Electro-hypersensitivity (ES / EHS): what is it like?

‘My life has been turned upside-down. Three months since my classroom was fitted with the WLAN transmitters which sensitized me, I still hope it’s all a bad dream. On a good day, away from wireless radiation, I even hope I’m cured. Then a sudden pain will bring me back to reality and I again avoid all possible dangers.

’Some wireless systems give me a familiar headache, but not always. Stronger systems, like the one in Milton Keynes shopping centre, often produce very strong but varied pains – a searing 3-hour headache delayed until the journey home, sharp stabbing pains in both thighs, or a piercing pain below the heart. Pain seems to flow around the nervous system without reason. Sudden joint pains can be common one day, and nausea another, while twice I’ve jumped in agony when I felt I’d been shot in the genitals.

The workplace can be my best refuge, since the head agreed to remove the troublesome transmitters. Home can be a nightmare, hiding behind screens with up to five internet routers beaming through the house and garden. Surprises have been common, from Sat. Nav. and digital phones to loop hearing aids and microwave ovens at up to 15 feet. I feel wretched by limiting the rest of the family’s activities but then, it’s not me who’s doing this really, but the whole of society.

Michael Bevington, Head of Classics, Stowe School. December 2006

‘That’s interesting about the Wi-Fi – I got a wireless setup at home about four months ago and have had to stop using it because after about 20 minutes it gives me headaches, and after that I get pins and needles in my feet and hands and I start to feel really light headed and sick. I’ve gone back to a wired connection. I could feel when it was on or off, even when not in the same room.

‘The headache feels like there’s a sort of electrical thing going on between my ears, and it’s very painful between the eyes, like there’s pressure building there. It’s actually very similar to a problem a friend of mine had a few years ago with a Nokia phone, she had the same headaches and also a metallic taste in her mouth, when she changed phones it was OK again.

‘It’s a very strange thing because it’s not all Wi-Fi that does this to me, I can sit in a [public] hot spot and feel fine, but my home setup is really unpleasant, maybe because it’s at such close range. I do also get the same symptoms if I visit [local] Sainsbury’s so maybe there’s some kind of Wi-Fi thing going on up there too – I went there a few months ago for the first time in a about a year and had to leave sharpish.

‘When I can feel it, it’s like the air is heavy and thick, and I find it hard to think clearly, it’s quite hard to put into words. I heard on the news today that some expert is recommending that children don’t hold Wi-Fi devices on their lap, there’s definitely something very wrong with Wi-Fi.’

resident, Worthing, West Sussex, UK

‘Last July, out of the blue I developed a disruption to my heart rhythm. As a qualified Doctor I considered possible causes, such as caffeine intake, tiredness, high blood pressure, or the onset of menopausal symptoms. Being slight of frame, with normal to low blood pressure and excellent general health, I reasoned the ectopic beats and variable pulse rate would probably go away with a reduction in my tea and coffee, and a little rest. Over the next 6 weeks, the arrhythmia continued to the point where I was aware of it for the majority of the day. I also experienced disturbance to my sleep, waking in the early hours and then being unable to fall asleep again. From the tightness of my upper chest I knew I was not getting enough oxygen. I was very reluctant to consult my GP, aware of the investigations it would initiate, and also of the many drugs in the armory for treating arrhythmias with their multitude of side effects. There was no precipitating factor I could identify that would afflict a fit 49 year old, with no pre-existing heart or respiratory problems, in this way. On the verge of making an appointment with my GP, I linked the onset of my symptoms to our acquisition of a laptop with a wireless modem (NET GEAR and is a Wireless ADSL Modem Gateway DG824M) situated in the hallway. This 'base station' had been transmitting microwaves 24 hours/day at a frequency of 2.4GHz, extending to a radius of 150 feet. These (and similar) are being placed in the foyers of airports, and hotels, in GP's surgeries, coffee shops and student halls of residence, so individuals can use their laptops with the minimum of fuss. We disconnected the wireless base station, replacing it with a fixed line. Within 3 weeks I was totally free of any abnormality as detected by pulse or symptoms, my sleep settled back to normal, as did my energy.

‘On consideration, during the summer others in my family of 5 have been abnormally fatigued with disturbed sleep patterns. My 18 year old daughter had an episode of extreme dizziness lasting a whole day after close contact with the transmitter. My 22 year old son similarly experienced vomiting and vertigo, disabling him for a day after spending 2 hours within feet of the apparatus.

‘If this is how it affects a healthy family of adults over a short period of time, what will be the consequences on a cross-section of the general population, let alone those with heart problems or pacemakers, the pregnant and the young? What is the real price of convenience?

Dr F Fox MB ChB

‘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?

‘Put the phone to my head. Instant pain, take it away and pain goes away. Problem. What is happening??? This can’t happen!

‘Although I cut down on using my mobile I did not stop completely. Why? Good question. I was assured by all it was only temporary and like a fool I believed the scientists, the medics, the media.

‘Then, one day putting the mobile to my head an explosion in my ear. So much pain I could not bear the mobile to my head. This can’t happen! Thereafter, the weird experience I had over the twelve months earlier using a mobile phone, I started to experience in front of my computer, in front of my TV and in my car.

‘This developed over time to an ordinary phone, video, washing machine, dish washer etc. Whatever damage the mobile phones/microwaves, can do had been done to me.

‘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 my microwave!!! Its use a 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. I have been studying ES for 5 years. Every hour, of every day, of every month for 5 years. Believe me it is not confusing.

‘Wishing to prove my condition I signed up for the tests at Kings College and had to pull out when I found what they wanted to do to me. I did suggest a less invasive way of proving this but was ignored. Last year I signed up for the test at Essex University and attended the first of three sessions to prove this condition. I ignored my cynicism because the questionnaire seemed to be only concerned with my financial state and levels of stress. I ignored the fact that the people were psychologists, not scientists. I ignored the fact that they couldn’t tell me the level of strength of the mast. I ignored the fact that they had not consulted anyone ES when devising the tests and I went ahead with the first one hour session.

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. I went to my doctor when I first bled. He referred me to a Specialist. The Specialist was very chatting and friendly until I told him why I was bleeding. I then became the enemy. A lunatic. I had a barium enema and a colonoscopy. All clear.

‘When I asked therefore why I could be bleeding (I was bleeding before and after the investigation) I was told by the specialist in a very aggressive voice ‘there is no reason why you should be bleeding’. He didn’t want to see my stool, didn’t want to check the most obvious way of telling if I was being truthful or not. End of Examination, Go Home!

‘That is what it is like being ES. The 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.

‘In theory, this should not happen.

‘If damaged by a drug, I don’t think the drug industry saying we didn’t do any research into this drug because in theory it should be safe, would be good enough. The mobile phone industry gets away with it. They are not required to do any safety research because the NRPB (HPA) are responsible for this and of course they are totally independent and impartial like the newspaper industry. Who do not want to rock the boat.

‘When I challenge scientists, politicians, health industry, NRPB, Media, that this is not difficult to prove I can prove it. They change the subject. I could go on for hours but why bother.

‘Sadly, you and your family have to become affected to rock the boat. I hope you have the good grace to apologies in a few years time when your collective incompetence results in millions of people being affected because that is what will happen. Correction, this is what is happening while you don’t use your common sense or investigate this seriously.

‘If the research is correct, that it causes geno-toxin effects, single and double stranded DNA breaks, damage to chromosomes and reductions in melatonin, how will this be detected in humans when doctors, specialists, scientists etc refuse to examine us seriously. The best any ES person has had is a two minute examination and the assurances we are perfectly OK.

‘If these things are happening, what symptoms are we allowed to have? Please advise me. What symptoms am I allowed to have if I am suffering from the above!!!

‘Meanwhile, incidents of brain tumors, mouth tumors, ear tumors, eye tumors, once very rare, are all suddenly appearing and increasing. Probably psychosomatic.

‘Wake up!

Brian Stein

 

Electrohypersensitivity (EHS)

• See also the issue of dose-response
• What is EHS like?

Below: EHS in the view of Canada, Switzerland and Sweden

Electrohypersensitivity: view from the Netherlands

This website (Stichting EHS) is made by and for electro-hypersensitive persons, deals with the phenomenon of ‘Electrical hypersensitivity’. A small percentage of extensive computer users develops a hypersensitivity towards electric and electromagnetic fields emitted by PC and TV screens and several other pieces of electric and electronic equipment in home and office. Symptoms vary and range from itching, dizziness and headache to skin rashes and intense fatigue. Work may become impossible altogether. Social isolation may follow. Here, electrical devices threatening health are identified and their fields measured. Possible interference between fields and biological matter is discussed. Strategies to minimize such fields and the necessity to avoid exposure are put forward. We argue that for electro-hypersensitives life becomes bearable only if dramatic changes in their electric environment are made. Health officials should be aware of these phenomena. A working group of electro-hypersensitives was established in 2003.

The results of a questionnaire that was completed by 250 electrohypersensitive (EHS) persons in the Netherlands over a 3-year period, who contacted the EHS Foundation on their own initiative. Self-declared health problems were recorded along with the sources of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) – if known – that caused the health effects

• Electrohypersensitivity (EHS) in the Netherlands – A Questionnaire survey (PDF, 20pp), Hugo Schooneveld and Juliette Kuiper, Dutch Electrohypersensitivity (EHS) Foundation

Electrohypersensitivity: the Canadian view

The Medical Perspective on Environmental Sensitivities

Margaret E Sears (MEng, PhD)

Abstract

Approximately 3 per cent of Canadians have been diagnosed with environmental sensitivities, and many more are somewhat sensitive to traces of chemicals and/or electromagnetic phenomena in the environment. People experience neurological and numerous other symptoms, and avoidance of triggers is an essential step to regaining health. The Canadian Human Rights Commission commissioned this report to summarize scientific information about environmental sensitivities. For those interested in the original scientific and technical literature, an annotated bibliography is available on request from environmentalhealthmed@gmail.com This report addresses issues such as the definition and prevalence of environmental sensitivities; recognition by medical authorities; education and training within the medical community; origins, triggers and symptoms of sensitivities; impact of environmental sensitivities in the workplace; government policies and standards for building codes, air quality and ventilation as they affect individuals with environmental sensitivities; and guidelines for accommodation within the workplace. For people with environmental sensitivities, their health and ability to work rests with the actions of others, including building managers, co-workers and clients. Accommodating people with environmental sensitivities presents an opportunity to improve workplace environmental quality and workers’ performance, and may help prevent the onset of sensitivities in others.

