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

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.

June 2010.  Apple’s new iPhone 4 is a marvellous invention for those who like portable computers. Video quality  and still image capture are superb. Applications rival that of a portable computer. The most intriguing news is that iPhone reception is poor if you hold it in your left hand, better if you hold it in your right hand, and best if you don’t hold it at all.

In response to reception complaints, Steve Jobs says  ”don’t hold it that way.” Apples’ official statement says it’s best not to hold the phone at all if you want good reception.  This comment captured worldwide attention and stunned millions who bought an iPhone the day it was released.

Is this  a design disaster or a safety feature in disguise? Perhaps Jobs is paying attention to the governors of San Francisco.

San Francisco just passed a law requiring that the SAR (specific absorption rate-the amount of microwave radiation absorbed by your body from the aerial) of the cell phone be posted clearly in sales material. The iPhone manual says for safe use the phone must be at least 5/8th of an inch away from your body at all times. Is your hand a part of your body? How can you hold a phone and have it be 5/8th of an inch away from your body.

Doctors on CNN demonstrate how to talk on the cell phone without touching it. They place the phone on a desk and use the speaker phone mode or an airtube headset or you can use the new Roots retro phone thats included at the end of this article. In fact, this is what cell phone activists have been advocating for years.

The new iPhone “flaw” may be one of the biggest design blunders or the safest cell phone ever made.  Perhaps Steve is listening to what scientists are saying about cell phones and is trying to make the safest cell phone in the world with the lowest SAR readings (as long as  you don’t touch it).

To hold or not to hold . . . that is the question!  Now we know the answer.

Here is an email from Steve Jobs.

CBC Radio – The Link – KILLER CELLPHONES?

Do you have the new iPhone 4? Have you been disappointed by its lack of reception? Before you return it, consider the fact that you might own the safest cell phone on the market! Dr Magda Havas, an expert on the biological effects of environmental contaminants, thinks that Apple’s so-called design flaw is a blessing in disguise. Because she says your regular cell phone might be killing you. Literally.

Listen to the iPhone 4 interview with Magda Havas on CBC Radio

If you can’t hold the phone and you want to have a private conversation – Here is a retro headset that reduces the radiation. It’s from Roots.

May 20, 2010.  The recent article, “Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use:  results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study” that appeared in the International Journal of Epidemiology on May 18, 2010, (2010:1-20) clearly demonstrates the flaws with the way we fund, conduct, review and report on science that deals with products that fetch billions of dollars and place at risk, at least potentially, billions of lives.

Click HERE to view the study in PDF

The INTERPHONE study, the largest (5,117 brain tumor cases) and most expensive ($25 million dollars) study on cell phones and brain tumors, involving scientists from 13 countries, was flawed from the very beginning. Whoever designed the protocol did it in such a way as to minimize finding any adverse effects.  Despite this, adverse effects were reported — a 40% increased risk of glioma (a type of brain tumor that affects the glial cells in the brain) for those who used a cell phone for at least 1,640 hours with the highest risk for tumors in the temporal lobe and on the same side of the head that one exposes to the cell phone.  In other words most of the tumors occurred in the part of the brain receiving the greatest radiation for those who had the longest exposure.  And what did the authors do with this result?

They attributed it to biases and error.  Why?

Study design to minimize finding adverse effects of cell phones

First example:  A regular cell phone user was defined as anyone who made at least one call on their cell phone each week for at least 6 months! Would you expect a person to develop lung cancer if s/he smoked at least one cigarette a week for at least 6 months?  By setting the number of calls  so low (at least 24 calls on a cell phone) it dilutes the effect and favors a “no-effect” result.

Second Example:  People who use cordless phones are exposed to virtually the same type of radiation yet they were not identified as exposed in this study.  The cigarette analogy is comparing those who smoked one brand of cigarettes with those who smoked a different brand but this second group is labelled as “non-smokers”.  This also favors a “no-effect” result. We must recognize that even those people who do not use mobile phones (cell and cordless phones) are exposed to the radiation from nearby users, from nearby cell phone antennas and now from wireless routers as well as city-wide WiFi in a growing number of communities.  So the best we can do is compare users with those who are exposed to the equivalent of second-hand smoke.  This also under estimates the real risk of microwave exposure.

