May 10, 2010 – WiFi evolves from radio waves to beams of light.

Smart LED lighting—the use of highly energy-efficient and controllable solid-state light sources both to illuminate a defined space and facilitate optical wireless communication among electronic devices in an office or classroom is now a reality. Professor Thomas Little of Boston University is shipping a new LED-based prototype.

“We now have a working system that’s robust enough to send to others to experiment with,” said Little, co-principal investigator and associate director of the NSF Smart Lighting Engineering Research Center, a program involving BU, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) and the University of New Mexico.

Designed for indoor applications such as illuminating a room and transmitting data among laptops, printers, PDAs, thermostats and other devices, LED-based smart lighting could deliver enhanced electronic communication capabilities at a reduced economic and environmental cost. Requiring far less energy than conventional lighting technologies, such as incandescent or compact fluorescent bulbs, and can integrate ubiquitous communication platforms, such as Wi-Fi.

Much more compact, user-friendly and sophisticated than its predecessors, the current prototype, called Smart Light 1 (SL1), consists of a three-by-six-inch board comprised of two sections—one containing an array of nine high-brightness, white LEDs that transmit data to other transceivers, and the other with an array of three photodiodes that receive data. By keying the light on and off at a very high speed to create a pulsed signal, each SL1 board propagates data to laptops and other electronic devices, and is simply connected using a USB cable.

Toward a Commercial-Grade System

“The prototype demonstrates the viability of using modulated LED light at a useful data rate,” said Little. “The next step is to make the system completely self-contained, embedding all functionality within the bulb.” At that stage, each board will serve as an Internet and data communication access point for any electronic device within range, and thus enable multiple devices to communicate with one another. These include high definition video streaming devises like the iPad.

“The goal is to enable any light to be a wireless optical access point, and to do this requires costs comparable to conventional lighting devices,” he said. “Future work in the Smart Lighting ERC will drive towards higher data rates and lower integration costs.”

September 6, 2010. Why are we using some of the most lethal microwave frequencies for WiFi and digital cordless phones?

Polson, P, DCL Jones, A Karp, and JS Krebs.  1974.  Mortality in rats exposed to CW microwave radiation at 0.95, 2.45, 4.54, and 7.44 GHz.  Final Technical Report Prepared for U.S. Army Mobility Equipment Research and Development Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, Contract DAAK02-73-C-0453.  105 pp.

Pick of the Week #9: 0.95 and 2.45 GHz most Lethal Microwave Frequencies.

Abstract

Dose-response (lethality) data have been obtained for rats exposed frontally to CW [continuous wave] microwave radiation in the frequency range 0.9 to 8 GHz. Approximately 1400 male rats of the Sprague-Dawley strain have been exposed in equal groups to four separate frequencies: 0.95, 2.45, 4.54, and 7.44 GHz. Power density levels have ranged from approximately 0.2 W/cm² to 12 W/cm²[note:  US/Canada guidelines are 0.001 W/cm²] and lethal exposure durations from approximately 10 sec to 300 sec. Gross and histologic evaluation of selected tissues from some 20 animals has been obtained. The cause of death has been established as congestion, hemorrhage, and obstruction of nasal passages and/or congestion, hemorrhage, and often edema of the lungs. The lethality data have been subjected to a probit analysis, yielding LD₅₀ curves for each of empirically fitted the four frequencies, and the LD₅₀ values have been with a mathematical model. The LD curves very closely approximate the shape of rectangular hyperbolae.

Research conducted at Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California in 1974, showed that experimental exposure to high levels of microwave radiation, well above U.S. and Canadian guidelines killed rats within a matter of seconds to few minutes.

The higher the power density (intensity of the radiation) the more quickly the rats died.  Of the four frequencies tested, the two most lethal frequencies (0.95 and 2.45 GHz) are commonly used for analog mobile phones (0.8 to 0.9 GHz); microwave ovens (2.45 GHz); and both digitally pulsed cordless phones and wireless routers (2.4 GHz).  The least toxic of the frequencies was 4.54 GHz (near 5.0 GHz also used for some WiFi systems).

The primary site of damage appears to be the blood vessels of the lung and respiratory tract with edema and hemorrhage representing changes in permeability of vessel walls.

Rats exposed to 0.95 and 2.45 GHz felt warmer than non-irradiated rats but there was no correlation between rectal temperature and mortality.  At the two highest frequencies, the rats did not feel abnormally warm to the technicians handling them. This is interesting as harmful effects are often attributed solely to heating, which, even at these very high intensities, may not be the case.

