January 6, 2012.  It is turning out not to be a good year for mobile phone users and for the naysayers who are trying to convince everyone that mobile phones are safe.

The long-awaited Cardis study, published January 2, 2012 in Occupational and Environmental Medicine (available online since June 2011), concludes that there is an increased risk of glioma (a type of brain tumor) in long-term mobile phone users with high RF (radio frequency) exposure and a lower risk for meningioma (a tumor of the membrane surrounding the brain). Indeed the risk for meningiomas was statistically significant in one analysis (after 7-years for group with highest exposure that included 21 cases and 51 controls).

This study, unlike other studies, attempted to estimate the amount of radiation at the site of the tumour.

The authors state, “This present paper is the first to use estimates of radio frequency energy deposition at the centre of tumours in the brain as a measure of radio frequency dose.”

Scientists observed  an increasing trend in gliomas with increasing radio freuqency dose for exposures after 7 years.  This relationship is statistically significant with a 1% probability  (p=0.01) that it is due to chance.  The exposure duration  is earlier than in previous studies that generally cite an inceased risk of tumours with mobile phone use after 10 or more years. Tumours were located primarily in the part of the brain receiving the maximum RF exposure.  While there are many types of potential errors in this type of work, the results agree with previous studies showing an increased risk of tumours on the side of the head receiving the greatest RF exposure for heavy mobile phone users.

This study included data from five countries–Australia, Canada, France, Israel and New Zealand–and, in this line-up, Canada faired the worst for gliomas (statistically significant increased risk of 248%) and New Zealand faired the worst for meningiomas (452% increased risk marginally insignificant at p=0.05).

These data point to a causal association but the authors conclude that, “The uncertainty of these results requires that they be replicated before a causal interpretation can be made.”  While this is correct from a scientific perspective, I question this conclusion from an ethical and policy perspective. What we do not lack are volunteers subjecting themselves to this radiation. What we do lack is funding to conduct studies on RF exposure for cancers and other illnesses and the political will to act in the interim based on data that are already remarkably damaging about the safety of mobile phone use and RF exposure.

For free pdf of this study, click here.

January 5, 2012.  In May of 2011, the IARC (International Association for Research on Cancer) declared radio frequency radiation as a possible cause of cancer. In this video you will listen to excerpts from the press conference and the related microwave radio frequency radiation emitted by cell phones and cell towers. You can then decide if you want to live near cell towers and if you want to hold a mobile phone next to your brain.

December 4, 2011. A growing number of schools are having wireless routers installed across North America despite the fact that many of these schools already have ethernet connections and students are able to access the internet.

I have been asked to give lectures on this topic to many different groups. For those who would like information about Wi-Fi in schools and whether or not it is safe, please watch this video. Click here for video and here for pdf.

Some students, in schools with Wi-Fi, are complaining about ill health that includes headaches, dizziness, nausea, weakness and heart palpitations. Exposure in one school has exceeded Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 guideline but no one in Municipal, Provincial or Federal Health Departments/Ministries is responding.

Teachers concerned about exposure are told to keep quiet and not to speak publicly against School Board Policy.

Parents don’t know if their children are attending schools that have wireless routers as they have NOT been consulted about this and are NOT required to give consent for their children to be exposed to microwave radiation.

Some School Boards are measuring the microwave radiation in the classroom but the measurements are deeply flawed as those doing the monitoring are unqualified and are taking measurements inappropriately. The routers in some schools are hidden behind ceiling tiles and the technicians don’t know where these are.

We are heading for a health tsunami if we expose young children to pulsed microwave radiation generated by Wi-Fi routers in the classroom for the duration of their school education.

The World Health Organization in May 2011 classified this form of radiation as a possible human carcinogen, but this has not affected School Board policy. They can’t get Wi-Fi into schools fast enough.

Those of us who have been studying this issue for decades are perplexed that those responsible for the education of the next generation are so out of touch with reality and are so irresponsible in the decisions they are making that will affect the lives of many young people and their teachers. They are undemocratic in their conduct and, when all else fails, they resort to bullying tactics.  Are these the type of people we want making policy decisions and educating our children and grandchildren?

If you care about the health of students and their teachers, please watch and share this video.  Click here to watch video and click here if your prefer to read it as a pdf.

