August 31, 2010.  Pick of the Week #8:  Repacholi Revises Safety Code 6

Dr. Michael Repacholi, prior to becoming the Coordinator of the Radiation and Environmental Health Unit at the World Health Organization, was involved in formulating Canada’s Safety Code 6 Guideline for microwave radiation.  In 1977, he and Maria Stuchly gave a talk at the I.E.E.E. meeting in Toronto entitled “Emission and Exposure Standards for Microwave Radiation.”

In this presentation Repacholi and Stuchly proposed a Canadian maximum permissible level (MPL) for microwave radiation that was between the then U.S. guideline (10 mW/cm²) and the Russian guideline (0.01 mW/cm²). The recommended MPL was 1 mW/cm² for occupational exposure and 0.1 mW/cm² for public exposure.  These proposed guidelines are much lower than what we currently have  (5 mW/cm² for occupational exposure and 1 mW/cm² for unlimited public exposure).

Here are a few key statements in this document:

1. “The fact that maximum permissible exposure levels are recommended indicates that confirmed biological effects have been found, and that definite health hazards exist.”
2. “ . . . there is increasing dissatisfaction in the U.S. with the 10 mW/cm² figure since it does not contain sufficient safety factors to allow for the increased effects observed with pulsed beams . . . (Note WiFi and mobile phones have a pulsed beam.)
3. The USSR allows its workers to be exposed to 1 mW/ cm² (current 24-hour public exposure limit for Canada and U.S.] for only 20 minutes a day and to 0.1 mW/ cm² for only 2 hours a day (proposed guideline for public exposure that was NOT adopted).
4. Although most of the non-thermal effects have not yet been confirmed in the West, this does not mean the effects do not exist.
5. The general public represents a much larger population than the radiation workers and so one cannot accept as high a risk probability.

Unfortunately  the recommended lowering of Safety Code 6 was not accepted in 1977.  Today we have a much larger population exposed to even higher levels of microwave radiation and we are exposing this population to an even higher probability of risk.

What is most disturbing is that on August 31, 2010  Health Canada issued a statement on their website  that  . . . “As long as exposure is below these established limits [i.e. Safety Code 6], there is no convincing scientific evidence that this equipment [WiFi] is dangerous to schoolchildren or to Canadians in general.”

If this radiation is so safe then why did Dr. Repacholi recommend a reduction in existing guidelines more than 30 years ago?

The truth is that we have no scientific evidence that this equipment (WiFi) is safe or dangerous to students as the studies with children have not been conducted!   Instead we are in the middle of one of the largest human experiments ever and we are using children as guinea pigs.  It will take a few years until we learn what the short-term effects are and possibly generations to learn what the long-term effects are of this technology.

What Health Canada should be saying is “There are no scientific studies of the effect of WiFi on children and we have no convincing scientific evidence that microwave radiation at levels below Safety Code 6 is safe.”

August 27, 2010.  Cell antennas and towers near homes affect property values says Andrew J. Campanelli.

On August 27, 2010,  The New York Times published an article about a lawsuit against a cell phone provider.

It has started a chain reaction that might have some some real estate agents “thinking”….buy high, erect a tower = sell low…

TINA CANARIS, an associate broker and a co-owner of RE/MAX Hearthstone in Merrick, has a $999,000 listing for a high ranch on the water in South Merrick, one of a handful of homes on the block on the market. But her listing has what some consider a disadvantage: a cell antenna poking from the top of a telephone pole at the front of the 65-by-100-foot lot.

“Even houses where there are transformers in front” make “people shy away,” Ms. Canaris said. “If they have the opportunity to buy another home, they do.” She said cell antennas and towers near homes affected property values, adding, “You can see a buyer’s dismay over the sight of a cell tower near a home just by their expression, even if they don’t say anything.”

By blocking, or seeking to block, cell towers and antennas over the course of the last year, Island homeowners have given voice to concerns that proximity to a monopole or antenna may not be just aesthetically unpleasing but also harmful to property values. Many also perceive health risks in proximity to radio frequency radiation emissions, despite industry assertions and other evidence disputing that such emissions pose a hazard.

The Federal Communications Act of 1996 says health concerns are not a valid reason for a municipality to deny zoning for a cell tower or antenna. Property values and aesthetics, however, do qualify, according to the act. Cell tower activists are now targeting their efforts to prove real estate property values depreciate after the installation of a cell tower.  It might be surprising to soon learn that instead of doctors and scientists who testify in court as to the negative health effects of microwave radiation – real estate agents hold the most power in court to hold up the erection of a cell tower.

Andrew J. Campanelli, a civil rights lawyer in Garden City, said a group of residents had hired him to oppose the cellular company’s application. “They were worried about the property values,” Mr. Campanelli said. “If your home is near a cell antenna, the value of your property is going down at least 4 percent. Depending on the size of the tower and the proximity, it is going down 10 percent.”

Here are some links to websites that show devaluation of real estate from cell towers.