These two biases were so powerful that the final result showed that cell phones prevented brain tumors!

Third example: brain tumors take decades to develop in adults yet only a small fraction (less than 10%) of those people in this study used cell phones for more than 10 years. Just as you wouldn’t expect to find lung cancer in a smoker after 4 to 5 years, you would not expect to find a brain tumor for a cell phone user during this short period of exposure either.

Forth example:  participants were restricted to those between the ages of 30 to 59.  Younger and more vulnerable participants were excluded from this study.  This flaw is now being addressed with a new study based on younger users.

These experimental flaws and the obvious bias in the experimental design should have been caught early and corrected.  But it wasn’t.  Why?

How could so many of the leading scientists in this field allow this to happen? Were they lured by the funding, which came-in part-from the very industry whose product was being studied? There were so many flaws in the experimental design that this article in the International Journal of Epidemiology should not have been accepted for publication by a peer-reviewed journal.  Indeed, the reviewers, whoever they were, should have recommended that this article be rejected or accepted only after major revisions.  This demonstrates problems with our peer-review process that the scientific community values so highly but that process is deeply flawed, and this is just one example.

This study demonstrates that funding (25% of which was provided by the wireless industry) can have a effect on the outcome of a publication.  This has been shown time and again (with microwave radiation and with other environmental toxins including cigarettes) so why would we expect this study to be different.  Indeed several of the authors identified conflicts of interest and associations with the wireless industry that went beyond the funding of this study.

It shows that a flawed experimental design produces unreliable results. The two major results from the Interphone study is that short-term use of cell phones provides protection against brain tumors and long-term use increases the risk of gliomas.  The authors attributed both of these findings to biases and  error!

Why were Interphone related documents called Appendix 1 and 2 published separately in the same journal? Why were these appendices not part of the original report?  Was it because they showed higher levels of risk for both types of brain tumors?

We have included these important documents in PDF format for you to view.

Appendix 1 Interphone: While the original INTERPHONE study stated there was a decreased risk of meningiomas or no effect with cell phone use, Appendix 1 showed an 84% increase risk of meningiomas for those who used a digital phone for 1640 hours or more and those who used both digital and analogue cell phones or if type of phone used was unknown had a 343% increased risk or meningiomas!

Appendix 2 Interphone: In an attempt to try to “correct” the “downward bias” a mini report entitled Appendix 2 was published as a separate document in the same journal.  This appendix compares regular users who used cell phones for less than 2 years (as the reference population) with those who used cell phones for  longer periods.

The table in Appendix 2 provides some disturbing results. It shows that there is a statistically significant increased risk (68%) of developing gliomas for those who used a cell phone for as little as 2-4 years and 118% increased risk for those who used a cell phone for 10+ years.  In the original study these exposure categories were shown to reduce risk of gliomas!  See the highlighted areas in this table with comments.  Indeed the 40% increased risk of glioma mentioned in the original study for those who used a cell phone for 1640 hours or more becomes an 82% increase when compared with regular cell phone users.

So what can we learn from this experience?

We learn that funding can influence the results of a study no matter how much scientists attempt to be objective.

We learn that bigger is not necessarily better.  Had the $25 million dollars been given to independent scientists in various disciplines to determine the biological effects of cell phone use we would have been much further ahead than with the INTERPHONE study.

We learn that a flawed experimental design produces unreliable results. Even the authors of this study claim it is inconclusive and unreliable (since they state that the effects of due to biases and error).

We learn that compromise is necessary for setting standards and establishing policy but not for conducting science.   Science is not done by committee or by consensus and compromise.  The majority is not always right and we have plenty of examples from various scientific disciplines to demonstrate this.

As I read the INTERPHONE report and interviews with participating scientists, I sensed the frustration with the process and can now understand why it has taken so long to produce this document.  I expect that some of those involved are deeply frustrated and perhaps even embarrassed by the outcome.