• Canadian Human Rights website
• Electrohypersensitivity: the Canadian view (full PDF document)

Electrohypersensitivity: the Swiss view

Electrosmog in the Environment

Electricity supply systems, electrical appliances and a wide range of transmitters for various wireless applications generate non-ionising radiation (commonly referred to as ‘electrosmog’) that can be harmful to our health, depending on its intensity. With its Ordinance relating to Protection from Non-Ionising Radiation, he Federal Council introduced a legal instrument to protect the population against the harmful effects of electrosmog.

This brochure (see link below) describes the main sources of electrosmog, assesses the associated risks, identifies existing gaps in research and suggests ways in which we can reduce our own level of exposure.

Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape SAEFL, June 2005

‘The negative impacts of intensive non-ionising radiation on our health have been scientifically established and are undisputed, but with the exception of workplace accidents, people are never exposed to such high levels of radiation. However, biological effects also occur at levels well below internationally recommended hazard thresholds. Since scientists are unable to indicate how harmful these effects are, it is advisable to take certain precautions.’

• Electrosmog in the Environment (full PDF brochure)

Electrohypersensitivity: the Swedish view

In Sweden, electrohypersensitivity (EHS) is an officially fully recognized functional impairment (ie, it is not regarded as a disease). Survey studies show that somewhere between 230,000 and 290,000 Swedish men and women report a variety of symptoms when being in contact with electromagnetic field (EMF)-sources.

The electrohypersensitive persons have their own handicap organization, The Swedish Association for the ElectroSensitive (the website has an English version). This organization is included in the Swedish Disability Federation (Handikappförbundens SamarbetsOrgan; HSO). HSO is the combined voice of the Swedish disability associations towards the government, the parliament and national authorities and is a cooperative body that today consists of 43 national disability organizations (where The Swedish Association for the ElectroSensitive is 1 of these 43 organizations) with altogether about 500,000 individual members. [read more (the site has an English short version)]

Swedish municipalities, of course, have to follow the UN 22 Standard Rules on the equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities (’Standardregler för att tillförsäkra människor med funktionsnedsättning delaktighet och jämlikhet’; [more about the UN 22 Standard Rules] All persons with disabilities shall, thus, be given the assistance and service they have the right to according to the Swedish Act concerning Support and Service for Persons with Certain Functional Impairments (LSS-lagen) and the Swedish Social Services Act (Socialtjänstlagen). Persons with disabilities, thus, have many different rights and can get different kinds of support. The purpose of those rights and the support is to give every person the chance to live like everyone else. Everyone who lives in the Swedish municipalities should be able to lead a normal life and the municipalities must have correct knowledge and be able to reach the persons who need support and service. Persons with disabilities shall be able to get extra support so that they can live, work, study, or do things they enjoy in their free time. The municipalities are responsible for making sure that everyone gets enough support. Everyone shall show respect and remember that such men and women may need different kinds of support.

In Sweden, impairments are viewed from the point of the environment. No human being is in itself impaired, there are instead shortcomings in the environment that cause the impairment (as the lack of ramps for the person in a wheelchair or rooms electrosanitized for the person with electrohypersensitivity). This environment-related impairment view, furthermore, means that even though one does not have a scientifically-based complete explanation for the impairment electrohypersensitivity, and in contrast to disagreements in the scientific society, the person with electrohypersensitivity shall always be met in a respectful way and with all necessary support with the goal to eliminate the impairment. This implies that the person with electrohypersensitivity shall have the opportunity to live and work in an electrosanitized environment.

This view can fully be motivated in relation to the present national and international handicap laws and regulations, including the UN 22 Standard Rules and the Swedish action plan for persons with impairments (prop. 1999/2000:79 ‘Den nationella handlingplanen för handikappolitiken – Från patient till medborgare’). Also the Human Rights Act in the EU fully applies.

A person is disabled when the environment contains some sort of impediments. It means that in that moment a man or woman in a wheelchair can not come onto the bus, a train, or into a restaurant, this person has a disability, he or she is disabled. When the bus, the train or the restaurant are adjusted for a wheelchair, the person do not suffer from his disability and are consequently not disabled. An electrohypersensitive person suffers when the environment is not properly adapted according to their personal needs. Strategies to enable a person with this disability to attend common rooms such as libraries, churches and so on, are for instance to switch off the high-frequency fluorescent lamps and instead use ordinary light bulbs. Another example is the possibility to switch off – the whole or parts of – the assistive listening systems (persons with electrohypersensitivity are often very sensitive to assistive listening systems).

In the Stockholm municipality – where I live and work as a scientist with the responsibility to investigate comprehensive issues for persons with electrohypersensitivity – such persons have the possibility to get their home sanitized for EMFs. It means for example that ordinary electricity cables are changed to special cables. Furthermore, the electric stove can be changed to a gas stove and walls, roof and floors can be covered with special wallpaper or paint with a special shelter to stop EMFs from the outside (from neighbours and mobile telephony base stations). Even the windows can be covered with a thin aluminum foil as an efficient measure to restrain EMFs to get into the room/home. If these alterations turn out not to be optimal they have the possibility to rent small cottages in the countryside that the Stockholm municipality owns. These areas have lower levels of irradiation than others. The Stockholm municipality also intend to build a village with houses that are specially designed for persons who are electrohypersensitive. This village will be located in a low-level irradiation area. [One of my graduate students, Eva-Rut Lindberg, has in her thesis project studied the ‘construction of buildings for persons with the impairment electrohypersensitivity’. The doctoral thesis will be presented during 2007.]

Persons with electrohypersensitivity also have a general (legal) right to be supported by their employer so that they can work despite of this impairment. For instance, they can get special equipment such as computers that are of low-emission type, that high-frequency fluorescent lamps are changed to ordinary light bulbs, no wireless DECT telephones in their rooms, and so on.

Some hospitals in Sweden (eg in Umeå, Skellefteå and Karlskoga) also have built special rooms with very low EMFs so that persons who are hypersensitive can get medical care. Another example is the possibility for persons who are electrohypersensitive to get a specially designed car so that the person can transport himself/herself between his/her home and their workplace.

Recently, some politicians in the Stockholm municipality even proposed to the politicians responsible for the subway in the Stockholm City that a part of every trainset should be free from mobile phones; that the commuters have to switch of the phones in these selected parts to enable persons with electrohypersensitivity to travel with the subway (compare this with persons who have an allergy for animal fur whereupon people consequently is prohibited to have animals, such as dogs or cats, in selected parts of the trainset).

In addition, when the impairment electrohypersensitivity is discussed it is also of paramount importance that more general knowledge is needed with the aim to better adapt the society to the specific needs of the persons with this impairment. The Swedish ‘Miljöbalk’ (the Environmental Code) contains an excellent prudence avoidance principle which, of course, most be brought into action also here, together with respect and willingness to listen to the persons with electrohypersensitivity.

Naturally, all initiatives for scientific studies of the impairment electrohypersensitivity must be characterized and marked by this respect and willingness to listen, and the investigations shall have the sole aim to help the persons with this particular impairment. Rule 13 in the UN 22 Standard Rules clearly says that scientific investigations of impairments shall, in an unbiased way – and without any prejudice – focus on cause, occurrence and nature and with the sole and explicit purpose to help and support the person with the impairment. Nothing else!

In addition, it must also be mentioned that quite recently, by the end of 2004, The Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association (IDEA) has announced that ‘they have identified a sub-group of the population who are particularly sensitive to exposure to different types of electromagnetic radiation. The safe levels currently advised for exposure to this non-ionising radiation are based solely on its thermal effects. However, it is clear that this radiation also has non-thermal effects, which need to be taken into consideration when setting these safe levels. The electrosensitivity experienced by some people results in a variety of distressing symptoms which must also be taken into account when setting safe levels for exposure to non-ionising radiation and when planning the siting of masts and transmitters (IDEA, 2004)

Furthermore, the IDEA also points out the following:

1. An increasing number of people in Ireland are complaining of symptoms which, while they may vary in nature, intensity and duration, can be demonstrated to be clearly related to exposure to electro-magnetic radiation (EMR).
2. International studies on animals over the last 30 years have shown the potentially harmful effects of exposure to electro-magnetic radiation. In observational studies, animals have shown consistent distress when exposed to EMR. Experiments on tissue cultures and rats have shown an increase in malignancies when exposed to mobile telephone radiation.
3. Studies on mobile telephone users have shown significant levels of discomfort in certain individuals following extensive use or even, in some cases, following regular short-term use.
4. The current safe levels for exposure to microwave radiation were determined based solely on the thermal effects of this radiation. There is now a large body of evidence that clearly shows that this is not appropriate, as many of the effects of this type of radiation are not related to these thermal effects.

(IDEA, 2004)

Finally, The Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association ‘believes that the Irish Government should urgently review the information currently available internationally on the topic of the thermal and non-thermal effects of exposure to electro-magnetic radiation with a view to immediately initiating appropriate research into the adverse health effects of exposure to all forms of non-ionising radiation in this country, and into the forms of treatment available elsewhere. Before the results of this research are available, an epidemiological database should be initiated of individuals suffering from symptoms thought to be related to exposure to non-ionising radiation. Those claiming to be suffering from the effects of exposure to electro-magnetic radiation should have their claims investigated in a sensitive and thorough way, and appropriate treatment provided by the State. The strictest possible safety regulations should be established for the installation of masts and transmitters, and for the acceptable levels of potential exposure of individuals to electro-magnetic radiation, in line with the standards observed in New Zealand.’ (IDEA, 2004). Of course, these very recent findings must also be taken into serious consideration for any research proposal.

It may also be noted that a unique conference recently was held in Stockholm in May, 2006. The theme for the conference was ‘The right for persons with the impairment electrohypersensitivity to live in a fully accessible society’. The conference was organized by the Stockholm City municipality and the Stockholm County Council and dealt with the most recent measures to make Stockholm fully accessible for persons with the impairment electrohypersensitivity. Among such measures are to offer home equipment adjustments, ban mobile phones from certain underground cars as well as certain public bus seats, and through electrosanitized hospital wards. The conference was documented on film.