While this study showed the most lethal frequencies (at very high intensities) are 0.95 and 2.45 GHz, it is not clear if the order to toxicity for these frequencies is the same at lower intensities.

So why are the most lethal frequencies used for common household appliances?  Because this frequency range is not licensed.

Cell phone antennas, radio and TV broadcast antennas, radar, and other types of long distance wireless communication technologies require a license from the federal government to minimize interference of the signals in any one location. But, you do not need a license to operate your microwave oven, your WiFi, or your cordless digital phone.  These frequencies are unlicensed and hence popular for common household and office equipment.  That is why wireless gadgets in this frequency range are proliferating.

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.”

On August 24, 2010, Mr. Barrie Trower, a British physicist who was a microwave weapons expert and who worked for the Royal Navy and the British Secret Service, gave a talk at the University of Toronto about the health effects of WiFi and other forms of microwave radiation.

Mr. Trower came out of retirement because he was concerned that the microwave frequencies and intensities to which children are exposed in schools are similar to those used for microwave weapons.  He provided Dr. Havas with a copy of a talk he gave to the King of Botswana earlier this year (April 2010) and that document can be viewed here.

Link to article in Toronto Star August 26, 2010:  ”U.K. Expert Warns against Wi-Fi.”

Here is a PDF of his credentials and a presentation to the Welsh Parliament.

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).

Aug 2010.  Cordless phones who’s base station radiates in an “always on” mode using 2.4  or 1.8 gigahertz DECT technology should be banned.  DECT stands for Digital European Cordless Telephony or Digitally Enhanced Cordless Telephone.  These phones radiate microwaves as soon as the base station (cradle) is plugged into an electrical outlet and now, for the first time, I have conclusive evidence that this radiation can affect the heart.

The study presented in the video below has been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and will be available within a few months.

How do you know if you have a digital “always on” or DECT phone?  Take a portable radio.  Turn it to an AM station at the lower end of the AM dial and then turn it slightly off station so you hear static.  Now bring this radio close to the base station of your cordless phone when it is plugged into an outlet.  If you hear louder static and if this goes away when you unplug your cordless phone or move the radio away from the cradle, then you have a digital 2.4 gigahertz “always on” or 1.8 gigahertz DECT phone.

These phones come in various frequencies (in North America) 1.8, 2.4 and 5.8 GHz and they do not necessary have the frequencies or ‘DECT’ written on the phone.

If you experience heart irregularities when you use a mobile phone or when you visit certain stores. libraries, and other locations that have wireless routers (WiFi uses the same frequency)  you may be responding to the electromagnetic radiation and may have electrohypersensitivity.

Since WiFi also uses the same frequencies (2.4) and since children are more vulnerable than adults, it would be wise to limit WiFi in schools as we do not want children exposed to this radiation unnecessarily.

You can replace your cordless phone with a landline (wired phone) and you can replace WiFi (in homes and schools) with wired routers.

If you or someone you know has these symptoms (rapid or irregular heart beat, pain or pressure in chest, high or low blood pressure), visit your doctor and share this video.

April 2010. When the students of Mountain View Elementary School in Ontario Canada started to complain about headaches in the classroom, a few mothers thought something must be wrong with the building because their children did not experience these symptoms at home.

After close examination of the school by concerned parents, they learned that a ultra high powered wireless Cisco WiFi system was installed to blanket the entire school to provide internet access.  The school’s computer classroom only contained 6 computers and the parents felt that it was simpler to provide a cabled system using ethernet connections, or a less powerful local WiFi system to service that one room and then shut it off when not in use – like a lightbulb is shut off to conserve energy.

Unlike cellphones – the dangers of WiFi come from the fact that it’s always on – pulsing away sending out microwave carrier signals 24 hours a day even if no one is online. The computers don’t even need to be turned on  - it’s coming from the schools transmitters situated on the ceilings.

Holding the microwave transmitters in your hand?

Apple and many other computer tablet manufacturers intend to market the iPad and similar hand held devices as digital textbook readers and these portable wireless devices are equipped with a very powerful WiFi transmitter – in this case –  you are holding the iPad WiFi transmitter in your hand and the pulsed digital microwave radiation is going right into your body.

