June 11, 2011.   Below are some of the key resolutions/appeals released by expert scientific groups around the world since 1998, regarding the biological and health effects of both low frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) associated with electricity and radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic radiation (EMR) generated by wireless devices.

Anyone who reads these cannot be left with the illusion (or delusion) that this form of energy is without adverse biological and health consequences at levels well below existing guidelines.  Children are particularly vulnerable.   It is irresponsible of governments to maintain the status quo in light of thousands of studies that have been published and statements by these experts.

Here are the resolutions/appeals/reports  in reverse chronological order:

18.  May 31, 2011: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and World Health Organization (WHO) reclassified radio frequency electromagnetic fields as a Class 2B carcinogen (possibly carcinogen to humans).  This applies to all forms of radio frequency radiation (and not just cell phones as some inaccurately claim).  Click here for press release.  Final report will be published in the July 1^st issue of The Lancet Oncology.

17.  May 2011: The Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe (PACE) released Resolution 1815 on the Potential Dangers of Electromagnetic Fields and their effect on the Environment. This document has some excellent recommendations regarding cell phones, cordless phones, wireless baby monitors, WiFi, WLAN, WiMax, power lines, relay antenna base stations; with special concerns expressed for the protection of children and those who are electrosensitive.  Click here for document.

16.  May 2011: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) and Electrohypersensitivity (EHS),  Summary of meeting at the WHO headquarters Geneva, May 13, 2011. Click here for report.  Some statements from this meeting are quoted below:

We need to include these illnesses [MCS and EHS] in the WHO International Classification of Diseases (ICD), because what makes it more difficult for legal recognition is precisely the lack of code for these diseases in the ICD.

The adverse reactions to chemicals or electromagnetic radiation vary in duration according to each patient, and the manifestations differ too. When the patient is again exposed, symptoms usually worsen or result in the appearance of new symptoms.

The process of these diseases (MCS and EHS) is chronic and the patient’s situation is exacerbated if he/she lives in a toxic environment, such as near Tarragona petrochemical industry or subjected to electromagnetic radiation: emissions in the neighborhood, mobile phone antennas , etc. The patient has to avoid re-exposure.

We are facing very high numbers of people already diagnosed . . . between 12% and 15% of the population has some kind of disturbance in the presence of a chemical substance.  In the EHS, figures of affected people are between 3 and 6% of the population, but these numbers are growing continuously.

Each country can recognize these diseases and include them in their ICE, independently of WHO, since according to the WHO countries have sovereignty on this issue.

15.  April 2011: The Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (RNCNIRP) released their Resolution entitled “Electromagnetic fields from Mobile Phones:  Health Effect on Children and Teenagers”.  Click here for report.

The Committee presents some startling statistics [references provided in original document].

In April 2008, the RNCNIRP reviewed the short-term and long-term effects of mobile phone use for children. In particular, it reviewed possible decrease of intellectual abilities and cognition together with possible increases in susceptibility to epileptic fits, “acquired dementia” and degeneration of cerebral nervous structures. The results of clinical studies have shown that chronic exposure to RF EMF may lead to borderline psychosomatic disorders. In 2010, a number of papers published in Russian and foreign peer-reviewed journals showed a response to RF EMF exposure from the immune system.

. . .  since 2000 there has been a steady growth in the incidence of childhood diseases identified by RNCNIRP as “possible diseases” from mobile phone use.  Of particular concern is the morbidity increase among young people aged 15 to 19 years (it is very likely that most of them are mobile phone users for a long period of time). Compared to 2009, the number of CNS [central nervous system] disorders among 15 to 17 year-old has grown by 85%, the number of individuals with epilepsy or epileptic syndrome has grown by 36%, the number of “mental retardation” cases has grown by 11%, and the number of blood disorders and immune status disorders has grown by 82%.  In group of children aged less than 14 years there was a 64% growth in the number of blood disorders and immune status disorders, and 58% growth in nervous disorders. The number of patients aged 15 to 17 years old having consultations and treatment due to CNS disorders has grown by 72%.

Because of this the RNCNIRP considers it important to conduct a scientific study to determine whether the growth in morbidity resulted from EMF exposure from mobile phone use or whether it was caused by other factors.

14.  2010: Seletun Statement, Norway:  The International Electromagnetic Field Alliance (IEMFA) released their report entitled Scientific Panel on Electromagnetic Field Health Risks: Consensus Points, Recommendations, and Rationales following a scientific meeting at Seletun Norway November 2009.  The summary/abstract is provided below. Click here for publication.  Click here for report and short video of Dr. Olle Johansson.

Summary: In November, 2009, a scientific panel met in Seletun, Norway, for three days of intensive discussion on existing scientific evidence and public health implications of the unprecedented global exposures to artificial electromagnetic fields (EMF). EMF exposures (static to 300 GHz) result from the use of electric power and from wireless telecommunications technologies for voice and data transmission, energy, security, military and radar use in weather and transportation. The Scientific Panel recognizes that the body of evidence on EMF requires a new approach to protection of public health; the growth and development of the fetus, and of children; and argues for strong preventative actions. New, biologically-based public exposure standards are urgently needed to protect public health worldwide.

Conclusions in this report build upon prior scientific and public health reports and resolutions documenting the following consensus points:

a) Low-intensity (non-thermal) bioeffects and adverse health effects are demonstrated at levels significantly below existing exposure standards.

b) ICNIRP and IEEE/FCC public safety limits are inadequate and obsolete with respect to prolonged, low-intensity exposures.

13.  2009: EU Parliament Electromagnetic Report and Resolution entitled: European Parliament Resolution on health concerns associated with electromagnetic fields, was adopted February 17, 2009 with 29 recommendations. Click here for report.