Olle Johansson
Assoc. Prof.
The Experimental Dermatology Unit
Department of Neuroscience
Karolinska Institute
171 77 Stockholm
Sweden

 

EHS classified people have measurably altered skin

Olle Johansson has produced another study where he has found from his preliminary data that the skin of electrically hypersensitive people is noticeably different to those without the "functional impairment". He summarizes, "In view of recent epidemiological studies, pointing to a correlation between long-term exposure from power-frequent magnetic fields or microwaves and cancer, our data ought to be taken seriously and further analyzed."

Electromagn Biol Med. 2006;25(4):245-58.

Electrohypersensitivity: state-of-the-art of a functional impairment.

Johansson O.

Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, The Experimental Dermatology Unit, Stockholm, Sweden. olle.johansson@ki.se

Recently, a new category of persons, claiming to suffer from exposure to electromagnetic fields, has been described in the literature. In Sweden, electrohypersensitivity (EHS) is an officially fully recognized functional impairment (i.e., it is not regarded as a disease). Survey studies show that somewhere between 230,000-290,000 Swedish men and women report a variety of symptoms when being in contact with electromagnetic field (EMF) sources. The aim of our studies has been to investigate possible alterations, in the cellular and neuronal systems of these person' skin. As controls, age- and sex-matched persons, without any subjective or clinical symptoms or dermatological history, served. Immunohistochemistry using antisera to the previously characterized marker substances of interest has been utilized. In summary, it is evident from our preliminary data that various alterations are present in the electrohypersensitive person' skin. In view of recent epidemiological studies, pointing to a correlation between long-term exposure from power-frequent magnetic fields or microwaves and cancer, our data ought to be taken seriously and further analyzed.

PMID: 17178584 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Dose-response and non-linearity

The orthodox response to whether any electromagnetic environment is ‘safe’ is to measure it. And since there are many ways to measure (averaging, peak, spectrum analysis, structure, pattern etc.) one goal is to produce a personal dosimeter to map exposures over time more comprehensively. All this can achieve, however, is a specific illustration under certain parameters. It cannot be concluded from any such measurement that if an FM radio station signal has a higher average signal strength at a particular location than a UMTS signal, the latter is less harmful, or that by comparison with ICNIRP reference levels for ‘safe’ exposure over six minutes, complaints of sleep disturbance attributed to the arrival of such a source must be psychosomatic. Hypotheses of ‘safe dose’ are notoriously full of broad and unwarranted assumptions.

Why is this important?

• With regards to heating damage from microwave radiation, a raw energy absorption effect is fairly linear. Protective guidelines (eg ICNIRP) are therefore straightforward to devise, and specific absorption rates (SAR) can be quoted for individual mobile phones.
• For long-term low-level chronic exposure to EM Fields, however, the effects are in all likelihood dependent on multiple factors such as power, frequency (for penetration, but also coincidence with functional bio-frequencies), co-factors, and susceptibility in any one of several biological functions. It really isn’t easy!
• Clearly it is not enough to use energy absorption guidelines for frequency effects, but it would seem important to see if there is a level of environmental microwave radiation (for example) that can be considered safe for everyone. But is there a straightforward dose-response ratio?
• Read more about electro-hypersensitivity (EHS)

Force equals mass times acceleration. F = M × A. Newton’s second law of motion.

In so many situations it appears that the more you put in the more you get out; there is proportionality. Such relationships are so common that it is easy to presume everything is like this. Sometimes the relationship is inverse; sometimes it is in a straight ratio (linear). Sometimes the relationship is (as in population expansion) exponential, whilst at others there is a curved distribution or ‘window’ – a range within which the greatest effects occur.

Is a linear dose-response true of toxins and pharmaceutical drugs? No, it isn’t. Some toxins are most potent at very low levels and not proportionately worse at higher levels. Many medicines will kill you at high doses. One reason for this is that their effects are not singular: they interact on many systems simultaneously. One effect may limit an imbalance while another creates an imbalance, and providing the dose causes one much more than the other, what might be a toxin is instead a medicine.

Dose-response may also be bi-phasic or even multi-phasic: in other words a low dose is insufficient to trigger a protective response to a cumulative effect, a medium dose may induce an over-reaction, and a high dose may match (and counteract) the harmful agent, until a point of being overwhelmed by it is reached.

Finally, there is the threshold effect (where a cause has no effect below a certain value), and the ‘rain-barrel’ effect (where an accumulation of effects eventually becomes too much and overflows).

Analogy: The accident and the vandals

Every now and then a vehicle leaves the road and ploughs through a garden wall. For a month, while insurance claims are cleared, there is a pile of stones and a hole in the wall. But before very long, the boundary is restored, the plants recover, and if you didn’t pass by around the time, you might never know what had happened.

In another neighborhood, local lay bouts seem to have nothing better to do than to pull stones off walls. Some owners repair each spate of damage straight away, because loose stones are easier to damage further. Some owners grow weary of the constant repair battle, or can’t keep up with the bills and effort, and soon a few bricks are followed by a few bricks, and a few more, and repair becomes a really big undertaking. Rubbish accumulates in the garden, dogs enter it and foul it, and even maintaining the garden becomes too much.

Which leaves the greater long-term damage? The vehicle? Or the few-stones-at-a-time yobs and the overwhelmed house owner?

• This analogy is given as a valid comparison between a large but short-term dose of electromagnetic radiation, from which the body may easily recover, and chronic exposure leading to constant free radical formation. Remember, among the effects of low dose EM fields are not just increased free-radical formation, but an impaired immune system.
  [More under health.]
• Resonance effects: calcium and potassium at cell membranes are sensitive to EM frequencies in non-thermal ways. Persistent exposure matters but is not a feature of any protective or precautionary guidelines.

Dose-response and electromagnetic fields

The concern therefore is to determine if, with all our pervasive wireless technology and power lines, appliances and machines, there is a safe level of electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (or indeed safe frequencies) with which to work. If so, how can we adopt and ensure safe levels? If not, what are the alternatives or consequences?

Neither EM fields nor living organisms are easy to assess, let alone their complex interaction. With living organisms dependent on extremely subtle electromagnetic messaging to maintain homeostasis, determining what frequencies, power levels and durations might lie behind consequences such as electro-hypersensitivity is very complex indeed. But what it is not, is a direct linear response to energy absorption, and in all likelihood it is not due to a single interaction mechanism.

Measurement and dose

Environmental EM fields can be measured in many ways, but to create a research base for any situation, every aspect must be recorded. What fields do people who claim adverse effects encounter in their average day? A personal dosimeter must record what frequencies and power levels are present on a time-sliced basis, but also it must record signal structures. For example, there is a difference between a 900MHz carrier wave and its 217Hz time-sliced pulse, or the 50Hz electricity supply and radiofrequencies riding on it. Fast, high but recurring transients must not be missed. Ideally, such a dosimeter should be used with other devices that record physiological responses rather than a diary record of well-being, thus avoiding ‘over-awareness’.

Several factors make this kind of meaningful record difficult.

1. systems such as UMTS (3G mobile phones) use frequency-hopping, and recording these may be difficult
2. a dosimeter worn on one part of the body (eg waist) will not record peak doses (eg a mobile phone at the head)
3. the record is what the EM environment was like, not the person’s health, or which element was having a given effect (if any).

 

New Study Finds That Children Really Do Absorb More Radiation

A new Brazilian study has found that children absorb more radiation at widely used mobile phone frequencies (tested were 850 MHz and 1850 MHz). Using realistic models of the head, it was found that the SAR of a phone are typically more than 60% higher than reported when being used by a 10 year old.

This of course means that phones with SAR values close to guideline limits will be exposing these limits if used by a young child, which has interesting legal implications.

Electromagn Biol Med. 2006;25(4):349-60.

Electromagnetic absorption in the head of adults and children due to mobile phone operation close to the head.

de Salles AA, Bulla G, Rodriguez CE.

Electrical Engineering Department, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Brasil. aasalles@ufrgs.br

The Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) produced by mobile phones in the head of adults and children is simulated using an algorithm based on the Finite Difference Time Domain (FDTD) method. Realistic models of the child and adult head are used. The electromagnetic parameters are fitted to these models. Comparison also are made with the SAR calculated in the children model when using adult human electromagnetic parameters values. Microstrip (or patch) antennas and quarter wavelength monopole antennas are used in the simulations. The frequencies used to feed the antennas are 1850 MHz and 850 MHz. The SAR results are compared with the available international recommendations. It is shown that under similar conditions, the 1g-SAR calculated for children is higher than that for the adults. When using the 10-year old child model, SAR values higher than 60% than those for adults are obtained.

PMID: 17178592 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

---

Protect your children today - They should be wearing a Shield or have one in their room at night Read More

We also recommend a multi-layer approach, put additional protection on all your phones Read More

 

Warning: Your Cell Phone May Be Hazardous to Your Health

Ever worry that that gadget you spend hours holding next to your head might be damaging your brain? Well, the evidence is starting to pour in, and it's not pretty.
So why isn't anyone in America doing anything about it?

By Christopher Ketcham for Gear + Gadgets GQ

Photograph by Tom Schierlitz

February 2010

In the February issue of GQ, Christopher Ketcham examines the enormous amounts of evidence over the years that point to cell phones, as well as the wireless internet, as a health threat and possible cause of cancer due to the levels of radiation emitted.

Earlier this winter, I met an investment banker who was diagnosed with a brain tumor five years ago. He's a managing director at a top Wall Street firm, and I was put in touch with him through a colleague who knew I was writing a story about the potential dangers of cell-phone radiation. He agreed to talk with me only if his name wasn't used, so I'll call him Jim.

He explained that the tumor was located just behind his right ear and was not immediately fatal—the five-year survival rate is about 70 percent.
He was 35 years old at the time of his diagnosis and immediately suspected it was the result of his intense cell-phone usage. "Not for nothing," he said, "but in investment banking we've been using cell phones since 1992, back when they were the Gordon-Gekko-on-the-beach kind of phone."