Elizabeth Cardis, head of the INTERPHONE study, was quoted as stating:  ”In my personal opinion, I think we have a number of elements that suggest a possible increased risk among the heaviest users, and because the heaviest users in our study are considered the low users today, I think that’s something of concern. Until stronger conclusions can be drawn one way or another it may be reasonable to reduce one’s exposure.”

This is a wise comment that we should all heed.

Click HERE to listen to an interview with Elizabeth Cardis.

Cardis is a co-author of a paper showing an increase in Salivary Gland Tumor on the same side of the head that one exposes to a cell phone after a 10-year latency period.  She is also now heading up a study with young users, called Mobi-Kids.  Let’s hope that this new study corrects the flaws of the INTERPHONE study and produces reliable results.

Major advances in science often start with individuals who are curious and want to come as close as possible to understanding the truth about some aspect of our physical reality; individuals who are able to put aside their preconceived notions when they stumble across an unexpected result. Indeed it is these unexpected results that propel our understanding of science and it is those who recognize the value of the unexpected who become known for their “discoveries”.

Thomas Kuhn described this process and called it a paradigm shift.  It refers to a revolutionary change in the way we understand some aspect of science. It is often opposed until the evidence becomes so overwhelming that it can no longer be denied.

We are currently in the midst of a paradigm shift when it comes to understanding the biological effects of non-ionizing radiation.  The evidence that this form of energy causes biological and health effects that are unrelated to heating is now overwhelming.  It won’t be long before the “old school” of thinking is replaced with the new, and when this happens we will see rapid growth in our understanding of both the harmful and healing effects of this type of radiation.  It is my hope that we will also see a shift to safer technology and improved guidelines for protecting public health.

To ensure this happens within the next decade rather than the next century we need independent funding of science on the biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic energy.  The money spent on research will be repaid many times with the money saved on health care costs, disability compensation for those who develop electrohypersensitvitiy, and improved performance at work and school.

Revised May 17 2010. Head of the INTERPHONE study, Elisabeth Cardis, and scientists in Israel link mobile phones to parotid gland tumors. Dr. Siegal Sadetski, testifies at US Senate Hearing

Magda Havas, BSc., PhD

Institute for Health Studies and Environmental & Resource Studies, Trent University, Peterborough, ON, Canada.

DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO in high resolution (QuickTime required)

VIEW/DOWNLOAD article in PDF

Portions of the much delayed Interphone Study are now released. It was initiated in 2000 as an international set of case-control studies in 13 countries around the world focusing on four types of tumours in tissues that most absorb RF energy emitted by mobile phones: tumours of the brain (glioma and meningioma), of the acoustic nerve (schwannoma), and of the parotid gland. The objective was to determine whether mobile phone use increases the risk of these tumours. Interphone is the largest case- control study of mobile phone use and brain tumours yet and includes the largest numbers of users with at least 10 years of exposure.

The study found that if you used a cell phone for longer than ten years, there were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma, and much less so meningioma, in the highest decile of cumulative call time, (more than 10 years)  in subjects who reported usual phone use on the same side of the head as their tumour and, for glioma, for tumours in the temporal lobe. Unfortunately, the data collected on the acoustic nerve and parotid glands has been left out of the findings – WHY?

The video below presents some good answers.

The Facts of Salivary Gland Tumors and Interphone

It begins as a lump or mass on the side of the face in front of the ear, at or above the jawbone. If the growth is slow and the lump is painless it is likely to be benign (80% of cases). If the area is painful or numb (nerve paralysis) it may be malignant (20% of cases) and the prognosis is poor with average survival of 2.7 years and a 10-year survival of 14-26%. It affects between 1 to 3 people per 100,000 each year in the Western world. What I am referring to is a parotid gland tumor (PGT), also known as salivary gland tumor (SGT).

Parotid tumors have not received much attention until recently.

Roger Ebert, 63, Pulitzer prize-winning movie critic in the Ebert & Roeper show, had his cancerous parotid gland tumor removed June 16, 2006.

Lebron James, 24, basketball MVP for the Cleveland Cavaliers, underwent surgery for a benign parotid tumor in June 2009.