12.  2009: Porto Alegre Resolution, Brazil.  Scientists and doctors recognize electrohypersensitivity and are concerned that exposure to electromagnetic fields may increase the risk of cancer and chronic diseases; that exposure levels established by international agencies (IEEE, ICNIRP, ICES) are obsolete; and that wireless technology places at risk the health of children, teens, pregnant women and others who are vulnerable.  Click here for document.

11.  2008: Venice Resolution, Italy.  International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS) Scientists recognize biological effects at non-thermal levels, that standards are inadequate, that electro-sensitivity exists and that there is a need to research mechanisms.  Click here for Venice Resolution.

Three key statements are provided below:

We take exception to the claim of the wireless communication industry that there is no credible scientific evidence to conclude there a risk. Recent epidemiological evidence is stronger than before, which is a further reason to justify precautions be taken to lower exposure standards in accordance with the Precautionary Principle.

We recognize the growing public health problem known as electrohypersensitivity; that this adverse health condition can be quite disabling; and, that this condition requires further urgent investigation and recognition.

We strongly advise limited use of cell phones, and other similar devices, by young children and teenagers, and we call upon governments to apply the Precautionary Principle as an interim measure while more biologically relevant standards are developed to protect against, not only the absorption of electromagnetic energy by the head, but also adverse effects of the signals on biochemistry, physiology and electrical biorhythms.

10.  2007: BioInitiative Report, USA.  In response to statements that there are no scientific studies showing adverse biological effects of low level electromagnetic fields and radio frequency radiation, a group of researchers produced the BioInitiative Report that documents 2000 studies showing biological effects of extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields and radio frequency (RF) radiation and calling for biologically based exposure guidelines. This document was criticized for not having been peer-reviewed even though most of the studies cited in this document were peer-reviewed. Click here for pdf.

Since then some of the BioInitiative papers as well as ones by other authors have appeared in a special issue of the peer-reviewd journal Pathophysiology (Volume 16 Issues 2-3, 2009). The papers in this journal document EMF effects on DNA,  EMF effects on the brain, EMF in the environment, and science as a guide to public policy.  Click here for abstracts.

9.  2006: Benevento Resolution, Italy.  The International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS) organized a conference entitled:  The Precautionary EMF Approach: Rationale, Legislation and Implementation. Scientists at this conference signed the Benevento Resolution (click here for pdf)  that consists of 7 major statements. Among those statements are the following:

1.  . . . there are adverse health effects from occupational and public exposures to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields, or EMF, at current exposure levels. What is needed, but not yet realized, is a comprehensive, independent and transparent examination of the evidence pointing to this emerging, potential public health issue.

4.  Arguments that weak (low intensity) EMF cannot affect biological systems do not represent the current spectrum of scientific opinion.

6.  We encourage governments to adopt a framework of guidelines for public and occupational EMF exposure that reflect the Precautionary Principle– as some nations have already done.

8.  2005: Helsinki Appeal, Finland. Physicians and researchers presented the Helsinki Appeal to the European Parliament.  Click here for document. They state that:

The present safety standards of ICNIRP (International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) do not recognize the biological effects caused by non-ionizing radiation except those induced by the thermal effect. In the light of recent scientific information, the standards recommended by ICNIRP have become obsolete and should be rejected. Especially children and other persons at risk should be taken into account when re-evaluating the limits regarding the harmful effects of electromagnetic fields and radiation.  Call for new safety standards, reject International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines.

7. 2005: Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association (IDEA), Ireland. Members of IDEA wrote a position paper on electromagnetic radiation. Doctors recognize electrohypersensitivity (EHS) is increasing and request advice from government on how to treat EHS.  Click here for document. Below is a quote from this document.

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.

6.  2002. Catania Resolution, Italy.  This resolution was signed by scientists at the international conference “State of the Research on Electromagnetic Fields-Scientific and Legal Issues”.  Click here for resolution. Three of their statements are provided below:

1. Epidemiological and in vivo and in vitro experimental evidence demonstrates the existence of electromagnetic field (EMF) induced effects, some of which can be adverse to health.

4. The weight of evidence calls for preventive strategies based on the precautionary principle. At times the precautionary principle may involve prudent avoidance and prudent use.

5. We are aware that there are gaps in knowledge on biological and physical effects, and health risks related to EMF, which require additional independent research.

5.  2002 : Freiburg Appeal, Germany. Physicians request tougher guidelines for radio frequency exposure.  This document was endorsed by thousands of healthcare practitioners.  Click here for pdf.  Below is a quote from this report.

We have observed, in recent years, a dramatic rise in severe and chronic diseases among our patients, especially:

· Learning, concentration, and behavioural disorders (e.g. attention deficit disorder, ADD)
· Extreme fluctuations in blood pressure, ever harder to influence with medications
· Heart rhythm disorders
· Heart attacks and strokes among an increasingly younger population
· Brain-degenerative diseases (e.g. Alzheimer–s) and epilepsy
· Cancerous afflictions: leukemia, brain tumors

Moreover, we have observed an ever-increasing occurrence of various disorders, often misdiagnosed in patients as psychosomatic:

· Headaches, migraines
· Chronic exhaustion
· Inner agitation
· Sleeplessness, daytime sleepiness
· Tinnitus
· Susceptibility to infection
· Nervous and connective tissue pains, for which the usual causes do not explain even the most conspicuous symptoms

Since the living environment and lifestyles of our patients are familiar to us, we can see especially after carefully-directed inquiry a clear temporal and spatial correlation between the appearance of disease and exposure to pulsed high -frequency microwave radiation (HFMR), such as:

· Installation of a mobile telephone sending station in the near vicinity
· Intensive mobile telephone use
· Installation of a digital cordless (DECT) telephone at home or in the neighbourhood

We can no longer believe this to be purely coincidence, for:

· Too often do we observe a marked concentration of particular illnesses in correspondingly HFMR-polluted areas or apartments;
· Too often does a long-term disease or affliction improve or disappear in a relatively short time after reduction or elimination of HFMR pollution in the patient’s environment;
· Too often are our observations confirmed by on-site measurements of HFMR of unusual intensity.