Industry Canada
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08353.html
Burbank ACTION (Against Cell Towers In Our Neighborhood)
http://sites.google.com/site/nocelltowerinourneighborhood/home/decreased-real-estate-value

August 23, 2010:  Pick of the Week #7 (Hazards of Microwave Radiations – A review) gives us some insights into what was known 50 years ago (1960).

Kuo-Chiew Quan.  1960.  Hazards of Microwave Radiations – A Review.  Industr. Med. Surg. 29:315-318, July 1960 and reprinted in Occupational Medicine, Medical News Letter, Vol. 36, No. 10.  November 18, 1960, pp 29-34.

This document, written 50 years ago, discusses the hazards associated with relatively high levels of microwave exposure that might be experienced by those who work near radar installations, as radio frequency heat sealers, or with medical diathermy machines. Note this also applies to those who repair both broadcast and cell phone antennas.

The author makes several statements about energy absorption and  thermal effects of microwave radiation.

Statement 1: “any biological effects, beneficial or harmful, produced by microwaves can result only from absorption of energy by the tissues.”

Statement 2: “It is not clear whether all biologic effects of microwaves can be attributed solely to temperature increases that result from energy absorption or whether these effects are produced in part by mechanisms other than simple thermal elevation.”

Statement 3:  “at this time it is impossible to rule out completely the possibility of athermal effects of microwaves.”

So the thermal vs athermal debate was well underway in 1960.

The concept that microwaves can kill has been known for decades. Rabbits exposed to a constant 300-watt field were killed after 75 seconds.  The same power level killed a rat in 22 seconds and a hamster exposed to 400 watts died after a 20-second exposure.  Death was attributed to thermal paralysis of the respiratory center.  This makes microwaves considerably more lethal than x-rays.

Note: The power of the transmitter, measured in watts (W), and the signal intensity (power per unit area) influence exposure.  In the examples above, exposure from 300 to 400 watt fields can kill laboratory animals within seconds. How does this compare to the power of transmitters used today?

Typical combined radiated radio frequency (RF) power of microwave oven is 1000 W although they seldom work at 100% efficiency.  Good thing the microwave generator  is in a metal (faraday) cage with minimal leakage! Typical maximum output RF power from ham radio transceiver is 10 W.  Remote uplink trucks use 120 watts pointed towards satellites and transmitters for cell phone antennas use approximately 10 watts of power although this depends on their range.  Maximum output from a mobile phone ranges from 2 W (power class 1) to 0.125 (power class 4).  The older bag mobile phones were more powerful with 4 watts of power.

Exposure of body parts elevates temperature of selected organs that are unable to thermoregulate. Testis are damaged without any damage to the skin.  Cataracts occur optimally when exposed to 10 to 12 cm wavelengths (3 to 2.5 GHz frequency).  Note:  WiFi and microwave ovens as well as some digital cordless phones use 2.4 GHz frequencies. Lower power levels, at the same frequency, produce cataracts over a longer period of time so recurring exposures at lower intensities have the same effect as fewer exposures at higher intensities. Cataracts are repeated reported by radar repair workers.

Metal implants can magnify the intensity of the microwave exposure by forming standing waves and those with such implants may be vulnerable to tissue damage from microwave exposure. Swelling and pain associated with metal implants have been reported with the symptoms disappearing when exposure was stopped. Those with metal implants should be excluded from working with microwave emitting equipment.

In 1957 a fatal exposure, attributed to microwave irradiation, was still debated 3 years later.

To prevent injury it is important to point the radar beam away from people, to use metal screens to restrict the radiation beam, to use lights to indicate radar is operating, to indicate shape of radar beam with signage.  And finally those who work near radar installations should be supplied with photographic flash bulbs to warn them when they are exposed to intense microwave fields.

Note:  These precautions (minus the flash bulb) should also be applied to cell phone antennas that are placed on buildings or on towers near buildings since people are exposed to this radiation 24/7 for many years, especially since cumulative chronic exposure may have similar effects to short-term acute exposure.

Medical diathermy, which uses microwave radiation, should have certain precautions to minimize exposure of the eyes and testis and it should be used cautiously on those with metal implants.

Acute thermal exposure can kill quickly (in a matter of seconds to days) while repeated non-thermal exposure contributes to chronic ill health (as previous reports have documented).

August 2, 2010. Pick of the Week #5:  Why the double standard?

Inglis, L.P. 1970.  Why the double standard? – A critical review of Russian work on hazards of microwave radiation.  IEEE International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility, July 14-16.  1970.

Summary

Continued interest in the determination of appropriate national levels of exposure to microwave fields has directed attention to Soviet work in this field.  The vastly different standards adopted in the two countries have aroused much speculation as to the reasons.  In this paper the Russian work is reviewed, and the major individuals identified.  An explanation for the different exposure limits is offered, based partly on the difference in national organization.

COMMENTS

This document is written by Leo P. Inglis, who worked for Atomics International Division, North American Rockwell Corp.– a company involved with the early development of nuclear technology for commercial and government applications.

In “Why the double standard?” Inglis tries to tease apart the reasons for the much lower radio frequency standards used in the USSR compared with those used in the USA.