For more information about Wi-Fi in schools, visit the following websites:

www.safeschool.ca
www.citizensforsafetechnology.org
www.centerforsaferwireless.org
www.emfeffectsonkids.com
www.wiredchild.org

August, 31, 2011.

Steve,

I am a long-time Apple user. My first Apple computer was the Apple 512k that I used as a “portable” computer for several years. You opened the world of technology to so many people who could intuitively use a Mac with no need for instructions. I use it for my teaching (as a university professor) and my research (on electrosmog and electrosensitivity). For that I thank you. Your products, since those early computers, are marvellous but I have some serious concerns about the wireless components.

I work with people who have become electrically sensitive and become ill when exposed to radio frequency radiation. The US government is unwilling to acknowledge how dangerous this technology is so it is up to industry leaders and innovators, like yourself and your company, to lead the way.

Have your scientists been honest with you about the dangers of RF radiation or have they tried to shield you from this information? This is what the science is showing and it is likely to get a lot worse so please consider innovations that allow users to connect as safely as possible.

The pulsed radio frequencies have been associated with various types of cancers including–but not limited to–gliomas (brain), acoustic neuromas (ear), uveal melanomas (eyes), and parotid (salivary gland) tumors that appear, often on the same side of the head exposed to a cell phone, after 10 years of moderate to heavy use. Kids are at a greater risk because they don’t have a developed immune system and their cells are dividing rapidly. Exposure to the radiation generated by cell phones and wireless computers are linked to deformed sperm that swim slowly and die quickly. This–in turn–is contributing to problems with declining fertility for couples wanting to get pregnant. Cell phone users complain of headaches, skin problems, brain fog, depression, anxiety, ringing in the ear. Those who live near cell phone antennas have similar complaints including difficulty sleeping, body pain, nausea, and dizziness.  The risk of cancers, for those living near these antennas, is increasing.

Radiation affects the immune system and can lead to secondary ailments. It places stress on the body as shown by heat shock protein research. It increases the permeability of the blood brain barrier allowing potentially toxic substances to enter the brain. I could go on but I think you get the point. By allowing apps on smart phones that enable people to measure their exposure to radiation, you will help raise their awareness and allow them to make more informed choices about when and how they use their smart phones, wireless computers, ipads, etc. We are not going to give up our smart phones, just like we are not going to give up our cars, but learning how to drive safely and having seat belts and other innovations that protect the occupant and those on the road are as vital for the car driver as they are for the billions of mobile phone users.

The two most important aspects of a quality life are having loving friends and good health. With your many innovations you enable friends to keep in touch . . . now enable them to do so safely without sacrificing their health.

Very sorry to hear about your recent resignation and your on-going health problems. May your health improve and may you take this message seriously and instruct the many brilliant staff working for Apple who can make a difference to do so . . . for the good of humanity.

-magda

August 28, 2011.  A hair stylist in Toronto noticed discolourations on the scalp of adolescents. The marks were often in the temporal lobe near the ear although some were on the top or back of the head.  Since most of the blemishes were covered by hair they were difficult to see.This is what she had to say about the marks: On a few occasions, I saw one spot on each side [of the head] in similar or same positions above the ear.  Sometimes there are up to 6 on the head.  They range from light pink to dark brown and blackish.  Some of them look new and developing.  Sometimes they are perfectly round with darkened edges, sometimes random shapes with uneven edges. Sometimes they are a bit like oozing blemishes, sometimes a bit crusty.  Sometimes there might be a few or many on one side of head above and around ear, neck and cheek size of a pea to size of a nickel.  They are most common from grade 3 up to grade 7.  In grade 8 the numbers begin to drop off.  Whatever these blemishes are, the numbers and regularity, with which I see them, is alarming.  One immediately thinks of melanoma, a malignant tumor–often on the skin–that contains dark pigment. She goes on to say . . . While I am aware that the sun is often cited as reason for concern, I cannot help but wonder if the rapid increase in young children’s exposure to various levels of radiation in the home, school, and public environments has something to do with this.  The highest amount of blemishes, per-capita, was on a group of children who apparently carry their blackberries in the pockets of their school uniforms all day long, and have probably been doing it for a few years. Characteristic signs of melanoma include a spot that is asymmetrical, that has irregular borders, that has a range of colours, and is larger than the diameter of a pencil eraser as shown in this figure.