4.  2002: Salzburg Resolution, Austria. The Salzburg Resolution on Mobile Telecommunication Base Stations makes four recommendations including preliminary guidelines 0f 0.1 microW/cm2 for sum of all emissions from mobile phone stations.  This is well below the current ICNIRP guidelines and those in Canada and the US (1000 microW/cm2) and is slightly lower than guidelines in Switzerland, Italy, Russia, China (10 mciroW/cm2).   Click here for document.

3.  2000: Stewart Report, UK. The Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP) produced a report, Mobile Phones and Health, that is commonly referred to as the Stewart Report, named after its Chairman Sir William Stewart.  Click here for pdf.   A quote from the foreward shows how much our understanding of this issue has changed since 2000.

The report points out that the balance of evidence does not suggest mobile phone technologies put the health of the general population of the UK at risk. There is some preliminary evidence that outputs from mobile phone technologies may cause, in some cases, subtle biological effects, although, importantly, these do not necessarily mean that health is affected. There is also evidence that in some cases people’s well-being may be adversely affected by the insensitive siting of base stations. New mechanisms need to be set in place to prevent that happening.

The report goes on to state that:

1.17.  The balance of evidence to date suggests that exposures to RF radiation below NRPB and ICNIRP guidelines do not cause adverse health effects to the general population.

1.18  There is now scientific evidence, however, which suggests that there may be biological effects occurring at exposures below these guidelines . . .

1.19  . . . We conclude therefore that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach.

1.20 In the light of the above considerations we recommend that a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies be adopted until much more detailed and scientifically robust information on any health effects becomes available.

2.  1998: Vienna EMF Resolution, Austria. At a Workshop on Possible Biological and Health Effects of RF Electromagnetic Fields, the scientists agreed on the following:

The participants agreed that biological effects from low-intensity exposures are scientifically established. However, the current state of scientific consensus is inadequate to derive reliable exposure standards. The existing evidence demands an increase in the research efforts on the possible health impact and on an adequate exposure and dose asses.

Base stations: How could satisfactory Public Participation be ensured?

The public should be given timely participation in the process. This should include information on technical and exposure data as well as information on the status of the health debate. Public participation in the decision (limits, siting, etc.) should be enabled.

Cellular phones: How could the situation of the users be improved?

Technical data should be made available to the users to allow comparison with respect to EMF-exposure. In order to promote prudent usage, sufficient information on the health debate should be provided. This procedure should offer opportunities for the users to manage reduction in EMF-exposure. In addition, this process could stimulate further developmentlow-intensity emission devices

Regarding legal aspects . . .

there is protection deficit in the public and private laws which is unsatisfactory. The legislator is requested to solve the conflict of interests between the industries commission on one side and the neighbours involvement and their interests on protection of life and health on the other side. Because of the constitutionally determined objectives of the state to comprehensively protect the environment, there is a demand of acting precautionary on the polititcal and legal level.

The Vienna declaration on electromagnetic fields recommended 13 detailed action items for parliament to consider.  Click here to read those items and to download pdf.

1.  1997:  Boston Physicians’ and Scientists’ Petition.  We the undersigned physicians and scientists call upon public health officials to intervene to halt the initiation of communication transmissions employing ground level, horizontally transmitted, pulsed microwaves in Boston.  This form of transmission is scheduled to begin June, 1997, by the Sprint Corporation for personal communications systems (PCS). Given the biological plausibility of negative health impacts, particularly to the human nervous system, as well as anecdotal evidence of illness and death from such exposures in cities where transmission has already been implemented, and voluminous medical studies indicating human and ecological harm from microwaves, we urge the suspension of that implementation pending full public notification of its potential hazards and the full review and determination of its safety by the scientific community.

With 97 signatures sent to ENHALE (Environmental Health Advocacy League], Box 425 Concord MA, 01742.

*****

Based on these resolutions and appeals from international groups of physicians and scientists immediate action is required to protect public health from continued increasing exposure to radio frequency radiation and electromagnetic fields.

I call on . . .

1. regulators around the world to reexamine existing guidelines for both EMF and EMR and to reduce them to the lowest possible levels to protect the public and workers.  Values above 4 milliGauss (low frequency magnetic fields); above 0.1 microW/cm2 (power density for radio frequency radiation) and above 40 GS units (dirty electricity) have been associated with adverse health effects in peer reviewed scientific publications!
2. government agencies responsibility for the location of both base stations and power lines to keep distances at least 400 meters (base stations) and 100 meters (transmission lines) from residential properties as well as school and health care facilities.
3. utilities (water, gas, electricity) to reconsider the use of wireless smart meters and provide wired options for those who are sensitive, for those who do not want to be exposed, and for those in densely populated settings.
4. manufacturers who are providing technology that uses electricity and/or emits radio frequency radiation to re-engineer their products to provide the minimum radiation possible.  This includes light bulbs, computers, wireless home devices like baby monitors and cordless phones, cell phones, smart meters, plasma TVs, among others.
5. architects, builders, electricians, and plumbers to design and construct buildings that are based on principles of good electromagnetic hygiene.  This includes using materials that absorb or shield building interiors from microwave radiation especially near external sources of this radiation and in multi-unit buildings; to provide wired alternatives to wireless devices; to properly wire and ground buildings to minimize low frequency electromagnetic fields and to eliminate ground current problems; and to install filters on electrical panels and/or throughout the building to ensure good power quality.
6. local, state, federal health authorities to educate medical professions about the potential biological effects of both low frequency and radio frequency electromagnetic energy; about the growing number of people who have electrosensitivity (ES) or electrohypersensitivity (EHS) and to alert them on how they can help their patients in terms of minimizing their exposure and promoting their recovery.
7. hospitals and
   