Adam Yauch, 44, of the Beastie Boys was diagnosed in July 2009 with a malignant parotid tumor and is scheduled for surgery. His band had to cancel engagements as a consequence. Click here to view his statement on YouTube.

Senator John McCain had part of his left parotid gland removed in 2000 although this was in conjunction with removal of lymph nodes as a precautionary step because of his bout with cancer. Recent photographs of John McCain (April 2008) show an enlarged mass on the left side of his face right where his parotid gland is located.

Salivary gland tumors have been associated with ionizing radiation including X-rays and gamma radiation following environmental exposure. For example, survivors of the atomic bomb in Nagasaki and Hiroshima experienced an increase rate in salivary gland tumors. Radiation therapy, including x-ray of the head or radiation for enlarged tonsils in children or for various types of cancers, has also been implicated in this type of tumor, as has inhalation of carcinogens (asbestos mining, plumbing, rubber manufacturing, and wood dust); and various types of viral infections (herpes and possibly HIV).

In 2008, another culprit contributing to salivary gland tumors was identified – the mobile phone. Dr. Siegal Sadetzki, who testified in September 2009 at a US Senate Hearing on cell phones, is the Principle Investigator of this report that was based on a Nationwide Israel case-control study for the period 2001 to 2003. One of the co-authors of this report, Elisabeth Cardis, is the head of the just released $15 plus million dollar, 13-country INTERPHONE epidemiological study of tumor risk for adult mobile phone users. She is also the co-ordinator of the European Commission project MOBI-Kids, which is evaluating the possible association between communication technology and risk of brain tumors in young people.

While previous studies found no association with mobile phone use and PGT, the most recent and largest study to date (Sadetzki et al. 2008) does report such an association.

If you read the abstract it is a bit confusing for the average person because it states the following:

“For the entire group, no increased risk of PGTs was observed for ever having been a regular cellular phone user (odds ratio = 0.87; p=0.3) or for any other measure of exposure investigated.” The odds ratio is scientific notation that identifies the degree of risk (above 1 is higher risk and below 1 is lower risk) and the probability value (p) indicates whether this finding is statistically significant (generally when p is less than 0.05 it is considered significant). So the above quote agrees with previous studies that there was no association between salivary gland tumors and cell phone use.

BUT – The very next sentence shows that there is a danger for some individuals and reads: “However, analysis restricted to regular users or to conditions that may yield higher levels of exposure (e.g. heavy use in rural areas) showed consistently elevated risks.”

So what does this elevated risk amount to?

The report states that your risk of getting a parotid tumor on the same side of your head that you use for listening to the mobile phone increases by . . .

• 34% if you are a regular cell phone user and have used a mobile phone for 5 years.
• 58% if you had more than 5,479 calls in your life-time.
• 49% if you have spoken on the phone for more than 266.3 hours during your life-time.
• 47% if you have used a mobile phone for 5 years or more and have had more than 5,479 calls in your life-time.
• 50% if you have used a mobile phone for 5 years or more and have spoken on the phone for more than 266.3 hours.

And if you live in a rural away from major cities area your risk increases by . . .

• 81% if you have made more than 18,996 calls in your life-time.
• 96% if you have a life-time exposure of more than 1,035 hours.

. . . since towers are farther apart, mobile phones have to emit higher levels of radiation to communicate with the nearest antenna.

Other reports back up this study.

A study conducted by the Israeli Dental Association between 1970 and 2006 reports a large increase in cancers of the salivary gland in Israel which may related to use of cell phones (cited in the daily Haaretz July 2009).

“Between 1980 and 2002, the number of parotid salivary cancers has remained stable at 25 per year, whereas this figure rose to 75 during the next five years,” said Avi Zini, Hadassah School of Dental Medicine. Every fifth patient was under the age of 20. While this study did not include information on cell phone use, researchers plan to collect this data in the next stage of their study.

The message from these reports are the same . . . the higher the exposure, the longer the exposure, the greater the risk! That is why scientists are finding an association with ipsilateral (same side of the head) tumors generally after 10 years of regular or heavy mobile phone use. This is the case for tumors of the brain (gliomas), the nerve leading to the ear (acoustic neuroma), the eye (uveal melanoma), and now the salivary gland (parotid tumor).