Compare these to the spots on the children’s head.   Clearly, some require examination by a qualified dermatologist to ensure that they are not malignant.

The message for parents is to check their children for head blemishes and to notify their family doctor if any resemble melanomas.  This is especially important if your child uses a mobile phone.

“Dear 16-year-old Me” is an excellent 5-minute video made possible by the David Cornfield Melanoma Fund (DCMF).  This video, now available in English, French, Spanish, and Russian has gone viral. It is well worth watching and sharing. Click here to watch.

August 17, 2011.  Scientific documents published in peer-reviewed journals are intended to be read by scientists with specific areas of specialization.   A layperson, a journalist and even a scientist–who specializes in a different field–may find reading and comprehending such a document difficult. Critiquing such documents is what we teach university students. Once they learn how to decipher a scientific paper and decompose a study, they no longer need to rely on the opinion of others about that document. Teaching students how to think for themselves is one of the roles of a university professor.

I recently read  Mobile phone use and brain tumors in children and adolescents:  A multicenter case-control study, published in June 2011 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.  What is in the abstract of this publication and what has been quoted by the press is not a fair and honest representation of the findings of this study.

If you want to know what is really happening with cell phones and cancer – you need to learn how to read between the lines. That is what scientists do. They go beyond the abstract and read the document.  They examine the results and compare their own conclusions to those of the authors’.  Some authors who are dealing with controversial, contentious, politically charged issues or those who have a bias–financial or otherwise–may deemphasize a finding to minimize backlash directed at them or their study.  But, if the authors are honest, the document will provide the truth–sometimes buried between the lines–for other scientists to find.   The truth is out there. You just need to learn how to find it.

Let’s examine the Röösli study and see what it really says.  Click here for PDF of study.

The results in the abstract of this study, which is what most people read, state the following (emphasis and comments in square brackets [] are mine):

1. Regular users of mobile phones were not statistically significantly more likely to have been diagnosed with brain tumors compared with nonusers (OR = 1.36; 95% CI = 0.92 to 2.02).
2. Children who started to use mobile phones at least 5 years ago were not at increased risk compared with those who had never regularly used mobile phones (OR = 1.26, 95% CI = 0.70 to 2.28).
3. In a subset of study participants for whom operator recorded data were available, brain tumor risk was related to the time elapsed since the mobile phone subscription was started [no odds ratio is provided] but not to amount of use.
4. NO increased risk of brain tumors was observed for brain areas receiving the highest amount of exposure.

Based on these results it was natural for the authors to conclude the following:

The absence of an exposure-response relationship either in terms of the amount of mobile phone use or by localization of the brain tumor argues against a causal association.

Any parent, doctor, policy maker, journalist reading this would conclude that cell phone use by children–based on the conditions in this study–is unlikely to be harmful and indeed may be “safe.”

But is this what the study showed or is the abstract misleading by deemphasizing adverse outcomes?

*****

Here is what the abstract failed to say about risk to children and adolescents:

RESULTS:

1.  If you use a cell phone at least once a week for at least 6 months you are classified as a regular user.  This limited exposure, both in terms of amount and duration, dilutes the results and favors a “no effect”  as shown in Table 2.

2.  Based on records from your cell phone provider, if you use the phone for more than 2.8 years your chance of getting a brain tumour goes up by 115% and the longer you use it the greater the risk.

3.  Those who use a cell phone have an increased risk of developing a tumour on the side of the head and a reduced risk of developing a tumour in the center of the head.  This may be an artifact or it may be real.  More studies are necessary.

4.  For tumors on the side of head (same or opposite side held to a cell phone) the following was found:

a.  The longer your subscription the greater the risk of lateral brain tumours.  For subscriptions beyond 4 years the increased risk is between 274% to 300%.

b.  There is evidence that tumor detection for “time since first use” is much shorter for children than for adults (more than 10 years) with statistically significant findings between 3.3 and 5.0 years (227% increased risk).

c.  The more cumulative time you spend on calls the greater your risk of developing a tumour on the side of your head.  Above 144 hours the risk increases to 519%.

d.  The more calls made, the greater the risk of lateral tumours.  More than 2638 calls and the risk increases by 191% to 482%.