8. school boards should choose wired internet access over WiFi (wireless technology) and not allow towers/antennas within 400 meters of their school property.
9. parents to practice good electromagnetic hygiene especially in the bedroom and especially for their children.  This involves using wired rather than wireless devices in the home, keeping electric appliances away from the bed, turning off/unplugging devices when not in use.
10. the media to provide information to the public about the health and safety of using this technology; to rely on “independent experts” who do not receive funding or other benefits based on the outcome of research studies; and to identify experts funded by the industry as “industry representatives”.   The integrity of many of these scientists leaves much to be desired.

January 10, 2011.  The purpose of my website it to provide information about different types of electromagnetic pollution and what people can do to protect themselves and to regain their health. I try to present scientific information to a lay audience in a way that they will both understand and recognize the importance of the information.

While many people visit my website, a lot more watch the youtube videos that I create. Even kids watch these videos and it is important to reach the next generation.

Perhaps you have seen “Planet Irth” (April 2010) about a planet that becomes inundated with electrosmog and the irthlngs are warned by sensitives that this is not a good thing but no one listens.  Click here to watch this video.

Or you may have seen “Taming the Microwave Dragon” (December 2010) told in a fairy tale style with a similar message to Planet Irth.  Click here to watch this video.

Well, the newest in this “series” is called “Population Control & Microwave Radiation.”  It ponders the concept that some “elite group” is using microwave radiation to control the size of the human population. This video is deliberately intended to be provocative. Click here to watch this video.

Am I a supporter of conspiracy theories?  NO. Those with wealth and power have always tried, and will continue to try, to increase their wealth and power (combination of both greed and insecurity) and they will manipulate situations in their favor. This is not new. However, I believe that we do more damage to this planet and its inhabitants than that done by some elite group by a combination of greed, stupidity, and insecurity (both real and imaged) at all levels of society.

All of my youtube videos are meant to inform the audience about the harmful effects of electrosmog and what they can do to reduce their exposure and to protect themselves, if they choose to.  Drawings and cartoon characters make the “medicine” of the message more palatable and bring it to the attention of  younger audiences, who are increasingly becoming hooked on wireless technology.

“Knowledge is power” and these videos are meant to empower those who watch them.

December 26, 2010.  Taming the Microwave Dragon.

As a scientist, who has been studying the biological and health effects of environmental contaminants since 1975, I am deeply disturbed with what I read in the scientific literature and what my own studies are showing about the harmful effects of electrosmog-a form of electromagnetic pollution generated by both wired and wireless devices.

My concern is for the health of future generations and for the quality of life of the current generation. My passion is to help those who have become ill and to protect those who are still healthy. This is a monumental task that relies on many like-minded, committed, truth-seeking individuals who are not willing to accept lies and are not willing to be victims of bullying tactics no matter who perpetrates them.

Do I believe that world governments are trying to destroy the human race?  No. I think people in positions of authority are simply ignorant of the facts or are aware of the facts but have no idea what to do about them or have been advised to do nothing for fear of legal repercussions.  They are-at the very least-fools or cowards and-at the worst-criminals perpetrating crimes against humanity.

One fact is that microwave radiation is killing people!  In the long run-if we don’t change our ways-microwave radiation is likely to kill many more people than both cigarettes and asbestos combined.  Is this fear-mongering or is it the truth?  Time will tell.

We have evolved into a culture that worships money. We have industrial giants who do not care about the health and well-being of their customers or their workers and care only about making profit quickly.  These industries are profit-junkies that give no thought to their destructive tendencies.

Scientists who speak out about the harmful effects of electrosmog are ridiculed and attempts are made to discredit them by self-appointed skeptics who are NOT experts in the field.  Industry meddling causes some scientists to lose their research funding or their jobs.

Industry scientists infiltrate health organizations and ensure that decisions are made to protect the health and profit of their industry.

Physicists and engineers are making pronouncements about the safety of microwave technology as though they were medical doctors or experts in life sciences.

Teachers who speak out about having WiFi in schools are reprimanded and ostracized.  Those on limited-term appointments find their teaching contracts are not renewed.

School boards threaten to expel students and to fine parents who want to protect their children against microwave radiation in the classroom.  Is this anyway for a school board to act?

People who are sick have few places to turn.  They need to figure out how to regain their health.  Ill informed doctors recommend psychiatric treatment and ply their patients with painkillers, antidepressants, sleeping pills and anti-anxiety medication rather than getting to the route of their problems, which is often related to some source of electrosmog exposure at home or at work.

Trial lawyers seldom have a background in science and their attempts to understand complexities that only a few scientists understand is challenging.  Industries hire the best lawyers money can buy who become experts in certain areas.  They often out number and out wit the single lawyer and the law student who are trying to help someone living near a cell tower or near a power line, someone who can no longer work and cannot afford to pay legal fees.

Corporate lawyers are concerned about the long-term financial health of their corporations and may advise against producing products that generate lower emissions for fear of legal action against the earlier higher emitting devices.