A much quoted paragraph, and the focus of this document, is the following:

“In the U.S., the thermal effects are generally believed to be the only ones of significance; other contentions are usually dismissed as lacking a provable basis.  In the USSR, non-thermal effects are considered the most significant and are overwhelmingly the ones most studied.”

Several interesting concepts are presented based on Russian research.

1. Biological effects of radio waves are reduced with an increase in wavelength (i.e. at lower frequencies) and that this might be true when comparing different regions of the spectrum, but within the microwave band this general regularity may not exist.
2. There is a possibility of resonant absorption of microwaves by complex protein molecules, particularly enzymes.  The result of such absorption could change molecular structure and when protein structure changes so does its function.
3. Pulsed and modulated radiation are more harmful than continuous waves and may stimulate the nervous system as shown by studies with rabbits that document changes in brain wave activity as measured by EEG, occurring within 10 seconds of microwave exposure (in the absence of heating) and lasting 10 to 15 minutes after irradiation ended.

The results that I found most intriguing were those by Drogochina and Sadchikova (1965), who studied, for several years, individuals exposed to microwave radiation in the course of their work. They investigated the development of various symptoms (which we would today call electrohypersensitivity or EHS) resulting from exposure to radio frequencies in the centimeter wavelengths (high MHz and low GHz frequencies similar to mobile phones and WiFi).  These symptoms fell into three stages.

The initial stage symptoms usually appeared within 3 to 5 years of exposure.  Most characteristic is the asthenic syndrome [note: Asthenic syndrome describes a person characterized by low energy, susceptibility to physical and emotional stress, and a diminished capacity for pleasure], which develops because of the exhausting action of the radio frequencies on the central nervous system, and results in increased fatigue, headaches, and sleepiness during work hours.  Among the biological effects that occur are bradycardia [heart rate less than 60 bpm], changes in heart conduction on the electrocardiograph, weak development of dermographia [development of welts where someone scratches the skin], and hyperhydrosis [excessive perspiration] of the wrists.  Often there is a slight enlargement of the thyroid gland and a tendency towards increase in the leukocyte [white blood cell] count and histamine content of the blood.  All these changes are unstable and can be eliminated by a brief interruption of the work involving exposure.

The second stage develops if exposure continues.  Patients suffer prolonged headaches, pain in the region of the heart, bradycardia, increased blood pressure, pronounced changes in the appearance of the electrocardiogram, a lowered olfactory response, and often such trophic disturbances as loss of hair and brittleness of the nails, and a decrease in sexual potency [Does the surge in the use of Viagra and other drugs to enhance male performance relate to microwave exposure?].  Some medical treatment is required and temporary transfer to other work is mandatory.

The third stage is poorly described in the article.  Symptoms include strong recurring headaches, vertigo and fainting, heart pains, shivering and trembling, gastrointestinal disturbances, pronounced dermographia and hyperhydrosis.  Symptoms can remain even a year after the individual had changed jobs, although at a reduced level.

In the discussion, Inglis quotes from testimony presented by Dr. Charles Susskind (UC Berkeley) before the Senate Committee hearings on “Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1967.”

Dr. Susskind recommends that much basic research at lower power densities should be performed before “. . . we can decide whether we should adopt the much stricter safety level of the Soviet Union.” He also suggests that “non-ionizing radiation might ultimately prove to be a greater problem than ionizing radiation.”

According to Inglis, “If that prophecy should prove correct, I am sure the Russian literature will one day be weighed more carefully than it is at present [i.e. 1970].”  We are fortunate that Dr. Glaser kept these documents.

Others have also expressed concern about the proliferation of microwave radiation.

In a 1973 report submitted by JA Tanner from the Division of Mechanical Engineering and co-authored by faculty  in the Department of Anatomy at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, the authors conclude:

“In view of the expected proliferation of MW [microwave] devices in many different applications, a substantial increase in MW background activity is feared that may endanger human health.  On this basis strict control of the use of these devices must be introduced while present safety standards are revised and extensive research is conducted into long term effects of exposure to low intensity MW radiation.  In particular, a study of the possible accumulative effects of MW radiation (directly or indirectly) through sensitization must be conducted.”

A few years later, Robert O. Becker (MD) stated the following:

“I have no doubt in my mind that at the present time, the greatest polluting element in the earth’s environment is the proliferation of electromagnetic fields. I consider that to be far greater on a global scale, than warming, and the increase in chemical elements in the environment.’’

Inglis (Rockwell Corp.), Susskind (UC Berkeley), Tanner (Mechanical Engineering, Queen’s University) and Becker (Orthopedic Surgeon and Professor SUNY, Syracuse) can’t all be wrong.  So why weren’t they listened to?

It is now 2010.  Forty years have passed yet the thermal debate is alive and well in many developed countries.  The symptoms of asthenia or electrohypersensitivity are becoming more prevalent in society as is our exposure to microwave radiation.  When once this was an occupational illness it has become a societal illness and one that is likely to get worse as we continue to install smart meters on homes, Wi-Max in communities and WiFi in schools.