CONCLUSION:  The increased risk for brain tumours, on the side of the head for children and adolescents with such short duration and limited total calls, needs to be taken seriously as more young people are using cell phones and the longer they use them the greater their risk of developing a brain tumour.

RECOMMENDATION:  Keeping the phone away from the head and minimizing your time using a phone is highly recommended for all mobile phone users.  For more recommendations click here.

*****

Let’s have a look at the tables in this document and then you can decide which abstract, their’s or the one above, best summarizes the data.

Tables 2 to 5 provide the odds ratio (OR) and the  confidence interval (CI). First we have to understand what these mean.

OR is the odds ratio or the ratio of observed to expected results–in this case–for brain tumors.  The “observed” value is based on those who use cell phones and the  “expected” value is based on those who do not use cell phones (referent population).  Note the referent population OR is set at 1.0. An OR above one means a greater risk (harmful relationship) and an OR below one means a lower risk (beneficial relationship).

However, for this OR to be statistically significant, the CI (or confidence interval) must be above one for greater risk and below one for a reduced risk.  This is a quick way of determining if an OR is statistically significant. Scientists do some fancy calculations (logistic regression models) that give similar results. See figure below for the different types of OR and CI possible and what they mean.  Often a 95% CI is used, which means confidence that results will be within the interval indicated 95% of the time. In other words there is a 5% probability that the results are due to chance.  Those are pretty good odds!  If the value is greater than 5% it is rejected by convention.

Figure 1.  Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals.

Table 3. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for stratified analyses.

In Table 3, most of the ORs are above one, which indicates an increased risk, but these are not statistically significant (i.e. scientists don’t have confidence in the values) and hence it may not be necessary to mention them in the abstract.

However, one of the values was statistically significant (OR 1.92; CI 1.07 to 3.44) indicating a 92% increased risk for tumors in other than the cerebellum, temporal and frontal lobes (highlighted).  Indeed, this was important enough to be mentioned in the paper (see quote below) but not in the abstract:

We found no elevated risk among regular users of mobile phones when we looked at the parts of the brain with the highest radio frequency exposure, that is, the temporal and frontal lobes and the cerebellum (Table 3).  On the other hand, we did find a statistically significant odds ratio for tumors in the parts of the brain with the lowest exposure to radiation among regular users of mobile phones (OR = 1.92; CI = 1.07 to 3.44).

Perhaps the authors decided this did not make sense because one might expect the highest risk of cancer to be in locations with the highest radiation exposure (adjacent to the mobile phone) as was shown in the INTERPHONE study (2010).

Had this been the ONLY statistically significant increased risk in the entire paper it would make sense not to bring attention to it in the abstract because it may have been an anomaly due to error of some sort, but . . . let’s look at other results.

Table 4.  Comparison of analyses with operator-recorded and self-reported mobile phone use.

Once again, most of the ORs were above one (indicating an increased risk) but were not statistically significant.  The exception was for “time since first subscription based on operator-recorded use” (highlighted).  When this was compared with the referent  (never a regular user) the OR 2.15 (115% increased risk) was statistically significant (CI 1.07 to 4.29).  The trend for “operator recorded time since first subscription” was also statistically significant with a probability of 0.001 or with a 0.1% probably that this was due to chance (highlighted).  This was mentioned in the abstract although the OR was not provided.  If the OR is not provided it is difficult to determine the magnitude of the risk and difficult to quote as no value is provided.  So the authors were signaling that there is a problem.

Table 5.  Association between brain tumors and mobile phone use by side of phone use.

The data in Table 5 cannot be ignored.

In Table 5, all of the ORs were above one for both ipsilateral (same side of the head) and contralateral (opposite side of the head) tumours.  In this table, many more of the results were statistically significant (highlighted) and several showed a statistically significant trend with increasing exposure measured as duration of subscription (years), cumulative duration of calls (hours) and very close to significance (P=0.06) with cumulative number of calls (see table below, based on Table 5 in original document).

Based on Table 5.  Association between brain tumors and mobile phone use by side of phone use.