Apple FACE TIME

We have all seen the new iPhone adds that show two people communicating via video over their phone.  This is only accomplished via the use of the iPhone’s built in WiFi.

The kids have learned that texting is safer than talking – but they have not considered that the WiFi pulse digital radiation is going directly into their hand. Now imagine a scenario where hundreds if not thousands of students are using their WiFi equipped iPhone or iPad with a connection to the schools high powered industrial grade WiFi system. All of the students and teachers will be bathed in a sea of pulsing microwave radiation – always on 24 hours a day. It’s not your average home setup.

The part that I find very unusual is that the school’s teachers and parents have tried to keep cell phone towers off of their roof and property, and now the IT departments are bringing a similar microwave system that is always on, pulsing microwaves right inside their school.  This is what some parents are worried about.

The parents fight back.

The parents were told that the WiFI was safe but they refused to accept that conclusion and pressed for action and created a website called Safe School to present their concerns to the other parents. Worried about the media campaign that was starting to unfold, the Simcoe County District School Board brought in Tony Muc, who was the Scientific Officer (Microwave) at Health Canada (Government Agency; Government Administration industry) from July 1971 — September 1975 (4 years 3 months) when the Safety Code 6 health standards were being developed. He worked in the Radiation Protection Bureau – biological effects of microwaves; writing and revising regulations for microwave devices; surveys and research on health and safety for Health Canada.

He told the trustees –  ” I firmly believe that the science developed over the last 50 years… adequately supports the limits that are demonstrated in (Health Canada’s) Safety Code 6,” he said, referring to the section relating to electromagnetic fields (EMFs). Click Here to read news article.

“I’m going to continue to put my faith in science and I’m going to continue to use Wi-Fi. I’m going to continue to live in 2010,” said Innisfil trustee Donna Armstrong. “Wi-Fi is in that spectrum that the cells won’t be torn. It’s not fair for a body such as ours to make a scientific ruling. I’m relying on Health Canada.”

Robert Bradley, is the director of Health Canada’s consumer and clinical radiation protection bureau – and is also a member of the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA) committee –  Bradley’s group provides research used in the publication of standards by Industry Canada.

Click HERE to view a Health Canada video featuring Robert Bradley.

But the concerned parents dug deeper and learned that the Toronto Star published a feature article addressing concerns from individuals that Robert Bradley is not acting in the public’s best interest when it comes to microwave radiation from wireless technologies.

WiFi uses microwaves and those limits are addressed by Canada’s Safety Code 6 standards that are based on the “thermal effect”, the limits where the heating of human tissues occur, which originated from naval military radar research over 40 years ago. Realizing that this new pulsed digital WiFi technology was developed after radar, and the WiFi limits are not based on human biological effects (the symptoms of radio-wave illness) that occur well below the current safety limits, the parents pressed on even further and brought their plight to the health officials in Ottawa that regulate Health Canada.

The parents also brought microwave specialist Barrie Trower to Canada to give a lecture at the University of Toronto to explain the dangers of microwave radiation such as Wifi. This generated an enormous amount of publicity for their cause on radio and TV and the story became front page news and on national TV news programs.

Click Here to view a special report from CBC television.

Read the Toronto Star.  Read the Montreal Gazette. Read the Toronto Sun. Read the Edmonton Journal . Read The Star Phoenix – Watch a related report from BBC Special Report on WiFi in Schools

Listen to CBC Radio

WHEN WILL THE PUBIC KNOW THE TRUTH?

Hearings were held in late April to re-examine Safety Code 6 limits and the outcome of these hearings will probably determine the fate of the students at Mountain View school and all children in Canada that attend schools that are blanketed by WiFi or WiMAX wireless technologies.

It’s just one more case where the wireless industry, the former electrical engineers who now regulate it and the IT technicians who refuse to even suggest or practice the precautionary principal – to err on the side of caution and install a safer, faster, secure and more reliable network using fiber optic technology proposed by Google and adopted by countries like Japan and Universities such as Lakehead in Thunder Bay Ontario.

WiFi systems for schools is much more harmful.

The public and schools boards need to know that the newest WiFi systems that are used in schools is not the same system that is used in your home. It works on similar frequencies – 2.4 and 5 ghz but is MUCH MUCH more powerful.  To get an idea of what these systems involve, and how they are marketed to the school IT departments, watch the videos below…..

Pulsed Digital Microwaves radiation compared to a portable radio?

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.