As I write this biblical images come to mind.

I image the sea level rising as Noah gathers his family and the animals on his boat. It rained for 40 days and 40 nights and we have had at least 40 years of knowing this technology is harmful.

Today, instead of water, levels of microwave radiation are rising and many have already suffered from exposure.  Complaints of insomnia, chronic fatigue, chronic pain, allergies, depression, anxiety, heart problems, cancers, reproductive problems, neurological disorders, diabetes are on the rise and studies show these are the symptoms associated with electrosmog.  Countless people will die as the technology invades our homes, schools, and communities.  The Noah equivalents call themselves electromagnetic refugees.  They find safe havens and ensure their homes and communities are electromagnetically clean.

I also image Moses descending from Mount Sinai seeing his people dancing around a calf made of gold, a false god.  Is the thermal standard not a false god that governments have fabricated and are worshipping?  What will it take for the blind to see and the deaf to hear what governments and industry have been hiding and negating for the last 40 years? Moses didn’t live to see the promised land and many of my colleagues wonder if they will see what happened to cigarettes also happen to wireless technology during their lifetime.

What we need is labelling and awareness raising of the hazards of this type of radiation.  We need more protective guidelines in those countries still falsely worshiping the golden calf and stating that heating is the only effect of microwave exposure.  We need a shift to wired technology, especially fibre optics that is much faster, more secure, and safer than wireless.  We need to change behaviour and limit places where wireless is allowed.  We can all built a boat to carry us to safety or we can have the levels of microwave radiation recede to levels that are tolerable to the most sensitive in our society.

The choice is ours but it will take a monumental effort to achieve.

July 30, 2010. 60 antennas stand in villages and towns near Rome

A court-ordered study has found that electromagnetic waves beamed by Vatican Radio leave residents living near the station’s antennas at a higher risk of cancer. Italy’s most prestigious cancer research hospital, now admits that there is a connection between radio and microwave radiation and the cancer incidents.

The new 300-page research report, by a team at Milan’s National Tumor Institute led by Andrea Micheli, supports the claim of Cesano residents: Children living at a distance of 12 km or less from the antennas have a higher chance of dying from leukemia or lymphoma.

The researchers also said that a court prevented her colleagues from making the report available to media and they also could not discuss its content. According to magistrates, the report justifies the current investigation of six officials of Vatican Radio for manslaughter.

The report states:

“There has been an important, coherent and meaningful correlation between exposure to Vatican Radio’s structures and the risk of leukaemia and lymphoma in children.”  The report also stated that there were risks of dying form cancer for people who had resided at least 10 years within a nine-kilometre (5.5-mile) radius of the radio’s giant antenna towers near Cesano, some 20 kilometres north of Rome.

The radio’s director, Federico Lombardi, disputed the report, saying: “Vatican Radio is astonished to hear the news on the results of the study.” Lombardi, who is also the Vatican spokesman, added: “Vatican Radio has always observed international directives on electromagnetic emissions and since 2001 has observed more restrictive norms set by Italy to allay the concerns of the neighbouring populations.”

Speaking on Vatican Radio, he said: “According to international scientific literature on the matter, the existence of a causal link like the one apparently hypothesised by the report had never been established.”

Herein lies the problem – The World Health Organization and other governing bodies that regulate wireless communication technologies have set safety standards based upon the heating of skin tissue – not upon the magnetic fields these waves have on the cell inside our bodies.  ”It if does not heat you it does not hurt you” we are told.   Now, we are informed by cancer specialists that more children are getting leukaemia within 5 miles of the towers. The population living right beside the towers are showing symptoms of Radio Wave Illness. More people are dying from cancer.  How much more proof do we need?  These are world renown scientists from prestigious cancer institutions.

A Rome judge ordered the report in 2005 as part of an investigation into a complaint filed in 2001 by Cesano residents who alleged health hazards posed by the electromagnetic waves. A 2001 investigation by Italy’s environment ministry showed that magnetic fields in the area were six times more powerful than allowed, while Rome’s Lazio region estimated that the rate of deaths from leukaemia among children in the Cesano area was three times higher than in adjoining areas.

The Vatican now believes that the government of Italy is to blame for allowing builders to purchase land adjacent to the towers to create towns and villages. The limits may be too high right beside the towers, but the reason that the towers were constructed in a remote area is so that the towers would have no effect on the populations of large cities such as Rome.  If this is the case, and that everyone in the wireless industry knows there is a problem, why does every government in the world allow cell phone communication towers to be placed on the rooftops of apartment buildings?  Right under the roof of people 24 hours a day?

The History of Vatican Radio

Guglielmo Marconi, the first to broadcast radio across the Atlantic ocean, came to the Vatican in 1931 and kissed the popes ring. By February 12th of that year Pope Pius XI inaugurated the airwaves of Vatican Radio. Marconi was an Italian catholic, and Pius was originally from Milan.  The idea originated with the Dir. General of Communications for Vatican City, Giuseppe Gianfranceschi who drew up plans for a wireless station in the Vatican that year.

