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.

October 21, 2010.  While the rest of the world rushes onwards with the wireless revolution, Switzerland – the country that invented the World Wide Web – and the largest telecom provider – SWISSCOM which is owned (52%) by the Swiss government  - have decided to light up the public school’s wired networks using fiber optics FOR FREE!

But there is one catch – the schools must use LAN – local area network with at least four connected PCs and the speed of the connection will be assigned in accordance with the number of computers linked to the school’s LAN. Specifically, the Swisscom application documentation states that the schools pay for the internal wiring and connect their devices (PC, printer) via an Ethernet LAN/10BaseT/RJ45 and then connect it to a Swisscom AG’s CISCO router on site. Swisscom then brings the fiber optic connection to the school.

Switzerland has always had free internet access and schools could use WiFi if they wanted to. But to get the efficiency from Fiber Optics, you need to use a wired LAN internet connection to get the benefit of the high bandwidth that fiber offers when hundreds of computers are streaming video at the same time.  With the Internet For Schools program – the more computers that you have on your wired LAN the higher the bandwidth they provide. It’s an incentive to go wired.

Click here to read more about Swisscom’s offer for Free Internet in Schools.

Most schools in North America are opting for a total WiFI wireless local area network (WLAN) that allows computers and laptops to be connected to each other without wires. But the Swiss and German governments prefers – LAN – wired networks that do not emit microwave radiation.

Click Here to read the WiFi warnings and suggestions that Switzerland and Germany provides to schools.

For example, on their public health website, they specifically warn about the dangers of WiFi:

“Only switch your WLAN (WiFi) on when you need it. With laptops, in particular, it is a good idea to switch the WLAN (WiFi) off as otherwise the device will repeatedly try to connect to a network, leading to unnecessary radiation…and caution should be exercised primarily when using devices held close to the body, such as laptops, PDAs and Internet telephones”.

To help you understand the reasoning why Switzerland prefers LAN over WiFi (wireless internet), we have produced a short video that will provide some insight as to why the Swiss government is so forward thinking in matters related to the children’s health and education when it involves internet access.

After you watch the video – explore the links to the Swiss Office of Public Health website. No need to read between the lines, just pay attention to the bold text.

If WiFi WAS BAD – WHY DON”T THEY TELL US?

So – why the WiFI warnings? Could it be that there are health problems related to the technology? Judging by the warnings from Switzerland’s Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) website, it seems that the Swiss health officials might have some insider information – possibly from the World Health Organization that is also based in Switzerland. The WHO is the clearing house for microwave research – right?  If the WHO’s scientists, who live and work in Switzerland, find something is wrong, they will surely want to tell their own citizens and protect their family and children – right?   Is this the reason why they have one of the better microwave safety standards in the world?

SHOW ME THE PROOF

Critics who say there is no proof that low level non-ionizing microwave radiation is harmful only need to look to Swisscom, the government owned telecommunications provider that applied for a patent for a method to completely eliminate the radiation caused by the WiFi base station when not in use.

Click HERE to download the patent and related materials.

Swisscom promotes the methods described in this patent to offer low/no radiation cordless phones for their customers.  Click HERE to read about these ECO-DECT cordless phones from their website.

But here is the most revealing part of the patent application.  Swisscom, documented that the radiation was harmful by including studies conducted by scientists at the World Health Organization! A well informed public was also very vocal about microwave radiation. The Swiss government has enacted some of the world strictest radiation guidelines. These new laws for limits were not welcomed by the Mobile Manufacturers Forum and they still complain that it limits their ability to do business in Switzerland.

Click here to read The Switzerland EMF Policy and Facts from the MMF (Mobile Manufactures Forum.)

So, next time someone in the wireless industry points to the World Health Organization to say there is no proof of harm from electromagnetic radiation – you might want to offer them a clue and point them to the “Real World” Health Organization and the Swisscom patents.

And for those of you who like cartoons – in the Simpsons you will often hear “Won’t somebody please think of the children!” If you use a baby monitor, you will want to read this page on the Swiss Public Health website. The VOICE ACTIVATED baby monitors that they describe are not commonly found in stores in North America.