Journalists are trained to give balanced reporting.  They seldom have the time to investigate a story in detail and what appears on TV or in newspapers are sound bites that pit experts against each other claiming opposite effects and leaving the public baffled.

Investigative journalists who begin to understand the scale of what is happening may be moved to a different assignment if they become too passionate about uncovering the truth especially if the wireless industry is paying for advertising.

Workers who become concerned about their exposure in the work place find their union bosses are more interested in their own careers and keeping well in with management.  These union bosses won’t rock the boat.  If monitoring of the workplace is permitted, a “specially selected” industry expert is hired to support the company line.

So who is left?  Who will speak out and do the right thing?  Where are the heroes and heroines to tame the microwave dragon threatening the global village?

Whether you use wireless technology or not; whether you protest or not; whether you care or not . . . you are being exposed to radio frequency radiation and your exposure levels are increasing.   You can move to the country and live with like-minded souls but antennas and smart meters are likely to follow you.

Whether you become ill or not will depend on many things but once you become ill your quality of life will deteriorate and, if you live with others, their quality of life will be adversely affected as well.

Leaving the sanctuary of your home, if indeed you can make your home into a sanctuary, will be painful.  Shopping, dining at restaurants, vacationing with family and friends will become a distant memory. No matter how much you enjoyed using your smart phone and your ipad, no matter how much you enjoyed surfing on the web, and no matter how much you enjoyed communicating with friends on facebook or skype these will no longer be possible . . . the pain, the confusion, the fatigue, the skin rashes, the dizziness and nausea, the ringing in the ears will become unbearable.  You will find yourself in self-imposed exile with an ever-diminishing connection to the world.

Is the above a fairy tale?  Not at all!

I know of politicians who are asking that warnings be placed on cell phones and that a moratorium be placed on deployment of smart meters until we learn more about the safety of this technology. They do this despite strong political pressure and industry lobbying.

I know of scientists who have lost their funding and their jobs. Many of them continue to do excellent work despite the threats and penalties.

I know of teachers who have been told not to publically oppose school policy about WiFi.  Many continue their fight to remove WiFi from schools and some continue to speak out in public ignoring the threats.

I know of principals who have removed WiFi or won’t allow it in their school because their top priority is the health and safety of their students and staff.

I know of parents whose concerns for their child’s safety have been ignored.  So they are now organizing other like-minded parents to make certain that their concerns are heard.

I know of many, many people who are sick because of their exposure to electrosmog, who feel better when they are not exposed and are trying to design safer sanctuaries for themselves at home and at work. Many of those who are beginning to recover are devoting time and using their experience to helping others.

I know of doctors who are successfully treating their electrically sensitive patients. Instead of prescribing pharmaceuticals, they advise their patients on how to reduce their exposure and build up the immune system and detoxify their bodies. Some keep a low profile because neither the medical association nor big Pharma support non-pharmaceutical interventions that interfere with profit. A few of these doctors are beginning to speak out publicly.

I know of a few exceptional lawyers who are now specializing in this field and are dedicated to helping the under privileged.

I know of a growing number of journalists who are doing excellent reporting on issues dealing with compact fluorescent light bulbs, WiFi, mobile phones, smart meters, ground current, antennas and power lines.

I know of union representatives who, despite a tough management, are responding to concerns about electrosmog exposure in the workplace.

I know of firefighters, brave men and women who rush into burning buildings to save strangers, who voted to prevent antennas on fire halls until they are shown to be safe.

The tide is turning but it will take time before we have changes in policy and manufacturing guidelines . . . in the meantime individuals can make changes in their own environment.  They can reduce their exposure before they become ill and they can learn and share information with others.

The microwave dragon will be tamed and the village will become safe once more or, at least, safer than it is right now.  How quickly that will happen depends on the heroes and heroines, on those who place health and the quality of life above profit and greed.

If we are lucky, captains of industry, government scientists and policy makers, as well as the engineers who design these devices will recognize that optimizing profit and health (of the workforce, of the public and of the environment) makes more sense than maximize profit alone.

When that day comes we will have earned the name Homo sapiens sapiens.

Click here for a pdf of the above essay and click here if you want to watch a youtube video of an abbreviated version of the above text.

Nov 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.”

The Heinrich Hertz institute has developed a system that will transmit signals at 500 Mbits per second.

At the University of California, they have created the Center for Ubiquitos Communication By Light. The mission of the UC-Light center is to enable wireless communications by embedding signals into the light emitted by next-generation LEDs in systems for illumination, traffic control, advertising, and other purposes.  Imagine a world in the future where street lighting becomes wireless transmission antenna – sending digital signals back and forth from your light on your front porch.

A US company called LVX is developing a system for internet communications but while the US moves onwards towards research – Japan is already commercially using the technology. Watch the video below.

One major advantage of using light rather than radio waves for data transmission is that exposure to light radiation is limited as light does not travel through walls. However, before we give this technology the “thumbs up” it is essential that these “smart” LED bulbs not generate dirty electricity and that the pulsing frequencies have no biological effects on epileptics and others who are sensitive to light “flicker”.  So far the safest way to transmit data is along cables and while light may be safer than microwaves, the biological and health effects of pulsing light need to be tested before they are allowed in the workplace.

IR – Infrared Wireless LED is invisible to the eye and is already widely used for high speed data transfer for point to point communications where fibre optics is not possible. Free Space Optics (FSO) is a canadian technology that enables the optical transmission of data, voice and video through the air. It is a wireless broadband technology, which requires clear line-of-sight (LOS) between a pair of FSO transceivers. FSO is an alternative to Microwave or Radio Frequency systems.  This technology is not new – it was not widely adopted because of it’s drawbacks – if it snows or if the condition is foggy – the transmission suffers. For this reason RF radio waves are the choice of wireless providers…… But for indoors like a school classroom, LED has great potential.

