrial DNS is
irreparable due to its low histone proteine content. The
mitochondropathy is therefore irreversibly transmitted to the
children by the maternal egg cell causing cumulative irreparable
damage to future generations. Electrical sensitivity has now been recognised by some countries. Sweden claims that above 3% of its population is sensitive to microwaves. The WHO acknowledges this condition and the most recent country to announce this is Canada. The significance of this condition for children is that approx. 3 % of the pupils and those working near transmitters may develop ES. xx[18]
80%
of the epidemiological studies on the WHO database show everything
from sickness (microwave syndrome) to a fourfold increase in cancers
from low level microwaves. I was curious to investigate the remaining
20% which showed no symptoms. However this had already been looked at
by Swiss scientists who said "the interpretation of results ...
should take sponsorship into account". Michael Meacher Minister
for the Environment 1997-2003 published a report blaming some
universities for accepting lucrative contracts in favour of reporting
favourable results from scientific research. In the same month US
Congressman Henry Waxman published a similar report in Scientific
American stating that science was being corrupted by industry.xxi
[19] Legal I must stress that a legal expert be contacted concerning legal matters. I am not legally trained. Such an expert would be consultant Alan Mayer of Horsey Lightly Fynn (02072228844). Possibly the most misquoted safety level is the ICNIRP certificate. It actually recommends that care be taken for children and the sick, who may have a lower tolerance for microwaves. Also decision makers should review current scientific literature and determine an appropriate reduction factor of power. In other words decision makers should look at scientific research and set safety levels below what is known to cause illness. Are the School Governors doing this?xxii Legal guidance should be sought concerning PPG8 paras. 29 & 30, articles 6 & 8 of the EU Convention on Human Rights and United Nations UN22 standard rules on the equalisation of opportunities for persons; re Wifi masts in/near schools and sensitive children. Appeal decision APP/U1105/A/04/1137356 where Mr. Jarvis refused a transmitter owing to the likely effects on the health of the local population. This could apply to transmitters in classrooms.xxiii Para. 41 22nd Oct 2003 Mr. Justice Richards in Jodie Phillips v First Secretary of State re. the positioning of a transmitter. xxiv Again should antennae be in classrooms? Case Az60b69/Olt 26th Apr 2001 Austrian High Court of Justice where Wulf Dietrich Rose proved for his third case that microwave radiation represents serious health risks to nearby populations (tumours, genetic problems, deformity of newborns).xxv [20] MP's have tried many times to advise parliament of cancer clusters around transmitters. In one case there were 11 children under the age of 11 with leukaemia.xxvi This is the 4th cluster to my knowledge. I wonder whether the Children's Actxxvii could be used to prevent illnesses to children [21] or keep Wi-fi from schools. Wi-fi A common misconception is that as Wi-fi uses a small transmitter, such a low dose of radiation must be harmless. In fact, a classroom of computers could exceed the power from an ordinary mobile phone transmitter. As shown earlier there are now many studies showing illnesses from these transmitters, even confirmed by the WHO. The above point was also made in the BBC Panorama Programme ‘Wi-Fi: a warning signal’, in which Sir William Stewart, the Chairman of the Health Protection Agency, warned that WHO advice on the issue was incorrect and called for an urgent review. The programme can still be viewed online.xxviii Children are particularly susceptible to microwaves because: i. They have immature immune systems; ii. They have soft bones (there is research to show that stem cells in the bone marrow can absorb microwaves (Cherry 1998)); iii. They can act as aerials due to their size. I believe the most important research I have read is from Dr. Goldsworthy (2007). Dr. Goldsworthy not only shows the mechanism by which microwaves disrupt cells but predicts that a genetically damaged sperm and egg can lead to mutant offspring maybe generations away. If you think of children with these transmitters near their laps, the question must be..... Why take this risk for the sake of a piece of wire and a plug?
Published
Concerns re. Wi-fi i. Dr. Goldsworthy; xxix[22] ii. Warning on health and fertility; xxx[23] iii. Health dangers from wireless laptops; xxxi[24] iv. New Zealand show concern; xxxii[25] v. Teachers demand enquiry; xxxiii[26] vi. Primary school moves mast after children sick; xxxiv[27] vii. 20 mins on mobile phone = 1 hour in classroom with 20 pc's;xxxv [28] viii. Times: 'Wi-fi poses health risk to children'; xxxvi [29] ix. Doctor lists symptoms of low level microwave illness and sends it to his PM (Germany); xxxvii[30] x. Paediatricians claim microwaves cause illness (brain disorder) ~ the question here is: What is the modulation (pulsing) frequency of the laptops these
children are using?xxxviii
[31]
N.B.
this interests me because when I was de-briefing spies involved in
stealth microwave warfare, I learned a list of approx. 30 frequencies
which could induce some 50 mental and physical ailments by
entrainment.
I
have always predicted that any school which allows itself to be
'bathed' in microwaves from whatever source will see it's sickness
rise and behaviour fall. I have received many phone calls to confirm
this. xi. Normal function of brain disrupted by microwaves; xxxix[32] xii. Warning of antennae on brain development of children; xl[33] xiii. TES: Teachers claim to suffer from Wi-fi. xliAlso no insurance for schools; [34] xiv. Some schools dismantle Wi-fi (Times); xlii[35] xv. Mobile companies hide Wi-fi masts from public and refuse to cooperate; xliii[36] Conclusion With all of this evidence pointing to mental, physical and long term disorders (cancers ~ mutant newborns) is this honestly worth the risk to our next generations for the sake of just a few metres of wire and a plug. As shown, the dangers of low level, below thermal microwaves have been known to governments for 50 years. I was educated in microwave technology by the Military in the early 1960's. Even then we were instructed of these dangers. Nothing has changed to suddenly make microwaves safe. A Simple Question
If
a drink was reported in the 1950's to cause cancer. Countless reports
and studies since showed this hypotheses to be correct. The WHO print
a list of an 80% likelihood of illness/cancer from drinking it.