The table  above, indicates an increased risk for either or both ipsilateral and contralateral tumors for more than 937 cumulative calls; for more than 36 hours of cumulative calls; for more than 4 years cumulative duration of subscriptions and between 3.3 and 5.0 years since first use.  These ORs ranged from 2.66 to 6.19 (166% to 519% increased risk).  Why were these statistically significant ORs not mentioned in the abstract?

The fact that contralateral tumours have a higher OR than ipsilateral tumors is less of a concern if side of head recall was unreliable as the authors state below:

“ . . . subjects’ statements about which side of the head they preferred to hold the mobile phone near during its use are often considered unreliable . . . “

Whether you use the phone on the left side or the right side of the head, the side of the head is going to be exposed and the exposure is likely to be higher than in the center of the head. So the fact that contralateral tumour risks were high may not be an anomalous result as they may not necessarily be contralateral tumours (due to recall error).

The other interesting observation is that the ORs for tumours in central or unknown locations had ORs below one and some of these were statistically significant (blue box, Table 5).  So if lateral tumors are compared with central or unknown tumors the ORs are quite different.

Contrary to the conclusions–that the results in this document do not support a causal association between mobile phone use  and brain tumours–the results in this publication are disturbing as they indicate an increased risk of brain tumours in children and adolescents after relatively short periods of exposure (much shorter than for adults).

Indeed several scientists (Devra Davis, Lloyd Morgan, Ronald Herberman) have openly criticized this study, presumably after they went through a similar deconstruction and interpretation of the results. Click here for pdf. Sam Milham submitted a response to the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, which may or may not be published.  Click here for pdf. Others have lauded this report and I can’t help but wonder if they read it.

This is a very important paper and needs to be read properly.

When I provide papers such as this to my students for their own evaluation their eyes glaze over as they look at the tables.  Once they learn how to interpret the data in the tables they are often astounded by the discrepancy between their interpretation and those of the authors. Sometimes this is their first lesson that, “you should not believe everything you read, even if it is peer-reviewed.”

The abstract of this cell phone study does not adequately present the key findings in the study.  The omission of adverse results may be due to a number of things including funding bias. Unfortunately, who funds the study can influence the experimental design and the interpretation of the results (Huss et al. 2007; click here for pdf).  This was evident in the INTERPHONE study.  It is becoming such a concern that journals are now requesting that authors declare all types of conflict of interest including funding sources.

Under the heading of “funding” primarily government research council grants are identified.  However, in the “notes” immediately beneath “funding”, sources of industry or private funding received by the authors are provided and these include Mobile Manufacturers’ Forum, GSM Association, TellaSonera, Ericsson AB, Telenor, three Swiss mobile phone network operators, ENERGI.DK, two mobile telephone operators (not identified), and COWI consultants.  TeliaSonera, Telenor (Sonofon), TDC, Telia and Hi3G supplied mobile phone operator data.

Despite the authors’ assurance that,

“The funders did not have any involvement in the design of the study; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; the writing of the article; or the decision to submit the article for publication.”

and that

“Industry funding was given under agreements that the studies be given scientific independence”

it is difficult to explain why well qualified scientists who have been doing research for decades and who work for reputable institutions presented only positive outcomes that were favorable to the mobile phone industry and failed to include adverse outcomes in their abstract.

I contacted Dr. Röösli and asked him some questions.  His response is provided below (August 16, 2011):

Thank you very much for your interest in our study. All coauthors contributed to the writing of the manuscript. We reached consensus in the interpretation of the results and we have also noted in the abstract positive findings (” In a subset of study participants for whom operator recorded data were available, brain tumor risk was related to the time elapsed since the mobile phone subscription was started but not to amount of use.”)

The laterality analyses we did not find consistent. Biologically it makes no sense to have increased ipsi AND contralateral risk and at the same time having decreased risk for centrally located tumors or for mobile phone users without a preferred head side. This is a clear indication of recall bias.

As this is quite a complex issue we have discussed it in the paper but not mentioned in the abstract as word count for abstract is quite restrictive.

I can’t help but wonder why one sentence stating that,  “There was statistically significant increased risk for lateral tumours and a decreased risk for centrally located tumours,” was not mentioned.

Was it word count, funding, or something else?  Perhaps the authors veiled the truth so as not to cause mass panic and lawsuits.