November 8, 2010. Most of the documents in Zory’s Archive are concerned with the biological effects of radio frequency radiation. This week we have one that focuses on the biological effects of low frequency electric and magnetic fields.

Nair, I, MG Morgan, and HK Florig. 1989. Biological Effects of Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields, Background paper as part of OTA’s assessment of Electric Power Wheeling and Dealing:  Technological Considerations for Increasing Competition, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment, 110 pp.

Introduction and Overview

Electric and magnetic fields produced by electric power systems have recently been added to the list of environmental agents that are a potential threat to public health. This paper describes peoples’ exposures to fields from power systems and other sources (Section 2), reviews existing scientific evidence on the biological effects of these fields (Sections 3 through 7), presents a history of research support and of regulatory activity (Sections 8 and 9 ), and discusses problems and alternatives in regulatory action (Section 10).

The electric power that is used in our homes, offices and factories uses AC or alternating current.  This is in contrast to the DC or direct current that is produced by batteries. An alternating current does not flow steadily in one direction. It alternates back and forth. The power used in North America alternates back and forth 60 times each second. This is called 60 hertz (Hz) power. In Europe and some other parts of the world the frequency of electric power is 50 hertz rather than 60 Hz.

There are electric and magnetic fields wherever there is electric power. This means that there are fields associated with large and small powerlines, wiring and lighting in homes and places of work, and all electrical appliances. These fields are created by the electric charges that are pumped into the power system by electric power generating stations. Electric fields arise from the amount of that charge and magnetic fields result from the motion of that charge. Taken together, these fields are often referred to as electromagnetic fields. The electric and magnetic fields created by power systems oscillate with the current. That is why fields around power systems are called power-frequency or 60 hertz fields. A more complete description of the electromagnetic fields from power systems is presented in Section 2.

Public concerns about power-frequency fields first emerged in the late 1960s as power companies turned increasingly to extra high voltage (EHV) transmission lines to handle large increases in electricity use. EHV lines carry electric power with lower energy losses and with smaller land usage than multiple lower-voltage lines with the same power-delivery capacity. Public attention to EHV transmission lines focused first on the aesthetic impact of their large towers, on the aesthetic and ecological impacts at their rights-at-way, and on various nuisance effects created by their strong electric fields. These nuisance effects include audible noise, TV/radio interference, and induced shocks that can occur when a person standing beneath an EHV line touches a large ungrounded metal object such as a truck or farm vehicle.  By the early 1970s, the American National Standards Institute had issued voluntary standards to address nuisance effects. The first evidence that power-frequency fields might have a direct effect on human health appeared in 1972 when Soviet investigators reported that workers in Soviet EHV switchyards suffered from a number of nonspecific ailments [Korobkova 72]. Although these reports were greeted with much skepticism by western scientists, they served to stimulate public concern. By the mid-seventies, health effects had become a central issue in transmission line siting hearings in several states.

There are two reasons why conventional wisdom has until recently held that the fields associated with power systems could pose no threat to human health. First, there is no significant transfer of energy from power-frequency fields to biological systems. Unlike X-rays (i.e. ionizing radiation), powerfrequency fields do not break chemical bonds. Unlike microwaves (i.e. non-ionizing radiation), powerfrequency fields cannot cause significant tissue heating. Second, all cells in the body maintain large natural electric fields across their outer membranes. These naturally occurring fields are at least 100 times more intense than those that can be induced by exposure to common power-frequency fields.

However, despite the low energy of power-frequency fields and the very small perturbations that they make to the natural fields within the body, studies over the last fifteen years have demonstrated unequivocally that under certain circumstances, the membranes of cells can be sensitive to even fairly weak externally imposed low frequency electromagnetic fields. Extremely small signal changes can trigger major biochemical responses critical to the functioning of the cell [Adey 81, Adey 84, Adey 87].  This should perhaps have come as no surprise, as cells, especially those in the nervous system, make use of complex electrochemical processes in their normal function. The ability of some animals including eels, sharks, and pigeons to detect extremely weak ELF fields and use them for homing and finding prey clearly demonstrates that at least some specialized cells can be exquisitely sensitive to such fields [Fessard 74, Gould 82]. Among the responses demonstrated in laboratory studies using animal cells and tissue are:

• modulation of ion flows;

• interference with DNA synthesis and RNA transcription;

• interaction with the response of normal cells to various agents and biochemicals such as hormones, neurotransmitters, and growth factors;

• interaction with the biochemical kinetics of cancer cells.

Even when effects are demonstrated consistently on the cellular level in laboratory experiments, it is hard to predict whether and how they will affect the whole organism. Processes at the individual cell level are integrated through complex mechanisms in the animal. When a process in the cell is lightly perturbed by an external agent such as an ELF field, other processes may compensate for it so that there is no overall disturbance to the organism. Some perturbations may be within the ranges of disturbances that a system can experience and still function properly. This difficulty in extrapolating cellular level effects to predict the existence or severity of possible public health effects, together with the absence of any large-scale and obvious public health effect associated with electrification, are two arguments advanced during the last decade in support of the claim that there is no need for concern about possible public health effects from exposure to power-frequency fields.

Another problem in deducing possible health effects from cellular level effects has been the lack of a theoretical model to explain and understand the detailed mechanism of interaction. ELF fields affect the cell via the cell membrane. Cell membrane biology is still in its infancy although this area of molecular biology has made great strides in the past few years. Until recently, there was not enough understanding to even advance hypotheses on the potential mechanisms by which ELF fields may cause significant perturbations in cell and organ functions. Hypotheses are now being advanced but are still at a speculative stage [Adey 86, Smith 87, Liboff 86].