International studies confirm this. Would you give this to your child
to drink, knowing they have their whole lives ahead of them?
So
what is the difference? It is simple. This product is backed and
financed by the most powerful industry on the planet. An industry
which does not have to show its product is safe (unlike a drug
company). You have to show this product is not safe and that is a
very different ball game both legally and economically.
It
seems few are prepared to stand against such a Goliath in defence of
our children. B. Trower Scientific Advisor Radiation Research Trust and H.E.S.E Author of the Tetra Report for the Police Federation of England and Wales Author of the Critical Overview in to the death of Officer Dring
Mr.
Trower's CV can be obtained from the front page of his address to the
Welsh Parliament
3rd
Oct. 2006 Edited and annotated by Andrea Klein Translator and researcher h.e.s.e.-UK |
Press Release - School Academy Sponsorship - 4th July 2007
- Details
- Parent Category: Media
National Mobile Phone Distributor to Sponsor City Academy Contrary to Government Policy
The
Carphone Warehouse is reputed to be ready to sign a sponsorship deal
for Prestons first City Academy [5]
contrary to Government assurances that the mobile phone industry
should not participate in promotions aimed at children. The question
of such sponsorship of mobile and wireless technology aimed at
children is of especial concern as we head towards more schools being
signed up to use systems such as WiFi and other wireless systems, due
to serious health concerns from these technologies. Sponsors are
involved in the appointment of the board of Governors, so this will
inevitably lead to direct intervention in school policies in respect
of mobile phone use by children and the siting of mobile phone masts.
Mast
Sanity along with other national and local amenity and public
interest groups are urging the Government to meet with them in order
that concerns relating to the health of children who will be at
considerable risk from prolonged exposure to electromagnetic
emissions within the confined area of classrooms that have fitted
wireless base stations needed for the transmission of signals for
systems such as WiFi. Government advisers such as Sir William Stewart
have repeatedly advised against over exposure of children from
electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone networks such are similar
to those of the wireless systems.
Mast
Sanity Spokesperson Yasmin Skelt said “It is crucial that
urgent talks take place aimed at preventing long term harm to
children and others that are in a high risk category of those most
likely to be at seriously at risk from EMFs. There are existing
systems that could be used to reduce the risk from emissions, such as
fibre optics, and where those systems do not exist then we urge the
Government and industry to fund research into safer telecommunication
systems. Keeping their systems wired would have prevented such health
risks.”
Mast Sanity have repeatedly requested that the industry meets with them to discuss issues such as independent research funded through a cost applied to telecom calls, yet they have on every occasion rebuked such requests for meetings. We now restate those requests, and extend the invitation to Government Ministers. Mast Sanity is prepared to meet with Ministers at any time in any place of their choosing. If the new Brown Government is serious about protecting public health then they will readily accept this request for urgent talks.
END
Read more: Press Release - School Academy Sponsorship - 4th July 2007
The Limits Are Too High - Barrie Trower on ICNIRP
- Details
- Parent Category: Home
Background
Government and Telecommunication Companies quote the ‘ICNIRP Guidelines’ as assurances of safety for any mast/s saying, 'The mast has an ICNIRP [safety] Certificate' or, 'The mast's emissions fall well below the ICNIRP Guidelines', etc.
However, the ICNIRP Guidelines ONLY cover the Thermal (i.e. heating) effects of Mobile Telephone Mast emissions. Hence all that an ICNIRP certificate means is that the mast won’t cook you!
When the guidelines were made in 1998 it was generally thought that the only effects of the Mobile Telephone Mast emissions would be thermal, hence the ICNIRP Guidelines as they currently stand.
However, it is now widely accepted that NON-Thermal effects do occur but these guidelines have NOT been updated to include NON-Thermal effects.
The Thermal (heating) effects are accepted to be negligible - however, NON-Thermal effects are now known to affect the make-up of our bodies and how our bodies work, posing real risks to our health and to our lives.
Barrie Trower (a scientist who has been involved in microwave research since the Sixties):-
Knowing that 80% of the research displayed on the World Health Organisation website shows roughly a 3/4-fold increase in cancers and other related illnesses at extremely low levels of microwaves = 400m from low level transmitters, I suggest that quoting ICNIRP (upper) level is not sufficient to justify transmitter power.
The ICNIRP guidelines do give an upper level; however, the Committee also states, in the same report:
Quote (p 546)…children, the elderly and some chronically ill people, might have a lower tolerance for one or more forms of NIR exposure….may be useful or necessary to develop separate guidelines…”
Have decision makers surveyed the local populations to determine this fact. i.e. electrosensitive, elderly, the sick, etc?
The same ICNIRP statement also goes on to say:
Quote (Conclusion)…several steps in these procedures require scientific judgement; e.g. on reviewing the scientific literature and determining appropriate reduction factors…”
Have decision makers shown evidence of reviewing
scientific research in order to reduce their emissions below that known to
cause illness?
I argue that it is not only a misconception to only ever quote the upper limit of the ICNIRP guidance, but disreputable and, possibly, fraudulent.
There may be legal issues here, under the European Convention on Human Rights (Articles 6 and 8) and the United Nations UN22 Standard Rules, along with the responsibilities of a Landowner and what is permitted of his or her land.
B Trower
Scientific Adviser
RRT