Thank you Switzerland for the English translations of your website. Our crew loved filming in your country and I highly recommend your country as a vacation destination or even as a second home.

Sept 27 2010.  New book by Devra Davis - Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Has Done to Hide It, and How to Protect Your Family.

Step 1 – Watch this video before you read any further. It’s a CBC news report about the book and it will provide a good understanding of how scientists and doctors are treated if they find something wrong with the telecommunications industry.

Step 2 – Buy multiple copies of this book and give them away to your friends. You might save their life.

As a teacher and scientist with tenure at a major university, the title of this book speaks volumes, especially the part about corporations trying to hide the truth. Devra writes about how our colleagues are persecuted when they try to bring their important discoveries to the public’s attention.

For example, a well established scientist and friend, Dr. Henry Lai says “it’s fairly simple to show that cell phone radiation can damage DNA with the right equipment that is available at universities” – but if you show the results to the public, that’s most likely the last time you will use the equipment.  If your research depends on the use of that equipment, you won’t get funding for any more research! How many people out there really want to lose their job?

Click here to read a presentation showing DNA breaks from cell phone radiation.

Fortunately, my university specializes in environmental studies and I have the freedom to teach about how EMF effects all life on the planet – not just humans. My courses also teach students the methods corporations use to apply pressure on politicians, the government and the media to remain silent if something is found wrong with their product. Just like in the movie: The Matrix, I try to prepare my students what to expect in “The Real World”.

Personally, I went through a similar saga before with my research on acid rain. The power utilities that operated coal plants said that acid rain did not exist and if it did, it couldn’t damage the lakes and forests. A group of fellow scientists got together, we pooled our research and presented the evidence to the media.  After leaning about our results, the enraged public then voted in favor of the politicians who wanted to close the coal plants and clean the air. The difference was, thirty years ago, the public could see the air pollution as “SMOG”.

Unfortunately, in this battle with the giants of the wireless industries – you can’t see the “electrosmog.” You need to show that it exists using meters. And when you do show that the electrosmog is harming people, the industry will fund scientists to discredit the research or the researchers who publish documents showing “no effect”. It’s purpose is to confuse the public.

These scientists are like corporate lawyers, hired to find ways to WEIGH the evidence.  They put the damaging findings on one side of the balance scale and then they fund enough studies to show “no effect” until it tips the scales. The government health agencies can then say “we looked at all of the available evidence and the weight of the evidence shows that there is NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT! ”  Now go back to your cell phones and have fun! Download those cool apps!

Unlike air pollution, people are unaware of electrosmog . . . until they get sick from it. Then they go to their doctors complaining of mysterious aches and pains. The doctors have no understanding that microwave radiation at low levels can make people sick.  They didn’t learn this in medical school.  Also, the telecommunication and electronic industries would probably cut the funding of teaching hospitals, medical universities and cancer clinics and charities if they did begin to document and speak out about the health effects of the radiation emitting from their products.

Then there is the media. The investigative reporter digs to find the truth, writes the story and is told by the editor to not write any more articles that will upset their largest advertiser – the telecommunications industry. They are told ” how can we print this article that cell phones may give you cancer and on the next page show a full page ad for the iPhone?”  I know of reporters who lost their jobs because of this.

Are we all doomed? Not yet. The tide is turning. The proof is in the video above.

When the CBC, a government TV broadcaster, decides to expose corporations like Apple and Rim for “hiding” in small print the warnings about holding the cell phone a certain way, we know that they are more interested in presenting the truth than loosing the advertisers that will be effected by it.

When the CBC shows how poorly scientists and activists, like Devra Davis, are treated when they present proof of breaks in DNA – the CBC turns them into heros for risking their jobs and reputation. That will hopefully bring out the closet scientists, concerned doctors and aspiring politicians who now see that the coast is becoming clear.

It’s time to pull back the veil of electrosmog and clear the air.

Speaking of clearing the air – have a look at this video that was produced by the tobacco industry. It’s funny – but real.