As we discuss in Section 3, findings at the cellular level display considerable complexity including resonant responses (or, “windows”) in frequency and field strength, complex time dependencies, and dependence on the ambient DC magnetic field created by the earth. For these reasons, ELF fields appear to be an agent to which there is no known analog. Many lessons learned from environmental hazards such as chemical agents (PCB, vinyl chloride, benzene, etc.) or physical agents (ionizing radiation, asbestos etc.) may not directly apply to ELF fields. This is because in the case of fields it is not yet clear what measures of exposure or “dose” are relevant. In contrast to more familiar environmental agents where “if some of it is bad, more of it is worse”, it may not be safe to assume that if ELF field exposure leads to health risks, exposure to stronger fields or exposure for longer periods is worse than exposure to weaker fields or brief periods.

In addition to cellular studies, whole animal and human experiments have examined five general categories of effects:

1. General effects such as detection, avoidance and behavior response and development and learning of animals, and moods of humans;

2. Effects on externally measured physical parameters such as growth and birthweight, respiration, heartbeat rate, and temperature rhythms;

3. Effects on specific biochemicals such as hormones that are responsible for the maintenance, regulation and control of general physiological and psychological functions; for response to environmental stressors; for growth and development; and, for triggering special responses such as sexual function, and fetal and newborn nourishment;

4. Effects on circadian rhythms of animals and humans, and,

5. Effects in the epidemiology of cancer, particularly leukemia and brain cancer.

Several authors and scientific advisory panels have reviewed the effects literature [Adey 86, Adey 87, AIBS 85, Carstensen 87, Florida 85, Grandolfo 86, lee 86, NYSPlP 87, Sheppard 83, West 86, WHO 84].  In summary, the results are complex and inconclusive. There have been many “negative” experiments, that is, experiments that have looked for effects but not found any difference between biological systems that have been exposed to fields and those that have not. However, the growing number of positive findings have now clearly demonstrated that under specific circumstances even weak low-frequency electromagnetic fields can produce substantial changes at the cellular level, and in a few experimental settings, effects have also been demonstrated at the level of the whole animal.

Epidemiological evidence, while controversial and subject to a variety of criticisms, is beginning to provide a basis for concern about risks from chronic exposure. Some observers find this epidemiological evidence more persuasive in light of the clear evidence of effects that is available at the cellular level, but others insist on treating the evidence from these two areas as separate.

As recently as a few years ago, scientists were making categorical statements that on the basis of all available evidence there are no health risks from human exposure to power-frequency fields. In our view, the emerging evidence no longer allows one to categorically assert that there are no risks. But it does not provide a basis for asserting that there is a significant risk.

If exposure to fields does turn out to pose a health risk, it is unlikely that high voltage transmission lines will be the only sources of concern. Power-frequency fields are also produced by distribution lines, wall wiring, appliances, and lighting fixtures. These non-transmission sources are much more common· than transmission lines and could play a far greater role than transmission lines in any public health problem.

Commonwealth Club 11-18-10. Panel I – Magda Havas, PhD from ElectromagneticHealth.Org on Vimeo.

October 22, 2010.  New study by Dr. Magda Havas and colleagues in the peer-reviewed European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5, 2010 shows that radiation from a digital cordless phone base station affects the heart in a double-blind provocation study.

Click HERE to view the study.

According to this research, some individuals are hypersensitive to microwave radiation and respond when they are exposed to levels well below federal guidelines (5 microW/cm2 or 0.5% of guidelines in Canada & U.S.). During real time monitoring of the heart some individuals experienced an  irregular heart rate or a rapid heart rate that occurred only during provocation and not during sham exposure (when the radiation was off).  This  is the first study showing such dramatic and repeatable results.

The sympathetic nervous system up regulated and the parasympathetic nervous system down regulated during exposure, which is the typical “flight-or-fight” stress response. Feelings of anxiety as well as pain or pressure in the chest were associated with the rapid or irregular heart beat among some of the participants tested.

This test is objective and directly measures the heart’s response to radiation and is unlike subjective testing, where scientists ask individuals if they know whether a device is turned on or off and then determine their “sensitivity” based on perception of exposure, which is just that perception and NOT sensitivity.

It clearly documents that some individuals are hypersensitive to specific frequencies and supports complaints people have when they are exposed to radiation,  including a racing or fluttering heart, pain or pressure in the chest, and feelings of anxiety that resemble the onset of a heart attack.

Recent reports that students in some Collingwood Ontario schools are experiencing these symptoms when they are exposed to WiFi in the classroom, leads one to ask whether those symptoms are due to the pulsed microwave radiation generated by the WiFi base stations.

The cordless phone base station beacon signal, used in the present study, operates at the same frequency as WiFi in schools, namely a pulsed digital signal at 2.4 GHz.  If this radiation can affect the adult heart it could be affecting the heart of children as well.

Heart complaints are becoming increasingly common in society and at least some of these complaints may be related to our increasing exposure to radiation from wireless devices as documented for the first time in this study.

View the videos below to see the methods that were used in the study. (Note the video title and narration specify  that a DECT phone base station was used.  In Europe – DECT technology utilizes 1.9 gigahertz and in North America 2.4 gigahertz is commonly used.  We used a 2.4 gigahertz digital portable phone base station that was always sending it’s beacon signal similar to DECT phones for this study.  Read reference material and view videos below)

View a video from a TV program that used this method to test for electrosensitivity using a 2.4 gigahertz WiFi base station.