When Jim asked his neurosurgeon, who was on the staff of a major medical center in Manhattan, about the possibility of a cell-phone-induced tumor, the doctor responded that in fact he was seeing more and more of such cases—young, relatively healthy businessmen who had long used their phones obsessively. He said he believed the industry had discredited studies showing there is a risk from cell phones. "I got a sense that he was pissed off," Jim told me.

A handful of Jim's colleagues had already died from brain cancer; the more reports he encountered of young finance guys developing tumors, the more certain he felt that it wasn't a coincidence. "I knew four or five people just at my firm who got tumors," Jim says. "Each time, people ask the question. I hear it in the hallways."

It's hard to talk about the dangers of cell-phone radiation without sounding like a conspiracy theorist. This is especially true in the United States, where non-industry-funded studies are rare, where legislation protecting the wireless industry from legal challenges has long been in place, and where our lives have been so thoroughly integrated with wireless technology that to suggest it might be a problem—maybe, eventually, a very big public-health problem—is like saying our shoes might be killing us.

Except our shoes don't send microwaves directly into our brains. And cell phones do—a fact that has increasingly alarmed the rest of the world.

Consider, for instance, the following headlines that have appeared in highly reputable international newspapers and journals over the past few years.

• From summer 2006, in the Hamburg Morgenpost: are we telephoning ourselves to death? That fall, in the Danish journal Dagens Medicin: mobile phones affect the brain's metabolism.
• December 2007, from Agence France-Presse: israeli study says regular mobile use increases tumour risk.
• January 2008, in London's Independent: mobile phone radiation wrecks your sleep.
• September 2008, in Australia's The Age: scientists warn of mobile phone cancer risk.

Though the scientific debate is heated and far from resolved, there are multiple reports, mostly out of Europe's premier research institutions, of cell-phone and PDA use being linked to "brain aging," brain damage, early-onset Alz­heimer's, senility, DNA damage, and even sperm die-offs (many men, after all, keep their cell phones in their pants pockets or attached at the hip). In September 2007, the European Union's environmental watchdog, the European Environment Agency, warned that cell-phone technology "could lead to a health crisis similar to those caused by asbestos, smoking, and lead in petrol."

Perhaps most worrisome, though, are the preliminary results of the multinational Interphone study sponsored by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, in Lyon, France. (Scientists from thirteen countries took part in the study, the United States conspicuously not among them.)

Interphone researchers reported in 2008 that after a decade of cell-phone use, the chance of getting a brain tumor—specifically on the side of the head where you use the phone—goes up as much as 40 percent for adults.

Interphone researchers in Israel have found that cell phones can cause tumors of the parotid gland (the salivary gland in the cheek), and an independent study in Sweden last year concluded that people who started using a cell phone before the age of 20 were five times as likely to develop a brain tumor. Another Interphone study reported a nearly 300 percent increased risk of acoustic neuroma, a tumor of the acoustic nerve.

As more results of the Interphone study trickled out, I called Louis Slesin, who has a doctorate in environmental policy from MIT and in 1980 founded an investigative newsletter called Microwave News. "No one in this country cared!" Slesin said of the findings. "It wasn't news!" He suggested that much of the comfort of our modern lives depends on not caring, on refusing to recognize the dangers of microwave radiation. "We love our cell phones. The paradigm that there's no danger here is part of a worldview that had to be put into place," he said. "Americans are not asking the questions, maybe because they don't want the answers. So what will it take?"

To understand how radiation from cell phones and wireless transmitters affects the human brain, and to get some sense of why the concerns raised in so many studies outside the U.S. are not being seriously raised here, it's necessary to go back fifty years, long before the advent of the cell phone, to the research of a young neuroscientist named Allan Frey.

In 1960, Frey, then 25, was working at General Electric's Advanced Electronics Center at Cornell University when he was contacted by a technician whose job was to measure the signals emitted by radar stations. At the time, Frey had taken an interest in the electrical nature of the human body, specifically in how electric fields affect neural functioning. The technician claimed something incredible: He said he could "hear" radar at one of the sites where he worked. (Read articles about effects of EMF and electrosensitivity)

Frey traveled to the facility and stood in the radar field. "And sure enough, I could hear it, too," he said, describing the persistent low-level hum. Frey went on to establish that the effect was real—electromagnetic (EM) radiation from radar could somehow be heard by human beings. The "hearing," however, didn't happen via normal sound waves perceived through the ear. It occurred somewhere in the brain itself, as EM waves interacted with the brain's cells, which generate tiny electrical fields. This idea came to be known as the Frey effect, and it caused an uproar in the neuroscience community.

The waves that Frey was concerned with were those emitted from the nonionizing part of the EM spectrum—the part that scientists always assumed could do no outright biological damage. When Frey began his research, it was assumed that the only way microwaves could have a damaging biological effect was if you increased the power of their signals and concentrated them like sword points—to the level where they could cook flesh. In 1967, this resulted in the first popular microwave oven, which employed microwave frequencies at very high power, concentrated and contained in a metal box. Aside from this engineered thermal effect, the signals were assumed to be safe.

Allan Frey would help pioneer the science that suggested otherwise. At the vanguard of a new field of study that came to be known as bioelectromagnetics, he found what appeared to be grave nonthermal effects from microwave frequencies—the part of the spectrum that belongs not just to radar signals and microwave ovens but also, in the past fifteen years, to cell phones. (The only honest way to think of our cell phones is that they are tiny, low-power microwave ovens, without walls, that we hold against the sides of our heads.)

Frey tested microwave radiation on frogs and other lab animals, targeting the eyes, the heart, and the brain, and in each case he found troubling results. In one study, he triggered heart arrhythmias. Then, using the right modulations of the frequency, he even stopped frog hearts with microwaves—stopped the hearts dead.

Frey observed two factors in how microwaves at low power could affect living systems.

• First, there was the carrier wave: a frequency of 1,900 megahertz, for example, the same frequency of many cell phones today.
  
• Then there was the data placed on the carrier wave—in the case of cell phones, this would be the sounds, words, and pictures that travel along it.
  
• When you add information to a carrier wave, it embeds a second signal—a second frequency—within the carrier wave. This is known as modulation.
  
• A carrier wave can support any number of modulations, even those that match the ­extra-low frequencies at which the brain operates (between eight and twenty hertz).
  
• It was modulation, Frey discovered, that induced the widest variety of biological effects. But how this happened, on a neuronal level, he didn't yet understand.

In a study published in 1975 in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Frey reported that microwaves pulsed at certain modulations could induce "leakage" in the barrier between the circulatory system and the brain. Breaching the blood-brain barrier is a serious matter: It means the brain's environment, which needs to be extremely stable for nerve cells to function properly, can be perturbed in all kinds of dangerous ways. Frey's method was rather simple: He injected a fluorescent dye into the circulatory system of white rats, then swept the ­microwave frequencies across their bodies. In a matter of minutes, the dye had leached into the confines of the rats' brains.

Frey says his work on radar microwaves and the blood-brain barrier soon came under assault from the government. Scientists hired and funded by the Pentagon claimed they'd failed to replicate his findings, yet they also refused to share the data or methodology behind their research ("a most unusual action in science," Frey wrote at the time). For more than fifteen years, Frey had received almost unrestricted funding from the Office of Naval Research. Now he was told to conceal his blood-brain-barrier work or his contract would be canceled.

Since then, no meaningful research into the effect of microwaves on the blood-brain barrier has been pursued in the United States. But a Swedish neurosurgeon, Leif Salford, recently expanded on Frey's work, confirming much of what Frey revealed decades ago. Salford found that microwave exposure killed rodents' brain cells and stimulated neurons associated with Alzheimer's. "A rat's brain is very much the same as a human's," he said in a 2003 interview with the BBC. "They have the same blood-brain barrier and neurons. We have good reason to believe that what happens in rats' brains also happens in humans'. " His research, he said, suggests that "a whole generation of [cell-phone] users may suffer negative effects in middle age."

The potential complications don't end there. In the mid-1990s, a biophysicist at the University of Washington named Henry Lai began to make profound discoveries about the effects of such frequencies not only on the blood-brain barrier but also on the actual structure of rat DNA. Lai found that modulated EM radiation could cause breaks in DNA strands—breaks that could then lead to genetic damage and mutations that would be passed on for generations. What surprised Lai was that the damage was accomplished in a single two-hour exposure.

"This was explosive news," Slesin said. "The reason it was so important was at the time you had all these allegations of brain tumors and cell phones being connected"—specifically the 1992 lawsuit brought by a Florida man, David Reynard, against a number of companies that manufactured phones and provided cell service, following the death of his wife from a brain tumor. "If you can break up DNA with cell-phone radiation, suddenly it's not such a stretch to think of brain tumors developing from this radiation."

Galvanized by the Reynard case, Motorola frantically mobilized to reassure its investors. Then, in 1994, the company went on the attack to discredit Lai, issuing a memo, later obtained by Slesin, stating it had "war-gamed" Lai's work. "We do not believe that Motorola should put anyone on-camera," the memo said. "We must limit our corporate visibility." It further stated that the "key question" was whether "this experiment [can] be replicated."

The cell-phone industry funds lots of risk studies, and many of them show no effect from cell-phone-related radiation. The industry pointed to those favorable studies when countering Lai's DNA findings. (In 2004, it should be pointed out, a European Union–funded study carried out by twelve research groups in seven countries found evidence of genotoxic effects resulting from cell-phone radiation—the same kind of DNA damage that Henry Lai uncovered in the 1990s.) But when Jerry Phillips, a scientist with the Veterans Administration whose work was funded by Motorola, replicated Lai's findings, the company put him under so much pressure not to publish that Phillips abruptly quit microwave research altogether.

Industry-funded studies seem to reflect the result of corporate strong-arming. Lai reviewed 350 studies and found that about half showed bioeffects from EM radiation emitted by cell phones. But when he took into consideration the funding sources for those 350 studies, the results changed dramatically. Only 25 percent of the studies paid for by the industry showed effects, compared with 75 percent of those studies that were independently funded.