The video below is a 40 minute Youtube playlist about how the cellphone safety standards were developed by the cell phone industry and the military. Just click of the video and the other videos will play automatically.

Sept 2010. Almost everyone who reads the papers, watches TV or listens to the radio has now heard that the H1N1 pandemic did not pan out as was anticipated and is causing the World Health Organization to come under fire by health officials that spent billions of dollars on vaccines that are now useless.

WHO admits to “inconsistencies” in its policy on conflicts of interest.

The World Health Organization has now admitted that its policies governing the publication of conflicts of interests of its “expert advisers” have “inconsistencies” and that safeguards “surrounding engagements with industry” need to be tightened. They point out that their advisors where receiving money from the drug industry.  Click HERE to read the report.

The joint BMJ and bureau investigation found that key scientists advising WHO on planning for a flu pandemic had done paid work for drug firms that stood to gain from the guidance and that the agency had not declared these conflicts of interests. In addition, the names of 16 members of the WHO “emergency committee” have been kept secret to outsiders, and as such their possible conflicts of interest with drug companies are unknown.

The WHO’s image is now tarnished……

A report was made by Dr. Margaret Chan, the Director-General to the Executive Board at its 126th session Geneva, Switzerland. 18 January 201o.

“Although the virus has not yet delivered any devastating surprises, we have seen some surprises on other fronts. We anticipated problems in producing enough vaccine fast enough, and this did indeed happen. But we did not anticipate that people would decide not to be vaccinated.

I mentioned the revolution in communications and information technologies. In today’s world, people can draw on a vast range of information sources. People make their own decisions about what information to trust, and base their actions on those decisions.

The days when health officials could issue advice, based on the very best medical and scientific data, and expect populations to comply, may be fading. It may no longer be sufficient to say that a vaccine is safe, or testing complied with all regulatory standards, or a risk is real.

In my view, this is a new communications challenge that we may need to address.”

It is clear that the Internet has changed the way the public gets their information concerning health issues. Health websites like Mercola.com, Andrew Weil, and many others are now the beacons of light that shine the truth. Some traditional media publishers such as Prevention and GQ no longer fear the wrath of the FCC or the wireless industry advertiser and now use their print publications and websites to inform the public that the dangers of EMF are real and the governments need to change the safety limits now.

It is becoming clear that the WHO is quickly losing credibility with the media and the governments from around the world. We are witnessing a culture shift where the public no longer trusts their own doctors or Public Health Board – or local media providers that quote the WHO and it’s advisors…

Governments can no longer quote the World Health Organization hoping to placate the public that questions the safety of cell phones, WIFI, cell towers, powerlines and other sources of electromagnetic radiation.

The WHO continues to send mixed messages. On their website they state:

Do mobile phones pose a cancer risk? Coordinated by WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the largest ever international study of mobile phone safety has concluded that the devices do not raise the risk of brain cancer, except for a possible slight increase in tumours among the most intensive users!

How can you say in one sentence that there is no risk, and then say that there is if you use your phone intensively?  ”The more you use your phone the greater the risk” is what the WHO should have said.

For those that still have faith in the WHO – Here is a presentation from Michael Repacholi - Is there a similar conflict of interest? < Learn more about the WHO’s main EMF advisor.

Professor Michael Repacholi, University of Rome

April 2010.  Dr. Santosh Kesari, Director of Neuro-Oncology at the Moores Cancer Center at UC San Diego, presents the latest findings from studies that show cell phone use can lead to brain tumours. He also presents new breakthroughs in medicine that can shrink the tumours that are possibly related to cell phones.

November 2009. Many doctors are unfamiliar with the symptoms related to electrical sensitivity. Dr. Joseph Mercola of www.mercola.com often presented warnings related to electromagnetic fields on his website and he has now enlisted the help of Vicki Warren, an EMF specialist, to create a dedicated website to the subject. The new site is called EMF Mercola and can be viewed at http://emf.mercola.com. Here is a review that was recently published about my book: Public Health SOS that was co-written with Camilla Rees.