The video below demonstrates how microwave radiation is used  for wireless devices that are found in your home.

______________________________

Eur. J. Oncol. Library, Vol. 5, 28 pp.

Provocation Study using Heart Rate Variability shows Radiation from 2.4 GHz Cordless Phone affects Autonomic Nervous System

Magda Havas, Jeffrey Marrongelle, Bernard Pollner, Elizabeth Kelley, Camilla R.G. Rees, Lisa Tully

IN:  Non-Thermal Effects and Mechanisms of Interaction Between Electromagnetic Fields and Living Matter.  Giuliani, L. and M. Soffritti (Eds). 2010.  An ICEMS Monograph, Ramazzini Institute. Eur. J. Oncol. Library Vol 5:  273-300.

Abstract

Purpose: The effect of pulsed microwave radiation on heart rate variability (HRV) was tested in a double blind study. Method: Twenty-five subjects in Colorado between the ages of 37 to 79 completed an electrohypersensitivity (EHS) questionnaire. After recording their orthostatic HRV, we did continuous real-time monitoring of HRV in a provocation study, where supine subjects were exposed for 3-minute intervals to radiation generated by a pulsed cordless phone at 2.4 GHz or to sham exposure.

Results: Questionnaire: Based on self-assessments, participants classified themselves as extremely electrically sensitive (24%), moderately (16%), slightly (16%), not sensitive (8%) or with no opinion (36%) about their sensitivity. The top 10 symptoms experienced by those claiming to be sensitive include memory problems, difficulty concentrating, eye problems, sleep disorder, feeling unwell, headache, dizziness, tinnitus, chronic fatigue, and heart palpitations. The five most common objects allegedly causing sensitivity were fluorescent lights, antennas, cell phones, Wi-Fi, and cordless phones.

Provocation Experiment: Forty percent of the subjects experienced some changes in their HRV attributable to MW radiation. For some the response was extreme (tachycardia), for others moderate to mild (changes in SNS and/or PSNS). and for some there was no observable reaction either because of high adaptive capacity or because of systemic neurovegetative exhaustion.

Conclusions: Orthostatic HRV combined with provocation testing may provide a diagnostic test for some EHS sufferers when they are exposed to electromagnetic emitting devices. This is the first study that documents immediate and dramatic changes in both HR and HRV associated with MW exposure at levels well below (0.5%) federal guidelines in Canada and the United States (1000 microW/cm2).

October 2010:  Are you old enough to remember the introduction of microwave ovens? That amazing invention that has revolutionized our way of food preparation using high frequency radio waves? Well, now we have medium frequency radio waves for induction cooking. Like microwave ovens, induction stove tops cook rapidly and save energy. They are used in commercial kitchens and they are now being introduced into the home. But are they safe to use?

Watch this video to learn about how they work.

January 2010. A few years ago I was contacted by a Susan Stankavich who complained that she and her husband were experiencing ill health and their symptoms were getting worst as more cell phone antennas were constructed in their community.

She mentioned that her electricity bill was also increasing at the same time despite the fact that they owned few electronic devices as they were both electrically sensitive. She wondered if her electrical bill was affected by the radiation from the cell phone antennas.

I discussed this with Dave Stetzer, power quality expert in Wisconsin, and he told me that some watt-hour meters give inaccurate readings because they are calibrated for a pure 60-Hz sine wave. Higher frequencies cause the meter to spin more quickly, giving the impression that you are consuming more electricity than in fact you are.

I asked the Stankavichs to send me their electricity bills for the past few years and I compared the values to local weather conditions to see if that could account for the difference in readings. I also compared the monthly bills to the installation of antennas and to other things that they did in their home.

The results are shocking! See the attached pdf.

In brief, the annual cost of electricity increased in the Stankavich home by $1000 (from $1400 per year to a whopping $2400) and this increase corresponded to the construction of an antenna nearby and not to unusual weather patterns or changes in usage.

Dave Stetzer suggested that they install a choke at their watt-hour meter and immediately their electrical bill began to fall. The choke was install on March 7th 2005 and they noticed a difference in their monthly bill by April. That year the amount they paid for electricity dropped by $600 and they did this by buying a few meters of electrical wire and a clip.

By the way, the electrical utilities know about this. Ontario Hydro identifies this as a problem in their 1996 Power Quality Reference Guide. They state that harmonics (these are multiples of the fundamental 60 Hz frequency) can generate additional torque which can cause improper operation and thus generate ‘incorrect readings’ on watt-hour meters

I don’t know how wide spread this problem is but if you want to test it on your own home, this is what you need to do. Buy approximately 2 meters of 12 or 14 gage building wire at a hardware store. Strip the ends. Wrap this wire around the electrical line that connects to your electrical meter at the side of your home. Ten coils around the line should be sufficient and then connect the two stripped ends with an electricians plug. That’s it. This is called a choke and it reduces (or chokes out) the high frequencies on the line leading to you watt-hour meter. The meter should become more accurate and the electricity bills should be lower if there was indeed some high frequency interference on the line.

If you decide to test this I would be interested to know what happens.

November 2009.

Magda Havas gave an interview to Bottom Line/Personal and this is what they wrote: Don’t stand in front of the Microwave. Radiation Dangers from phones, plasma TVs and computers, too . . .

Click here for pdf.

November 2009.

Prevention magazine has created a video about the dangers of Compact Florescent Bulbs. What is notable about this video is that they don’t mention the dangers of ultraviolet radiation or mercury but instead focus on the radio frequencies that they emit. Some scientists believe that the bandwidth of the radio waves from CFL bulbs are potentially dangerous to the human body because the frequencies are biologically active.