The cell-phone industry has managed to exert its influence in other ways, too. In the United States, the organization most influential in the government's setting of standards for microwave exposure is the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), which bills itself as "a leading authority on areas ranging from aerospace systems, computers, and telecommunications to biomedical engineering, electric power, and consumer electronics." According to Slesin, "The committees setting the EM safety levels at the IEEE historically have been dominated by representatives from the military, companies like Raytheon and GE, the telecom companies, and now the cell-phone industry. It is basically a Trojan horse for the private sector to dictate public policy." The IEEE's "safe limits" for microwave exposure are considerably higher than what they should be, says Allan Frey, who was a member of the organization in the '70s. "When it comes to this matter, the IEEE is a charade," Frey told me.

There have been attempts over the years to set exposure limits based on something other than industry and military preference. In the '70s and '80s, the Environmental Protection Agency was foremost in this effort. But with Ronald Reagan in office, antiregulatory sentiment crested and the EPA's research and standards programs were gutted.

Among the EPA's most talented bioelectromagnetics experts at the time was Carl Blackman, who has worked at the agency since its inception in 1970. Blackman's research at the EPA would advance much of what Allan Frey and others had discovered: The effects from EM fields were many and troubling, though far from fully understood. In 1986 the EPA killed Blackman's research entirely. Carl Blackman believes "a decision was made to stop the civilian agencies from looking too deeply into the nonthermal health effects from exposure to EM fields. Scientists who have shown such effects over the years have been silenced, had funding taken away, been laughed at, been called charlatans and con men. The goal was to only let in scientists who would say, 'We know that microwave ovens can cook meat, and that's all we need to know.' " One veteran EPA physicist, speaking anonymously, told me, "The Department of Defense didn't like our research because the exposure limits that we might recommend would curtail their activities."

Industry influence appears to have permeated even the purest international watchdogs, such as the World Health Organization. Slesin unearthed a hoard of documents showing that hundreds of thousands of dollars from the cell-phone industry was doled out to WHO personnel working on wireless health effects. Some of the heaviest pressure falls on the Federal Communications Commission, for obvious reasons. In 2005 the specially appointed thirty-member Technological Advisory Council to the FCC sought to look into EM effects on human beings. According to one member of the TAC who spoke anonymously, officials at the FCC "told us we couldn't talk about that. They would not give us any reason. The FCC people were embarrassed and terrified."

If all this sounds like some abandoned X-Files script, consider the history of suppression of evidence in the major issues of consumer health over the past half century. Big Tobacco hid the dangers of smoking and the addictiveness of nicotine, supporting its position with countless deceptive studies. Asbestos manufacturers hid evidence that the mineral was dangerous even as tens of thousands of workers died from exposure; the makers of DDT and Agent Orange stood behind their products even as it became clear that the herbicides caused cancer. That the cell-phone industry, which last year posted revenues in the hundreds of billions of dollars, has an incentive to shut down research showing the dangers of cell-phone use is not a radical notion.

Cell towers, as you'd imagine, also emit EM radiation in the microwave spectrum, and while the science is much less exhaustive than that associated with handsets, the installations have nonetheless incited violence in various places around the globe. In Spain and Ireland, saboteurs have taken to destroying cell towers, cheered on by the communities living in their shadows. In Sydney, Australia, a retired telecom worker, convinced that cell towers had sickened him, hijacked a tank in the summer of 2007 and rammed six towers to the ground before police were able to leap into the vehicle and subdue him. In Israel, which has the seventh-highest per capita use of mobile phones in the world, attacks on towers have become a regular occurrence in recent years in both Jewish and Arab communities. Two years ago in Galilee, a Druze community protested the erection of a new tower, claiming that the towers already in their midst had caused cancer rates to skyrocket. The tower was built anyway; soon after, local teenagers burned it down. When the police came for them, the Druze rioted, injuring more than twenty-five officers.

Here, in the U.S., there's been very little resistance to the march of the cell towers. In fact, in Congress there's been almost nothing but support. The Telecommunications Act of 1996—a watershed for the cell-phone industry—was the result, in part, of nearly $50 million in political contributions and lobbying largesse from the telecom industry. The prize in the TCA for telecom companies branching into wireless was a rider known as Section 704, which specifically prohibits citizens and local governments from stopping placement of a cell tower due to health concerns. Section 704 was clear: There could be no litigation to oppose cell towers because the signals make you sick.

When President Bill Clinton signed the TCA into law in February 1996, the rollout of "personal communication services," marketed as PCS, was in full swing. By the end of the year, telecom companies had paid the federal government more than $8 billion to purchase portions of the microwave-frequency sequence. (According to the FCC, fees paid for allocation of spectrum as of 2009 amounted to $52 billion.) Almost immediately, cell-phone antennas sprang up across the country, appearing on church steeples and apartment buildings, in parks and along highways, on streetlights and clock towers and flagpoles. One industry estimate tallied 19,850 such installations in the U.S. in 1995. Today there are 247,000, most hosting multiple antennas.

In a study by researchers associated with the venerable Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, which hands out the Nobel Prize for medicine, the massive expansion of digital PCS in Sweden during 1997 was found to have coincided with a marked but subtle decline in the overall health of the population. Might it be, the Karolinska researchers asked, that Swedes fell victim to the march of the first big microwave PCS systems? The number of Swedish workers on sick leave, after declining for years, began to rise abruptly in late 1997, according to the study, doubling during the next five years. Sales of antidepressant drugs doubles during the same period. The number of deaths from Alzheimer's disease rose sharply in 1999 and had nearly doubled by 2001. The authors of the study—Olle Johansson, a neuroscientist, and Örjan Hallberg, a former environmental manager for Ericsson, the Swedish telecommunications company—"found that for all individual counties in Sweden there was a similar precise time" when health worsened. It occurred, they said, almost simultaneously with the rollout of the new digital service. Correlation does not mean causation, but epidemiologists I spoke with say the data are strongly suggestive and need to be followed up. (In other studies at the Karolinska Institute, Johansson has posited that adverse reactions to cell-phone radiation may develop only after long periods of exposure, as the immune system fails, much in the way that allergies develop.)

All of these concerns—the danger of microwaves issuing from the phones we place next to our skulls, the danger of waves emitted by the cell towers that dot our landscapes—also apply to the Wi-Fi networks in our homes and libraries and offices and cafés and parks and neighborhoods. Wi-Fi operates typically at a frequency of 2.4 gigahertz (the same frequency as microwave ovens) but is embedded with a wider range of modulations than cell phones, because we need it to carry more data. "It never ceases to surprise me that people will fight a cell tower going up in their neighborhoods," Blake Levitt, author of Electromagnetic Fields: A Consumer's Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves, told me. "They they'll install a Wi-Fi system in their homes. That's like inviting a cell tower indoors."

In the summer of 2006, a super-Wi-Fi system known as WiMAX was tested in rural Sweden. Bombarded with signals, the residents of the village of Götene—who had no knowledge that the transmitter had come online—were overcome by headaches, difficulty breathing, and blurred vision, according to a Swedish news report. Two residents reported to the hospital with heart arrhythmias, similar to those that, more than thirty years ago, Allen Frey induced in frog hearts. This happened only hours after the system was turned on, and as soon as it was powered down, the symptoms disappeared.

Today, Sprint Nextel and Clearwire are set to establish similar technology across the U.S., with a $7.2 billion government broadband stimulus speeding the rollout. A single WiMAX system would provide Internet coverage for an area of up to 75 square miles. "This means an even denser layer of radio-frequency pollution on top of what has developed over the last two decades," Blake Levitt says. "WiMAX will require many new antennas."

The concern about Wi-Fi is being taken seriously in Europe. In April 2008, the national library of France, citing possible "genotoxic effects," announced it would shut down its Wi-Fi system, and the staff of the storied Library of Sainte-Geneviève in Paris followed up with a petition demanding the disconnection of Wi-Fi antennas and their replacement by wired connections. Several European governments are already moving to prohibit Wi-Fi in government buildings and on campuses, and the Austrian Medical Association is lobbying for a ban of all Wi-Fi systems in schools, citing the danger to children's thinner skulls and developing nervous systems.

I drove down to Annapolis, Maryland, recently to visit with Allan Frey. He was preparing to set out on his forty-foot sailboat for a month at sea, so we talked at a restaurant near the marina. After retiring from full-time research in 1985, Frey, now 75, took up the philosophy of science as an avocation, looking at the question of how science progresses, how it fails to progress, how new ideas are birthed or aborted, how a shift in paradigm is a rare thing. The failure to look squarely at the dangers of microwave radiation is a case study in frozen paradigms, he said, a worldview that can't keep pace with reality.

To illustrate what he meant, Frey held up a glass of water. "We're all just big teacups, bags of water that you can heat up—that's the paradigm," he said. It's the engineer's paradigm, the mind-set of people who had no training in the complexity of living systems. The branches of the military, the major defense contractors, the manufacturers of microwave ovens, the telecom companies, were happy to embrace the engineer's paradigm. The thinking was simple and easy to understand, and most important, it indemnified their operations from liability.

"It's a very primitive mind-set," said Frey. "Plato said we don't see the reality; we see shadows on the cave walls. We've got a lot of people who are seeing shadows and saying this is the reality." He nodded at his water glass. "We now know a human being isn't a bag of water. A human being is a complex organization of electrical fields. Electroencephalograms and electrocardiograms, for example, measure these fields. Every cell has an electrical field across the cell membrane, which is a regulatory interface and controls what goes into and out of the cell. All nerve signals are electric. And between the nucleus and the membrane there is an electrical field, you can measure voltages of individual cells! Electricity drives biology. We evolved in a particular electromagnetic environment"—the magnetic fields from the earth's iron core, the terrestrial magnetism from lodestones, visible light, ultraviolet frequencies, lightning—"and if we change that environment as we have, we either adapt or we have trouble."

Later, after Frey and I parted, I walked around Annapolis and took note of the number of cell towers poised atop the buildings, the number of people who talked on their cell phones. They were everywhere, and after a while I stopped counting. At one point, I watched two women pacing in a parking lot, heads bent against their microwave transmitters. They talked and talked and aimlessly circled.

When I got home, I looked up a line from Orwell that I couldn't quite remember as I watched them, about the power that machine technology would exert over mankind. "The machine has got to be accepted, but it is probably better to accept it rather as one accepts a drug—that is, grudgingly and suspiciously," Orwell wrote. "Like a drug, the machine is useful, dangerous and habit-forming. The oftener one surrenders to it the tighter its grip becomes."