Signals from two medium-wave transmitters reach all of Italy at all times, and 27 shortwave antennas are beamed at selected parts of the world in different languages at varying times. All papal speeches, news programs, and religious events are dispatched in 34 languages to all the corners of the world. To the Vatican, it’s as important as the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe were to the United States at the height of the Cold War.

To the inhabitants of Cesano and neighboring communities, the antennas, some transmitting at 600 kilowatts, its something of a nuisance and more —some people are hearing the Pope’s voice picked up by their front-door intercom……a warning of a possible death sentence from Vatican Radio radiation.

There are also thousands of radio and TV towers in the US that emit dangerous levels of radiation within the FCC safety limits.  But, what is considered to be a safe limit?  In the video below – Dr. Martin Blank presents a point of view concerning the debated safety limits from a group of scientists that created the Bioinitiative report – who believe the safety limits need to be revised.

July 26, 2010.  Cancer Mortality near Air Force Bases.

Lester, J.R. and D.F. Moore.  1982.  Cancer Mortality and Air Force Bases.  Journal of Bioelectricity 1(1): 72-82.

Abstract:

Nationally, counties with an Air Force Base were found to have significantly higher incidences of cancer mortality during 1950-1969 compared to counties without an Air Force Base.

RESULTS

This study is based on 92 active Air Force bases that were in operation during 1950-1969 in the United States. The authors hypothesize that the chronic low intensity microwave exposure to peak pulse patterns, characteristic of radar, could influence immunocompetence and account for the high cancer mortality near air bases. They cite a 1979 study by Meecham and Shaw that documents a 20% higher mortality rate for residents within 2 to 3 miles of the Los Angeles International Airport compared to a neighborhood 8 to 9 miles away.  In addition to cancers a higher incidence of birth defects and nervous breakdowns, among residents who live near airports, was reported in Japan and Great Britain.

COMMENTS

This study brings to mind, PAVE PAWS, the US Air Force Radar Base that was installed in 1979 and was the focus of several cancer cluster studies in Cape Code, including an elevated rate of Ewing’s Sarcoma (a malignant tumor often found in bone with a peak occurrence between 10 and 20 years of age). According to the National Academies’ National Research Council report in 2005 and the Massachusetts Department of Health report in 2007 the radiation was unlikely to have played a primary role in the incidence of the various cancers and health effects.

However, based on Air Force measurements outside the security fence, values for average and maximum power density  (attachment 4) are well above the Russian guidelines of 10 microW/cm2 with “corrected average” values ranging from 10 to 230 microW/cm2.

THEN VS. NOW

The 1982 study by Lester  (PhD) and Moore (MD) was based on the period 1950 to 1969.  Airports and air force bases have changed dramatically since that period with many more transmitters and frequencies.

The good news is that few homes are built near large international airports. The bad news is that those who work at an airport (or an air force base) and those who work near airports, like hotel employees, are exposed to radar.  I stayed at an hotel that was several kilometers away from the Toronto International Airport and I was still able to measure the airport radar in my hotel room.  At that hotel employees said that their customers had difficult sleeping but they attributed this to noise from car traffic.

Jerry Straub recently wrote, ”When I first started flying, in the 1950′s, they still had aircraft radios which were tuned by a hand-crank or knob (analog device).  As electronic technology has progressed, aircraft radios have become magnificent solid state devices with virtually unlimited ability to control frequencies and discriminate between them.”

Then airports had two frequencies; (control) tower and ground (control). Here’s the URL for the current airport information for Detroit Metro (DTW): http://www.airnav.com/airport/KDTW (see table below).

There are about 37 frequencies in use at DTW for communication, plus another 9 locally  for navigation. This does not include the frequencies used for instrument approaches for each runway.

If cancer rates near air force bases and airports were elevated prior to the 1980s, I wonder what they are today and how is this radiation affecting those on board aircrafts, especially the crew?

RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION ON AIRPLANES

A few years ago I was returning from the US and, while the plane was loading, I asked the pilot and co-pilot if they knew what levels of radiation they were exposed to in the cockpit.  The co-pilot frowned and told me that the airline industry monitored the levels a few years earlier but they were never provided with the results, which wasn’t good news.   Wonder what happened to that study?

On that flight I gave the pilot my RF meter and he did measurements in the cockpit during the flight. The values were below FCC guidelines but were well above Russian levels of 10 micoW/cm2.   I measured the levels of radiation in the cabin during flight and found they decreased from the front to the rear of the plane. The highest reading I measured was around 35 microW/cm2.

MAGNETIC FIELDS ON AIRPLANES

A few years ago I measured low frequency magnetic fields on an airplane. Instead of 50 or 60 Hz, airplanes operate at 400 Hz.  The lowest levels of magnetic fields were at the rear of the plane (around 3 to 5 mG) and the highest readings were in first class (around 20 to 30 mG).