The statement above is also why some studies don’t find an association with tumors and cell phone use and is the cause for so much confusion in the media . . . Most studies that report cell phones are safe allow for an exposure period that is too short, and the users are defined as anyone who uses a cell phone at least once a week for 6 months or more. This dilutes the data in favor of “no effect”. The same logic can be used for cigarettes. We now know tobacco is carcinogenic but we would not expect to find lung cancer among those who smoke one cigarette a week and have been smoking for just over 6 months. Read these reports carefully and they will state we need long-term studies.

While individuals can reduce their use of mobile phones, or follow the advise of doctors who suggest using wired air-tube headsets, some of the onus needs to be placed at the feet of the telecom industry that makes huge profits from selling these devices. If mobile phones can be designed to take photographs and videos, to record voices or play music, to tell you where you are and what time it is, then surely they can be re-designed to emit less radiation and to prevent the phone being placed against the head.

As a scientist, I’m disturbed knowing that policy makers largely ignore studies showing adverse health effects of microwave radiation. What will it take for officials in regulating agencies to recognize that exposing the head to microwave radiation at current levels may be as foolish as X-raying children’s feet to fit them with shoes as was done a few decades ago?

With 4 billion mobile phone users worldwide, if we don’t react in a timely fashion to these “early warnings” we will face a human health tsunami. But, unlike natural tsunamis that happen quickly and – once the devastation ends – survivors can rebuild their lives, the microwave tsunami is likely to be a slow, silent, invisible killer taking a few lives at a time. The longer we ignore this threat, the more lives that will be lost, unnecessarily. While I hope I am wrong, I fear . . . I might be right. Time will tell.

For more information:

Amiriak, B, HWM Chim, EH Chen, and DW Stepnick. updated Jun 24 2009. Parotid Tumors.

Calabrese, DM and RJ Frey. 2009. Salivary Gland Tumors.

Hardell, L. M. Carlberg, and K. Hansson Mild. 2009. Epidemiological evidence for an association between use of wireless phones and tumor diseases. Pathophysiology 16(2):113-122.

Lonn,S., A Ahlbom, HC Christensen, et al. 2006. Mobile phone use and risk of parotid gland tumor. Amer. J. Epid. 164(7):637-643.

National Cancer Institute. Salivary Gland Cancer Treatment.

Sadetzki, S, A Chetrit, A Jarus-Hakak, E Cardis, Y Deutch, S Duvdevani, A Zultan, I Novikov, L Freedman, and M. Wolf. 2008. Cellular phone use and risk of benign and malignant parotid gland tumors—A nationwide case-control study. Amer. J. Epid. 167 (4): 457-467.

Zarbo, R. 2001. Salivary Gland Neoplasia: A review of the practicing pathologist. Mod Pathol 202: 15(3): 298-323.

April 2010.  Dr. Santosh Kesari, Director of Neuro-Oncology at the Moores Cancer Center at UC San Diego, believes the latest findings that cell phones can lead to brain tumours. In this video he discusses the findings and informs the host about a clinic in San Diego that’s helping to treat brain tumours.

March 2010.  Live blood cells came reveal important information about your health, so I decided to test my own blood.  The first time I tested my blood it was clumped and not looking very healthy and then I realized that I had been working at my computer prior to testing.  So the next day, August 20, I did some timed and controlled sampling.  What I found is shown in the video below.

Fortunately, my blood returns to “normal” within 10 minutes after I stop using my computer.  Others may not be so lucky.

Live blood cell analysis, in its simplest form (i.e. examining the size, shape, and clumping of cells ) may reveal information about electrohypersensitivity that doctors could use in their clinics and that scientists could use in addition to questionnaires and other types of testing.

Posted February 2010. In December 2009 an array of cell phone antennas was placed on an apartment building at 2 Regal Rd. in downtown Toronto, much to the surprise of the residents who first became aware of this construction as the cranes moved in. Watch the video and listen to what Veronica Ciandre experienced.