Modern society, needless to say, is in the grip of wireless technology. All you have to do to understand this is step outside your door. "It just so happens," Frey had told me, "that the frequencies and modulations of our cell phones seem to be the frequencies that humans are particularly sensitive to. If we had looked into it a little more, if we had done the real science, we could have allocated spectrums that the body can't feel. The public should know if they are taking a risk with cell phones. What we're doing is a grand world experiment without informed consent." As for Louis Slesin's question—what will it take to change the paradigm?—Frey shook his head. "Until there are bodies in the streets," he said, "I don't think anything is going to change."

christopher ketcham is a reporter in New York City. Research support for this article was provided by the Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute.

---

Note from christopher ketcham
Hey all – I spent almost a year working on this piece about cell-phone radiation –
interviewing dozens of sources, reading scores of reports, and the bad news is in:

Cell-phone radiation, now being pumped directly into the brains of 4.5 billion handset users worldwide, is likely causing havoc in the electrical systems by which our brains and bodies operate. All biology is electric, as one of my sources tells me in the article.

If you add massive levels of electropollution such as cell-phone microwaves into the environment, you’re going to disturb the functioning of living systems, with possibly huge ramifications over the long term: brain tumors, cancers, weird neurological disorders, sperm die-offs, genetic damage, behavioral changes, sleep changes, changes in learning and memory and mental acuity. Similar data is being gathered about the dangers of wifi radiation, which operates at microwave frequencies not very different and often exactly the same as those frequencies used in cell-phone technology. Anyway, read about it, weep, smash your cell-phone, or don’t. To quote one of the scientists in the piece: “The public should know if they are taking a risk with cell phones. What we’re doing is a grand world experiment without informed consent.”

Cheers,

Chris Ketcham

---

---

Note from BioElectric Shield: I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but there appears to be a refusal to face the possible consequences of our technology. Tobacco, Asbestos, pesticides, artificial sweeteners, lead...I remember when none of these things were harmful. But after cumulative exposure over many years, the evidence began to mount up. It seems clear that the same thing is happening again.

Truthfully, I don't want to give up my cell phone. Even if I did, it wouldn't matter because the radiation from everyone else's phone, the cell towers and the WiFi are constantly bombarding us all.

What can you do? The first line of defense is to protect your energy field with a BioElectric Shield. Reduce the effects of EMF from our technology. Wear a Shield and for additional safety for yourself and your family put a room Shield in your computer/media rooms.

Biological Effects of Exposure to Dirty Electricity

By Theresa Phillips, About.com Guide

Dr. Magda Havas, a world leader in research on the health effects of dirty electricity. © Trent University, 2007.

We live in a high tech world, and especially in more developed countries, we are surrounded by power lines, cell phones and radio waves. There is a lot of concern for our environment in terms of clean air and water, growing organic foods and keeping pesticides, heavy metals and industrial organic chemicals out of our systems. But now there is a new pollutant to worry about – invisible and ubiquitous. It is found in our homes, schools, even our hospitals. The culprit is dirty electricity.

Dirty electricity (DE) consists of surges of high frequency voltage or electromagnetic radiation that contaminate our otherwise safe 60 Hz-frequency lines in our homes and buildings. These surges of contamination can come from radio waves, ground currents or high frequency spikes and harmonics coming from appliances, computer and entertainment electronics and other electrical sources. Dimmer switches and energy efficient electronic devices are significant contributors.

Links have been discovered between the incidence of Dirty Electricity (DE) and numerous illnesses including asthma, chronic fatigue syndrome, diabetes, ADD, autism and a number of neurological disorders. While the biotechnology/ biomedical world may be looking for physiological causes and remedies for these disorders, for some, the culprit may be technology itself.

What kind of evidence is there that the president of Lakehead University (Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada), Dr. F. Gilbert, a biologist himself, would apply the precautionary principle and subject himself to extensive criticism for his ban on campus-wide wireless technology? In an interview with Dr. Magda Havas, a leading researcher in the area of DE, from Trent University (Peterborough, Ontario), I found some answers.

 

Q: When and how did you start studying DE?

A: In 2003 I was doing research on the health hazards associated with electromagnetic fields and was involved in a study in Toronto (Ontario, Canada) that had made the news in the Toronto Star. I was soon contacted by a woman whose daughter suffered from electrical sensitivity, and had benefited from placement of filters in their home. The woman had obtained permission to place the filters in the child’s school and asked me if I would like to participate in a study of the impact of the filters on the health of students and teachers.

Q: Did you know about the risks of excessive exposure to DE before that?

A: The link had been there for a number of years, much like research on the impact of other parts of the spectrum. What I didn’t know was that there was more to it than the health effects we knew about from standard 60 Hz frequencies, but that other higher frequencies were very biologically active.

This brought to my attention a whole new area to study that had not received a lot of attention yet. We knew about the effects of extremely low frequencies (ELF) from magnetic fields such as power lines and transformers, and occupational risks of cancer from exposures to ELF. We also knew about the risks from radiofrequencies such as cell phones. DE frequencies fall somewhere in between the two.

Q: Do you find a lot of resistance/ skepticism from peers?

A: There is some skepticism on the part of others. I believe this comes primarily from physicists with little or no biological background and who haven’t kept up with the current literature. They insist that non-ionizing radiation is not a threat except for concerns due to thermal effects. I believe the government is influenced by these groups and telecommunications groups who still argue these now dated beliefs.

Q: You have documented numerous case studies and in-house studies. Is there molecular data to support these findings?

A: First of all, the work I have done is unique in that the studies are ethical, rather than add a stressor; I remove the stressor and document improvements to the subject’s health. It is unique in that rather than just pinpointing the cause of stress or effects of stress, we have the technology to clean it up or remove the stressor.

We have observed MS symptoms rapidly decreasing once the environment is cleaned using the DE filters. Also, the blood sugar of diabetics has been observed going up and down in a dramatic response to movement toward or away from, a source of DE. Other molecular evidence is found in rats and mice whose stress (heat shock) protein levels are elevated upon exposure, individuals whose calcium metabolism and regulation is affected, in that Ca movement between cells increases upon exposure, and melatonin production which decreases at night in exposed animals and people. Normally melatonin increases at night and decreases during the day. Disruptions to that pattern have been linked to poor quality of sleep and increased risk of cancers such as breast cancer. In other studies, increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier due to exposure to DE frequencies has been exploited for therapeutic purposes to aid drug delivery to the brain.

Q: What is the next direction you would like to take with your research?

A: We have considerable evidence that the symptoms of some neurological illnesses in children, such as ADD and autism, can be exasperated by DE and that behavior improves considerably in clean environments. These disorders are becoming more common among children and doctors agree there is likely an environmental component to that. While food additives may play a part, they don’t explain it all. I would like to do more work with children in these areas.

I would also like to investigate other neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s, ALS and Alzheimer’s diseases. This problem is recognized worldwide by those in medical professions and associated organizations that are rallying their governments to do something. These are people who generally remain neutral and don’t get involved, an indication that the data is convincing enough and something should be done.

 

---

Read more from Dr. Havas

Dirty Elelectricity An Invisible Pollutant in our Schools

 

Dirty Electricity and Electrical Hypersensitivity: Five Case Studies

Magda Havas1 and David Stetzer2
power quality, also known as dirty electricity, refers to a combination of harmonics and
transients generated primarily by electronic devices and by non-linear loads. We have
assumed, until recently, that this form of energy is not biologically active. However, when
Graham/Stetzer™ filters were installed in homes and schools, symptoms associated with
electrical hypersensitivity (such as chronic fatigue, depression, headaches, body aches and
pains, ringing in the ears, dizziness, impaired sleep, memory loss, and confusion) were
reduced. Five case studies are presented that include one healthy individual; one person with
electrical hypersensitivity; another with diabetes; and a person with multiple sclerosis

Read Full article

‘Electromagnetic Load’
a Hidden Factor in Many Illnesses
Medical Director of Switzerland’s Paracelsus Clinic Takes Stand on Hazards of Electromagnetic Pollution

10.02.2009 by Camilla Category Electromagnetic Health Blog

Listen to Dr. Rau Interview.

Thomas M. Rau, MD, Medical Director of the Paracelsus Clinic

February 10th, 2009. Dr. Thomas Rau, Medical Director of the world renowned Paracelsus Clinic in Lustmühle, Switzerland says he is convinced ‘electromagnetic loads’ lead to cancer, concentration problems, ADD, tinnitus, migraines, insomnia, arrhythmia, Parkinson’s and even back pain. At Paracelsus (www.paracelsus.ch), cancer patients are now routinely educated in electromagnetic field remediation strategies and inspectors from the Geopathological Institute of Switzerland are sent to patients’ homes to assess electromagnetic field exposures

Of note, Dr. Rau says a strategy to consider for those experiencing ‘electrical sensitivity’ symptoms is to remove the electromagnetic ‘hot spot’ in the head created by the presence of metal fillings. Concern is thus not only for the ‘neurotoxic’ aspect of mercury in fillings, an increasingly understood hazard, but because fillings themselves act as antennas in the presence of electromagnetic fields from cell phones and cell towers, wi-fi networks, portable phones, and other sources of radiofrequency radiation.

Rau says the removal of dental fillings can be an important early step in reducing electrical sensitivity, allowing some people to live in homes they otherwise could not tolerate.

Cultures have shown beneficial bacteria grows more slowly in the presence of electromagnetic fields, says Rau, allowing pathological organisms to dominate. Thus, a strategy with electrically sensitive patients, or with those facing chronic conditions, is the aggressive supplementation with probiotics and other Biological Medicine approaches to balance intestinal flora. Many people with chronic infections likely linked to EMF exposures, such as Lyme Disease, are symptom- free after an aggressive microorganism rebalancing program.

Electrical sensitivity—originally known as radio wave sickness—is a sometimes debilitating experience created by these and other disregulating effects of electromagnetic fields. Linked to many acute and chronic illness conditions, electrical sensitivity is a serious emerging public health issue globally and a subject in which most doctors have no training.