On this particular flight (it was prior to 911) I was allowed  into the cockpit and measured the magnetic fields while the plane was in flight. High readings (over 100 milliGauss) came from conduits that carried the electrical wires behind the pilot and co-pilot.  The magnetic field near the window was also high (over 100 mG) and I was told that the window was heated to keep it flexible. When the pilot turned off the heating element the magnetic field dropped sharply.

The pilot thought for a moment and said that many of his colleagues, who had retired at age 55, developed cancer and didn’t live long after retirement.

According to the scientific literature, levels of 2 to 4 mG for residential exposure have been associated with increased incidence of childhood leukemia; levels of 2 to 12 mG have been associated with breast cancer, brain tumors and adult leukemia from occupational exposure; and levels of 16 mG with miscarriages during the first trimester.

WIFI ON AIRPLANES AND AT AIRPORTS

The most recent change on airplanes is the introduction of WiFi.  A friend who recently flew on a commercial flight with WiFi complained of feeling unwell.

Flying is a dangerous business and it is become more dangerous with all of this additional exposure to radiation at the airport and on the aircraft. Wonder how long it will take for the airline industry to recognize that the lower the levels of radiation the safer the flight for the crew and passengers alike?

July 5, 2010.  More than 2000 Documents prior to 1972 on Bioeffects of Radio Frequency Radiation.

Glaser, Z.R.  1972.  Bibliography of reported biological phenomena (‘effects’) and clinical manifestations attributed to microwave and radio-frequency radiation. Naval Medical Research Institute MF12.54.015-004B, Report No. 2, revised.  106 pp.

ABSTRACT

More than 2000 references on the biological responses to radio frequency and microwave radiation, published up to June 1971, are included in the bibliography.* Particular attention has been paid to the effects on man of non-ionizing radiation at these frequencies. The citations are arranged alphabetically by author, and contain as much information as possible so as to assure effective retrieval of the original documents. An outline of the effects which have been attributed to radio frequency and microwave radiation is also part of the report.

*Three supplementary listings bring the number of citations to more than 2,300.

Note:  This document is “unclassified” and “has been approved for public release and sale; its distribution is unlimited.”

SIGNIFICANCE . . .

The value of the Glaser 1972 document is to counter the statements that “credible” research does not exist showing non-thermal effects.  This is a false statement promoted by those who are either unaware of the literature or unwilling to admit this radiation, at levels to which we are currently exposed, can be harmful.

Credible research does exist; it has been around for decades; and it has been largely ignored by those responsible for public and occupational health.

COMMENTS . . .

This is one of the first large scale reviews of the literature on the biological effects of microwave and radio frequency radiation and it first appeared in 1971.  The author classified the biological effects,  into 17 categories (see below). These categories include heating (thermal effects); changes in physiologic function; alterations of the central, autonomic and peripheral nervous systems; psychological disorders; behavioral changes (animal studies); blood and vascular disorders; enzyme and other biochemical changes; metabolic, gastro-intestional, and hormonal disorders; histological changes; genetic and chromosomal effects; the pearl-change effect (related to orientation in bacteria and animals);  and a miscellaneous group of symptoms that didn’t fit into the above categories.

While it is clear that radiation that causes heating can also cause secondary effects, not all the effects listed above are heat-related.  Indeed, much of the literature at the lower exposure levels is unrelated to heating.  This is the type of research that helped regulators to formulate  their microwave guidelines.  The non-thermal studies have been ignored by the World Health Organization, upon which many countries look for guidence, and  hence the guidelines differ by orders of magnitude from the lowest in Salzburg, Austria (0.1 microW/cm2) to the highest (5,000 microW/cm2 for occupational exposure) established by ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation).  This is a 50,000 times difference!

One way to interpret this is that we have two guidelines, one to prevent heating and, a more restrictive guideline, to prevent biological effects, some of which can have serious health consequences.

What is striking is that what we used to call  microwave sickness (group of symptoms associated with radar workers) has been called neuroasthenia (feeling unwell) and is now called electrohypersensitivity.  In all cases the symptoms are associated with exposure to radio frequency radiation initially radar; then RF heat sealers and computers; and more recently various sources of wireless technology including mobile phone, broadcast, and WiFi or WiMax antennas, wireless routers, smart meters, etc.

The specific biological and health effects, provided in Glaser 1972, are  listed below:

A. Heating of Organs* (Applications: Diathermy, Electrosurgery, Electrocoagulation, Electrodesiccation, Electrotomy)

This includes heating of the whole body or part of the body like the skin, bone and bone marrow, lens of the eye with cataracts and damage to the cornea; genitalia causing tubular degeneration of testicles; brains and sinuses; metal implants causing burns near hip pins etc.  These effects are reversible except for damage to the eye.