Within two months, those who lived on the top floor of this apartment building began to feel ill. Nausea, dizziness, buzzing in the ears, headaches, head pressure, difficulty sleeping, brain fog, skin rash, burning sensation in the skin, and a metallic taste in the mouth were just some of the symptoms. One woman and her daughter became so sick, they could no longer stay in their apartment and moved in with friends. The antennas were close enough to be touched by a broom from the top floor balcony.

Click HERE to view a PDF of Veronica Ciandre’s story – My Life 6ft Under Cell Towers.

On February 13, 2010, the tenants asked us to visit their building and measure the radiation in their penthouse apartment and on their balcony. Levels of radiation were among the highest we’ve ever measured and we used several meters that all gave similar readings.

In Canada, Industry Canada approves the location of antennas on roofs. Indeed some believe that the lowest levels of radiation are immediately below the antennas so putting them on school rooftops, hotels, or apartment buildings is safe. This is wrong. Some of the highest readings we recorded were immediately below the antennas in the various bedrooms.

One of our more expensive meters stopped working when we tried to measured the exposure on the balcony and later learned this meter was programmed with a safety feature that turned itself off, to protect the electronics, when exposed to high levels of radiation.

You might expect levels this high to exceed Health Canada’s guideline for microwave exposure. This was not the case. Safety Code 6 states that if the power density, averaged over 6 minutes, is below a certain value (1000 micro Watts per square centimetre for cell phone frequencies) it will not heat your tissue and is considered safe. This guideline may be appropriate for cell phones where the user talks for, at most, a few hours, but for antennas on top of your bedroom, where you spend a third of your life sleeping, an exposure guideline of 6 minutes is grossly inadequate.

Let’s use cooking as the analogy for this thermal guideline. If it takes 6 minutes to cook a potato in a microwave oven set at high power, then we may assume that cooking the potato twice as long may require half the power. We can extend this cooking analogy to an 8-hour period during sleep or possibly a 24-hour period for those who are home all day. Based on this type of calculation the residents in the penthouse apartment of this building are “cooked” within one week. In other words, if exposures were weighted for time, the Safety Code 6 Guideline would be exceeded within one week.

Epidemiologists have found high cancer rates on the upper floors and residents have successfully removed cell phone antennas from apartment buildings, but only after years of struggle because of long-term, iron clad contracts that are highly profitable to landlords.

If landlords knew that these microwave transmitters affected the health of their tenants and of those in nearby apartment building, and if they knew that they might be legally liable for health claims attributed to these antennas they might not be so quick to sign these lucrative deals.  The woman in this case has hired an attorney and is suing her landlord.

As awareness increases, occupants are likely to move out of these “sick” buildings resulting in vacant apartment complexes that are “condemned” by the neighbourhood. This type of action will surely send a strong signal to landlords and developers who think of roof-top towers as vertical realestate for cell phone antennas.

I’m not against cell phone antennas being placed on towers far from human habitation. However, these antennas should not be placed on top of or near apartment buildings, hotels, office buildings, schools, hospitals and fire halls, in other words, where people spend more than a third of their life. No amount of concealment will reduce the radiation from these antennas.

The media has started to bring attention to this issue. They need to investigate the microwave dangers lurking on the roof especially in large urban centres where roof-top antennas are the norm.

Posted January 2010. ‘Mobile-Boro Man’ -is his second addiction a cancer-cell phone? was written by Michael Moffa and appeared in the Hong Kong Edition of China Daily on December 25, 2009. It questions whether we are becoming addicted to our cell phones and, as you might guess from the title, it makes a connection between mobile phones and cigarette smoking.

Credits: Photo by Timothy Chui.

November 6 & 8, 2009.

Radiation from Wireless Phones Linked to Heart Irregularities.

BOULDER, Colo. — Dr. Magda Havas, Professor of Environmental and Resource Studies at Trent University, Canada, will present new evidence showing a link between heart irregularities and electromagnetic fields from wireless portable digital phone base stations at the American Holistic Medical Association conference in Cleveland, OH on Friday, November 6th and at a conference of the EMF Policy Institute in Golden, CO, Sunday, November 8th.

Click here for press release in pdf format.