A Petition to Congress, created by  www.ElectromagneticHealth.org is now circulating on the internet, requesting Congress 1) mandate the FCC lower exposure guidelines to reflect the large body of science showing biological effects at exposures much lower than current standards, 2) repeal Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which rescinded state and local governments right to resist towers on health or environmental grounds, 3) stop the roll out of the Wi-Max network until Congress better understands the potential health consequences, and 4) accommodate citizens unable to function adequately in high EMF environments, including forbidding cell towers on school properties.

Exposing children in schools to radiation, known to impair brain function and learning, Rau describes as “criminal”. He says, “It is unethical to expose children to electromagnetic load in this way. We know that power stations for electromagnetic waves like mobile phones are hurting the brains of children, so to put such stations into schools is really…very, very, very bad. Rau says, the question is, “Does the school, or does the society, really want to have intelligent, well-educated children, or not?” He says, “If you install mobile phone towers, which radiate to the children, their intelligence, their brain capacity, decreases. You will have more ADD children, you will have less function of the brain, which in the long term reflects on the intelligence of the children, of the possibility to really teach children, and in the long term, the more this overcomes society, the more we will have dumb children.”

The reality of the health consequences of electromagnetic radiation eventually will have to be faced, and this will only happen with active pressure on Congress. It is estimated that 3-8% of populations in developed countries experience serious electrohypersensitivity symptoms today, and 35% experience mild symptoms. With increasing electromagnetic field exposures, these numbers, along with the suffering involved for people who are impacted, and the health care costs involved, are bound to go up.

Listen to Dr. Rau Interview.

By Camilla Rees for ElectromagneticHealth.org

Camilla@electromagneticHealth.org

Dr. Rau is just one of many concerned health professionals. Read more

Electrical Sensitivity

ARTHUR FIRSTENBERG & SUSAN MOLLOY / Latitudes v.5, i.4 2002 1jul02

The 750,000-watt Doppler weather radar at Fort Dix, New Jersey, overlooks the Township of Brick. Why is that of interest to anyone but meteorologists? It's not, except that eight out of every 1000 children born in Brick since the radar station was built in 1994 are autistic.

The Brick Township Autism Investigation (1), conducted in 1998 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, uncovered 60 cases of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) among children aged three through ten in this town of 77,000 residents. As in much of the rest of the world, autism is increasing here. But the prevalence of both ASD and classic autism in Brick Township were found to be dramatically higher than normal in the 3-to-5-year-old age group, i.e., those born since 1994.

Forward-thinking educators and parents have done a good job in recent years of tackling the difficult issues involved in protecting sensitive children from chemical contaminants, dyes, preservatives, and allergens in their food, medications, classrooms, and homes. However, an additional burden has been overlooked and even ridiculed as untenable as a factor in many children's profound neurological and behavioral problems. Some readers may react with disbelief to our suggestion that the Fort Dix Doppler might qualify for a place on the "radar screen" of those scientists who are puzzled by the local epidemic of autism. (2)

The authors of this article are adults who are made extremely sick, sometimes incapacitated, from exposure to "normal" amounts of electromagnetic energy. We've seen some children respond as we do, as their well-meaning parents and teachers equip them with newer, faster, more powerful "safety" and communication devices, oblivious to the potential consequences for their children's health and development. We're not oblivious to these consequences because we ourselves respond directly and immediately, with debilitating pain, confusion, and neurological symptoms, to cell phones, cordless phones, computers, televisions, and other normal elements of today's home, work and school environments. And we are in increasingly good company.

Gro Harlem Brundtland is director-general of the World Health Organization. A medical doctor with a master's degree in public health, as well as former prime minister of Norway, she has recently been speaking in public about her own sensitivity to computers, cordless phones and cell phones. Not only has she warned parents against allowing their children to use cell phones or microwave ovens, but she said that she herself has become so sensitive to the radiation that she does not allow anyone to enter her office with a cell phone turned on. "If you enter my office, you are invited by me. No one who is invited would like to give me headaches," she said at a news conference in Oslo on July 1, 2002, where she was attending an international conference on cancer.

Awakening to the potential of electricity to affect children's health and development can be initially disheartening, because electromagnetic pollution is so inescapable, and its sources so often are "conveniences" for which we've eagerly expended considerable resources. It can also be empowering, because it gives parents and practitioners an additional tool and offers a new range of potential factors that may be influencing seemingly intractable health or behavior problems.

Both of us went to school and were graduated from college before personal computers, cell phones, the Internet, and everything that goes along with them even existed. As environmentally sensitive people, we feel lucky to have grown up before today's conditions became the norm.

What Can We Do?

Computers in the classroom are practically unquestioned now, and that is fine for the durable. However, our society should provide computer-free classrooms for those vulnerable children for whom this is a necessary and effective accommodation.

In schools where wireless computers—or regular computers with wireless keyboards/mice—are installed, even a computer-free classroom will not be an effective intervention for a child whose Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder or Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is triggered or exacerbated by electromagnetic radiation. This is because the microwave frequencies used by these technologies, identical to the frequencies used in a microwave oven, pass through walls and do not respect the boundaries of classrooms.

What we suggest runs counter to the prevailing educational trend, which is to throw more and more computer-enabled devices at physically and developmentally disabled children in an effort to improve their functioning, without any consideration of the potential effects of the extra radiation on their developing nervous systems. When adult populations were sampled within the last year for the prevalence of electrical sensitivity, estimates by researchers varied from-1.5% (Stockholm, Sweden) to 3.3% (state of California) to 7% (Marin County, California) of the population. One patient group in Germany puts the number as high as 15% of the German population. Nobody knows exactly, because this is an isolating, disabling, and ridiculed problem that is still in the public health "closet," along with most of its victims. Children are the most vulnerable segment of the population. They are also the most unaware of the potential effects of this invisible and largely unacknowledged pollutant coming from equipment that is so fervently sought by their peers and esteemed by their parents and teachers.

Medical facilities, also, are sites of electronics' proliferation. The growing field of medical telemetry uses wireless technology to monitor the vital signs of hospital patients. But also, in hospitals, nursing homes, day care and elder care facilities, mental health institutions and group homes, remote monitoring of patients is in increasing use, not only for medical purposes, but simply to cut back on personnel costs.

New automobiles have much larger electromagnetic fields than they had ten or twenty years ago. This is due to multiple computer-controlled operating systems, GPS satellite-tracking devices, digital dashboard displays, and, commonly, a cell phone constantly charging in the car.

The situation is not hopeless.

At home, every parent can easily do the following experiment: tonight, before your family goes to bed, unplug all of these items you may have in your home: the TV, the computer, the base unit of the cordless phone, the entertainment center, and the baby monitor. Notice the quality of everyone's sleep, how you feel in the morning on awakening, and note whether you and your child seem calmer. Appliances should be completely unplugged, not just turned off at a surge protector (which itself may be a source of electromagnetic fields).

If your child has a motorized wheelchair, don't plug it in overnight next to his or her bed. Often these children are especially vulnerable as they may already have epilepsy, cerebral palsy, or other mobility-impairing conditions.

Electric floor or ceiling heaters, fluorescent lights, dimmer switches, and electronic security systems can all produce problematic electromagnetic fields. Finding all the sources and eliminating or avoiding them requires patience and may be time-consuming but is not necessarily difficult or expensive.

Your basic measuring tools are a $40 magnetic field meter, or "gaussmeter," and a cheap (poorer quality is better for this purpose) battery-operated AM radio. When the gaussmeter reads 0.2 milligauss or less, and the radio, when tuned between stations, remains silent (does not buzz or give loud static), you have a relatively calm environment—especially important in the sleeping area. These two measuring devices will not detect the very high frequency radiation produced by cordless phones, wireless computers, baby monitors, remote controls for appliances, radio-controlled toys, and other wireless equipment. We recommend eliminating wireless technology from the environment altogether.

Many homes will have ambient magnetic fields that cannot be reduced to 0.2 milligauss because of factors outside your control, most commonly nearby power lines and transformers. Neighbors' activities may also be a factor. But reducing exposures to the extent possible within the home may still have a significant effect, especially on neurological or behavioral problems in developing children. Exposures outside our own control, such as from the street, a radar station or cell tower, at school, or in hospitals and medical facilities, can be dealt with effectively only on a societal level. We have a long way to go before these problems are given the serious attention they deserve.

Ironically, some of our societal problems, such as school violence and kidnappings of children—even before 9/11 added to our worries—are being used as reasons to attach more cell phones to our kids for their safety and our peace of mind. But these very devices, and the millions of towers and antennas that make their use possible, expose all of us to a level of radiation that we know (from studies and painful firsthand experience) can contribute to the anxiety, depression, irritability, impulsivity, confusion, and general unrest that feed the very concerns which led to the need for all those cell phones in the first place. This can begin to change as more of us turn them off and experience the difference.

FOOTNOTES:

1.Bertrand, J. et al. Prevalence of Autism in a United States Population: The Brick Township, New Jersey Investigation, Pediatrics 108:1155-1161 (2001).

2. The Doppler appears to be the latest addition to a number of radar facilities in the area. McGuire Air Force Base, Fort Dix Military Reservation, and Lakehurst Naval Air Warfare Center are all located west of Brick. Military jets from those bases, equipped with powerful radars of their own, also fly over Brick on their way out to sea.

SUGGESTED READING:

George Carlo, Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age, Carroll & Graf, New York, 2001.

Jane M. Healy, Failure to Connect: How Computers Affect Our Children's Minds—and What We Can Do About It, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1998.

B. Blake Levitt, ed., Cell Towers: Wireless Convenience? Or Environmental Hazard?, New Century Publishing, Sheffield, MA, 2000.

Lucinda Grant, The Electrical Sensitivity Handbook, Weldon Publishing, Prescott, AZ, 1995.

Robert O. Becker and Gary Selden, The Body Electric: Electro-magnetism and the Foundation of Life, William Morrow, New York, 1985.

** Electromagnetic field (EMF) meters may he obtained from Alpha Lab, 1280 South 300 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84101, (800)-769-3754 Less EMF, Inc., 26 Valley View Lane, Ghent, NY 12075, (888) LESS-EMF.