B.  Changes in Physiologic Function

This includes contraction of striated muscles; altered diameter of blood vessels (increased vascular elasticity), dilation; changes in oxidative processes in tissues and organs; liver enlargement; altered sensitivity to drugs; decreased spermatogenesis leading to decreased fertility and to sterility; altered sex ratio of births in favor of girls; altered menstrual activity; altered fetal development; decreased lactation in nursing mothers; reduction in diuresis resulting in sodium excretion via urine output; altered renal function; changes in conditioned reflexes; decreased electrical resistance of skin; changes in the structure of skin receptors; altered rate of blood flow; altered biocurrents in cerebral cortex in animals; changes in the rate of clearance of tagged ions from tissues; reversible structural changes in the cerebral cortex and diencephalon; changes in electrocardiographs; altered sensitivity to light, sound, and olfactory stimuli; functional and pathological changes in the eyes; myocardial necrosis; hemorrhage in lungs, liver, gut and brain and generalized degeneration of body tissue at fatal levels of radiation; loss of anatomical parts; death; dehydration; altered rate of tissue calcification.

C.  Central Nervous System Effects

This includes headaches; insomnia; restlessness (daytime and during sleep); changes in brain wave activity (EEG); cranial nerve disorders; pyramidal tract lesions; disorders of conditioned reflexes; vagomimetic and sympathomimetic action of the heart; seizure and convulsions.

D.  Autonomic Nervous System Effects

Altered heart rhythm; fatigue, structural alterations in synapses of the vagus nerve; stimulation of the parasympathetic nervous system leading to Bradycardia and inhibition of the sympathetic nervous system.

E.  Peripheral Nervous System Effects

Effects on locomotor nerves.

F.  Psychological Disorders

Symptoms include neurasthenia (general bad feeling); depression; impotence; anxiety; lack of concentration; hypochondria;  dizziness; hallucinations; sleepiness or insomnia; irritability; decreased appetite; loss of memory; scalp sensations; fatigue; chest pain, tremors.

G.  Behavioral Changes in Animals Studies

Effects include changes in reflexive, operant, avoidance and discrimination behaviors.

H. Blood Disorders

Effects include changes in blood and bone marrow; increased phagocytic and bactericidal functions; increased rate of hemolysis (shorter lifespan of cells); increased blood sedimentation rate; decreased erythrocytes; increased blood glucose concentrations; altered blood histamine content; changes in lipids and cholesterol; changes in Gamma Globulin and total protein concentration; changes in number of eosinophils; decrease in albumin/globulin ratio; altered hemopoiesis (rate of blood corpuscles formation); leukopenia (increased number of white blood cells and leukocytosis; reticulocytosis (increase in immature red blood cells).

I.  Vascular Disorders

This includes thrombosis and hypertension.

J.  Enzyme and Other Biochemical Changes (in vitro)

Changes in the activity of cholinesterase (also in vivo); phosphatase; transaminase; amylase, carboxydismutase; denaturation of proteins; inactivation of fungi, viruses, and bacteria; killed tissue cultures; alterated rate of cell division; increased concentration of RNA in lymphocytes and decreased concentration of RNA in brain, liver and spleen; changes in pyruvic acid, lactic acid and creatinine excretions; changes in concentration of glycogen in liver (hyperglycemia); altered concentrationsof 17-ketosteroids in urine.

K.  Metabolic Disorders

Effects include glycosuria (sugar in urne); increase in urinary phenols; altered processing of metabolic enzymes; altered carbohydrate metabolism.

L. Gastro-Intestinal Disorders

Effects include anorexia; epigastric pan; constipation; altered secretion of stomach digestive juices.

M. Endocrine Gland Changes

Effects include altered functioning of pituitary gland, thyroid gland (hyper-thyroidism and enlarged thyroid, increased uptake of radioactive iodine), and adrenal cortex; decreased corticosteroids in blood; decreased glucocorticoidal activity; hypogonadism (with decreased production of testosterone).

N. Histological Changes

Changes in tubular epithelium of testicles and gross changes.

O.  Genetic and Chromosomal Changes

Effects include chromosomal aberrations (shortening, pseudochiasm, diploid structures, amitotic divisions, bridging, “stickiness”; irregularities in chromosomal envelope); mutations; mongolism; somatic alterations (not involving nucleus or chromosomes); neoplastic diseases (tumors).

P.  Pearl Chain Effect

This refers to intracellular orientation of subcellular particles and orientation of cellular and other (non-biologic particles, i.e. mini magnetics) affecting orientation of animals, birds, and fish in electromagnetic fields.

Q.  Miscellaneous Effects

These include sparking between dental fillings; metallic taste in mouth; changes in optical activity of colloidal solutions; treatment for syphilis, poliomyelitis, skin diseases; loss and brittleness of hair; sensations of buzzing, vibrations, pulsations, and tickling about head and ears; copious perspiration, salivation, and protrusion of tongue; changes in the operation of implanted cardiac pacemakers; changes in circadian rhythms.

April 28, 2010.  The BRAG™ Antenna Ranking of Schools report (Download 7MB PDF), released April 28, 2010, documents the density and proximity of antennas near schools in the 50 State Capitols and in Washington, D.C.  The more antennas that are near schools the greater the potential exposure of students and teachers to radio frequency radiation from external antennas.

Studies are beginning to document adverse biological and health effects for people who live near cell phone and broadcast antennas.  Some studies show an increased risk of cancers for those living within 350 to 400 meters of cell phone antennas at exposure levels well below federal guidelines in the US and Canada.  Other studies show an increase in symptoms that have been classified as “electrohypersensitivity”.  These symptoms  include difficulty sleeping, fatigue, pain, poor short-term memory, difficulty concentrating, anxiety, irritability and depression, skin problems, dizziness, nausea, and ringing in the ears.  Hence, exposure to microwave radiation may interfere with learning and may not be conducive to a  good learning environment.  Younger students are more vulnerable than adults to this type of radiation.

For these reasons it is important to minimize exposure of students to microwave radiation.  This can be done by placing cell phone antennas at least 1,500 feet away (approximately 460 m) from schools and by using wired rather than wireless (WiFi) connection for internet access within schools.

If your school is not included in the Original BRAG™ Antenna Ranking of Schools Report, this document shows you how to BRAG™ rate your school.  The 18-page pdf takes you through the steps required to rate your school.  If you decide to rate all the schools in your community/city you can rate your community as well.

This would make an ideal science project and, if properly coordinated,  it would provide a snap shot of the distribution of antennas near schools across the U.S.

This activity would raise awareness of the vast number of antennas that have become “neighbors” in our communities.  It should also begin to ring warning bells for policy makers.  Do we really want to place microwave transmitters near school?  Is this sensible policy?

Click HERE to listen to a news release from Public News Service.

Click HERE to listen to WSJM News report.

Click HERE to read article from KSPR radio.

Click HERE to read Our Times Press article.

April 2010.  International experts were invited to Ottawa to present information about the health effects of radio frequency radiation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health (HESA).  The hearing  took place on April 27 and 29, 2010 in Ottawa and among those invited to participate are  Olle Johansson (Sweden), Andrew Goldsworthy (UK), Claude Monnet (next-up.org), Francois Therrien (Laval University, Quebec), Daniel Krewski (University of Ottawa, Canada), Magda Havas (Trent University, Canada) as well as reps from the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, Health Canada, and Industry Canada.

Click here to download the audio of the HESA day 1 proceedings
(81MB MP3, 1 hr 36 min)

Click here to download the audio of the HESA day 2 proceedings
(76MB MP3, 1 hr 30 min)

Click here to download the audio of the combined day 1 & 2 proceedings
(157MB MP3, 3 hr 7 min)

Some interesting quotes from the participants.

Former New Brunswick Premier Bernard Lord, who now heads up the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, said the industry is “fully compliant” with Health Canada’s regulations, and the science that supports the industry is independent.

“We know there is scientific, peer-reviewed studies done around the world and they all come to the same conclusion. The standards that are set ensure the devices are safe. There’s no credible study that has come to the conclusion that there is a risk to human health.”

Beth Pieterson, director general of Health Canada’s environmental and radiation health sciences directorate, said her department was constantly evaluating research and, if necessary, revising Safety Code 6.

Magda Havas said that there are more than 6,000 publications dealing with harmful effects of radiowave radiation. She also pointed out that the most recent version of Canada’s Safety Code 6 had removed the reference stating that “some persons are more sensitive to the effects of electromagnetic fields ( EMF) than others.” She wanted to know why that paragraph was removed.

Click here to visit the Committee’s website to learn more about the participants. The secretariat of the Standing Committee on Health can be reached via email at HESA@parl.gc.ca

Click here and here to read Dr. Havas’ written submission.

Read articles from The Toronto Sun, The Globe and Mail , and the Ottawa Citizen

View Video from Global Newscast

April 21, 2010, Washington, D.C. A new report, “The BRAG™ Antenna Ranking of Schools” (‘BRAG™ Ranking’), will be unveiled April 28th  by Professor Magda Havas, PhD of Trent University, Canada, along with Jim Turner, Esq., Chairman of Citizens for Health, Camilla Rees, Founder of ElectromagneticHealth.org, Janet Newton, President of the EMR Policy Institute, The ElectroSensitive Society, and Christine Hoch, Executive Director of Moms for Safe Wireless. The BRAG™  Antenna Ranking of Schools report will be introduced in a Media Teleconference on Wednesday, April 28th at 2:30 p.m. Eastern. RSVP to Emily@electromagnetichealth.org for dial-in instructions.

This long awaited BRAG™ Report documents antennas near more than 6,000 schools in the United States and provides recommendations on how to reduce exposure to electrosmog in school environments.

For more information and to view the 7-page Media Advisory, click here.

“The BRAG™ Antenna Ranking of Schools” — Can Your School Brag?

• TO REGISTER for the Media Teleconference Call on Wednesday, April 28th at 2:30 p.m. (Eastern) please RSVP to Emily@electromagnetichealth.org. Dial-in instructions will be sent.

• To REGISTER for the 1st Teleclass for Parents, Teachers and School Administrators with Magda Havas, PhD the following week – Friday, May 7th at 11:00 a.m. (Eastern).   Please contact Emily@ElectromagneticHealth.org. Capacity is limited. For notice of future teleclasses, sign up for the Face Book page, Campaign for Radiation Free Schools.