About the authors:

Arthur Firstenberg is founder and director of the Cellular Phone Taskforce, a nonprofit organization that disseminates information about electromagnetic radiation and advocates for electrically sensitive people. He is editor of the Taskforce's publication, No Place to Hide, and the author of Microwaving Our Planet: The Environmental Impact of the Wireless Revolution. [Also see Killing Fields - Arthur Firstenberg / The Ecologist v.34, n.5, 1jun04]

After graduating Phi Beta Kappa from Cornell University in 1971 with a B.A. in mathematics, he went to medical school from 1978 to 1982. Injury by x-ray overdose cut short his career. Firstenberg explains that after receiving about 50 diagnostic x-rays during extensive dental work, he became sensitive to high-powered equipment in the hospitals where he worked. "I could literally feel the radiation from the equipment; it made me weak and dizzy, but I kept working. After several months I collapsed. I was 31 and no one knew the cause of my illness. I was bedridden for about three months and at first I was not sure if I would survive."

Firstenberg's symptoms included a slow heartbeat, chest pain, extreme shortness of breath on exertion, and weight loss. By reading Eastern European literature on the subject, he eventually discovered that he had the symptoms of radio wave sickness. He later learned that any type of electromagnetic field may provoke similar illness in sensitive people, which commonly manifests with nausea, dizziness, headache, irritability, insomnia, and difficulty with memory and concentration. He also gradually became chemically hypersensitive.

His therapeutic approach is strict avoidance. At home, he has no computer, no television, no wireless equipment, no microwave, and uses only incandescent lighting. He moved cross-country to Mendocino, California which has minimal electrical pollution, and he is symptom-free as long as he avoids exposure.

As is often the case in advocacy organizations, Firstenberg's personal experience led him to study the condition that plagued him. He is now an international spokesperson and advisor on the subject of electrical sensitivity (ES). He can be contacted by phone at (707) 937-3990 or mail: P.O. Box 1337, Mendocino, CA 95460.

Susan Molloy has an MA in disability policy and provides referrals and troubleshooting for people with symptoms provoked by environmental exposures. She is cofounder of the Environmental Health Network (EHN) of California and edited EHN's newsletter for 11 years. She served as chair of the Independent Living Council in Arizona and works at New Horizons Independent Living Center in Prescott Valley. She works from home due to her inability to withstand electromagnetic exposure, and uses a custom-shielded computer provided by Arizona Rehab. Services Admin.

Molloy has a history of allergies since childhood and was hospitalized with chemical sensitivities at age 31. ES symptoms emerged shortly after this. "When I go under power lines or fluorescent lights it feels like a blow to the top of my head," she explains. Asked if she could run errands, Molloy explains, "I can go into stores and other buildings. It's getting back out that's the problem. I tend to lose coordination and would often be stumbling if I didn't use a wheelchair. I get disoriented and my speech is also affected." Professional-grade ear protectors help soften the impact of auditory hypersensitivity to motor noises. She feels that living in the desert, where she keeps appliances to a minimum, has given her more stamina.

"I'd like to think that Arthur and I are just special cases, that people can stand back and distance themselves from our difficulties. I'd like to think that others won't suffer similar problems. But we know better. The numbers are growing, and no one is listening." She can be reached at (928) 536-4625 or susanm@cybertrails.com.

 

---

How can you protect your children from this ever growing risk? Shields for Babies & Children

Is Ted Kennedy’s Cancer Linked to Cell Phone Use?

Wednesday, June 4, 2008 10:00 AM

Reported in both these papers, among others

By: Sylvia Booth Hubbard

Senator Ted Kennedy’s diagnosis of a malignant brain tumor is, once again, stirring debate over the safety of cell phones. Kennedy’s brain tumor, called a glioma, is the type critics have associated for years with the use of cell phones.

Prominent neurosurgeons have stated they do not use cell phones held next to their ears. “I use it on the speaker-phone mode,” said Dr. Vini Khurana, a prominent researcher and an associate professor of neurosurgery at the Australian National University. “I do not hold it to my ear.” Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN’s chief medical correspondent and a neurosurgeon at Emory University Hospital admitted that, he too, used an earpiece.

 

CTIA – the Wireless Association and the FDA both say that studies show cell phones are not a health risk. Other experts disagree. They point to research that indicates a link between cell phones and three types of tumors: glioma (the type Senator Kennedy has); cancer of a salivary gland near the ear called the parotid; and acoustic neuroma, which is a tumor found near the ear. An Israeli study published last year found a 58 percent increase in risk for parotid tumors among people who relied heavily on their cell phones. And a Swedish study found the risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma doubled after ten years of heavy use.

Since cell phones are relatively new, there hasn’t been a chance for long-term studies that will settle the question of whether there is truly a link between cell phone use and brain tumors. Some critics express particular concern for children who begin using cell phones as kids and continue throughout their lives. “More and more kids are using cell phones,” said Dr. Paul Rosch, clinical professor of medicine and psychiatry at New York Medical College. “They may be much more affected. Their brains are growing rapidly and their skulls are thinner.”

Dr. Khurana admits that cell phones are convenient and can save lives in an emergency, but he says that “there is a significant and increasing body of evidence for a link between mobile phone usage and certain brain tumors,” adding that malignant brain tumors are “a life-ending diagnosis.

“It is anticipated that this danger has far broader public health ramifications than asbestos and smoking,” he said.

---

BioElectric Shield Note: I think we all remember when smoking and asbestos was said to be safe.

---

AC Associated Content / Health

Many Studies Point to Cell Phone Cancer Risks Raised by Recent Warning from Pittsburgh Cancer Institute

Ted Kennedy's Cancer Diagnosis Also Increased Brain Tumor Questions and Concerns

When Senator Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with a type of malignant brain tumor called glioma, people started talking about more than that news, as sad as it was. They also wondered about the link between cell phones, brain tumors and cancer. They weren't the only ones. There had been many studies conducted, all trying to determine the connection between cell phone use and cancer (see sources at end of article). More info about that is below. But what about the latest news?

The latest buzz and cell phone cancer news is centered on The Director of the Pittsburgh Cancer Center, Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, who recently added to the debate about cell phones and cancer risks when he warned his faculty and staff against using the phones frequently. He wanted them to actually limit their use. This didn't appear to be a cost-cutting move or an attempt to get staff to stop chatting on phones and pay attention to patients. No, Dr. Herberman's instructions seemed to be based on genuine concerns about the risk of cell phones causing cancer, even though studies are far from definitive about whether so-called cell phone cancer is real.

The doctor didn't seem willing to wait for more studies to come out. He sent out a memo to at least 3,000 of his staff, specifically directing them to keep the phone away from their heads because of possible brain cancer risks. Staff was also to keep the phones away from the heads of children and other patients. Children have developing brains, a potential reason for extra caution and care.

The connection between Senator Ted Kennedy, glioma, brain tumors, cell phones, cancer studies and The Pittsburgh Cancer Center warning

As mentioned above, Senator Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor after he had seizures and other symptoms. The type of brain cancer, glioma, has been the focus of many medical studies revolving around cell phones and cancer. Although results have differed, there are a fair number of doctors and medical researchers who've felt that the results were truly worrisome. They concluded that there could indeed be a significant and real risk of brain tumors for those using cell phones.

The bottom line? If Dr. Herberman is worried about the potential risk of cell phones, he is not alone. He isn't just some isolated doctor making headlines because he has cautioned his staff against using cell phones. Others have wondered about this before and researchers have been trying

Many aren't willing to wait until medical studies prove that cell phones cause cancer. They think the time to act is now.

One reason why? Many parents, myself included, know teens who walk around with cell phones practically glued to their ears. Children and teens have brains which are still developing, a fact apparently pointed out by Dr. Herberman. The issue seems to be the electromagnetic radiation which comes from cell phones. Could they cause cell phone cancer, especially brain cancer?

As a parent, I'm not willing to wait. Maybe I'm reacting too soon. But I'm paying heed to this, Ted Kennedy's brain cancer and Dr. Herberman's warning. I'm going to be limiting my son's use of the cell phone. I don't expect to be very popular with him for the next few days. I'll take my chances.

Support for Dr. Herberman's warning about cell phones and cancer is by no means unanimous

There are plenty of people who disagree. Many studies and even the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) point to opposite conclusions. They indicate that the risk of getting cancer from cell phones is small. But when a director of the Pittsburgh Cancer Center cautions people against using cell phones, it is hard not to pay attention. Until I find out more, I want my son to limit his use of the phone. However, it is worth noting that a review of studies and information about cell phones and cancer studies is worth pursuing. Those studies are too numerous to describe in detail here.

What you need to know about cell phones, cancer and brain tumors

If cell phones can cause brain cancer, electromagnetic radiation may be the cause. Cell phones are often used by placing them next to the head, possibly allowing this radiation to increase the risk of cancer - most notably, brain cancer and tumors.

Here is what I'm doing for now. While continuing to read everything I can on the subject, I'm also erring on the side of caution and that seems to be what the director of the Pittsburgh Cancer Center is doing as well. At the same time, it is only fair to note that aren't a lot of major centers issuing similar kinds of warnings. Also, opinions and the results of studies differ. However, unlike the videos which indicated that cell phones could make popcorn pop, there may be more potential for truth here. Cell phones may turn out to be linked to brain cancers, including rare glioma tumors like the one found in Senator Kennedy.

 

Sources
1. The Boston Globe, May 20, 2008, Globe Staff. Article: Senator Kennedy Diagnosed with Brain Tumor; Prognosis Seen as Uncertain
2. Glioma Brain Tumor: Senator Ted Kennedy -What Does it Mean?, Medicinenet.com, www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp
3. Studies about brain cell tumors and cell phone use from the American Journal of Epidemiology, summarized in Oxford Journals :aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/164/3/294
4.Pittsburgh Cancer Center Warns of Cell Phone Risks, ABC News (Borenstein and Yates), July 24, 2008: abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory

http://topics.cnn.com/topics/brain_cancer

---

Note from BioElectric Shield

When doctors start sending memos to their staffs warning them to limit their cell phone use, I think we should all pay attention. I'm not willing either to be part of the stats proving the dangers in 30 years.

Given all the times we've been misguided on dangers of other products it amazes me that so many people are willing to ignore the potential. This is a situation that can only grow over time.

We suggest multi-layer protection Waveshields on on your phones and headsets, limiting usage AND wearing a BioEllectric Shield to protect you from the cell phone AND other technology.