Studies that do not adequately present the key findings in the abstract do a disservice to society. They perpetuate misinformation, generate doubt, fuel controversy, and delay changes to policy.

Journalists beware . . . if you want to do a honest job reporting on a study you must read more than the abstract and the press package provided.

July 5, 2011. Who to believe?  Ironically, two reports published days apart have totally different takes on whether or not microwave radiation is harmful. Both are review articles but that is where the similarity ends.

In one publication [Long-term exposure to microwave radiation provides cancer growth: Evidence from radars and mobile communication systems] the authors claim no conflict of interest and then identify the studies documenting increase in cancers with microwave exposure among animal experiments and in epidemiological studies.  They recommend that ICNIRP guidelines require urgent reevaluation in light of this research.  Scientists and physicians from around the world have been requesting this for over a decade.  See: International Experts’ Perspective on the Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) and Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR).

In the other publication [Mobile phones, brain tumours and the INTERPHONE study: Where are we now? Click here for supplementary information] the authors provide one of the longest conflict of interest statements I’ve ever seen, yet claim they  have no conflict of interest!

Here is what their conflict of interest states:

Funding for research undertaken by MF and AJS has been provided by a number of sources, including the European Fifth Framework Program; the International Union against Cancer, which receives funds from the Mobile Manufacturers’ Forum and the GSM Association; the Mobile Telecommunications Health and Research Programme; the Swedish Research Council; AFA Insurance; and VINNOVA (The Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems). VINNOVA received funds from TeliaSonera, EricssonAB, and Telenor. All funds from commercial sources were via firewalls. The authors certify that their freedom to design, conduct, interpret, and publish research was not compromised by any controlling sponsor. AJS holds shares in the telecoms companies Cable and Wireless Worldwide and Cable and Wireless Communications. AJS’ wife holds shares in the BT group, a global telecommunications services company. MF, ACG, and AJS are members of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, an independent body setting guidelines for non-ionizing radiation protection. MF and AJS serve as advisors to a number of public advisory and research steering groups concerning the potential health effects of exposure to non-ionizing radiation.

What animal will bite the hand that feeds it?

Does it surprise anyone that this second document concludes, “Although there remains some uncertainty, the trend in the accumulating evidence is increasingly against the hypothesis that mobile phone use can cause brain tumours in adults.”

For someone who is intimately familiar with the studies they cite I find it fascinating how they skirt around the “inconvenient” results  that don’t fit their conclusions.

For example, they incorrectly state, brain tumour incidence trends, suggest that within about 10-15 years after first use of mobile phones there is unlikely to be a material increase in the risk of brain tumours in adults.  This statement is WRONG!

The studies show that after 10 years of moderate cell phone use (greater than 1640 hours or 30 minutes a day for 10 years) there is a statistically significant increase in ipsilateral gliomas (INTERPHONE STUDY).  They fail to mention parotid gland tumors and acoustic neuromas because they are strictly limiting their comments to two types of brain tumours, gliomas and meningiomas.

They go on to state, Data for childhood tumours and for periods beyond 15 years are currently lacking, implying that we don’t know if this will affect children or not.   What they fail to mention is that so far there has been one study with children and that study showed that those who began using a mobile phone before the age of 20 had a 5-fold increase in brain tumors well before “15 years!”

They fail to mention Appendix 1 and 2 of the INTERPHONE study that was published separately from the original article.  The really damaging information about cell phones and brain tumours is found in these two appendices and you have to ask the journal for them as they are not automatically provided with the primary article.  This in itself is most unusual. Click here for Lessons from the INTERPHONE Study and here for INTERPHONE Study:  It’s not just about brain tumours!

While I will not try to defend the INTERPHONE study as I do not believe it was well conducted despite the money that was thrown at it, I do believe that the honest scientists involved tried to get the information out via the appendices.

In Appendix 1 statistically signficant increases in gliomas range from 40% to 95%.

One embarasing result in the INTERPHONE study is that the results show that low to moderate cell phone use actually reduces the risk of cancer.  In Appendix 2 the authors try to correct this “error” and use  the lowest category of users as the reference category.  With this analysis the results for tumors was higher than in the original text.  After 10 years the gliomas increased in a dose response manner to 118% and after 1640 hours they increased by 82% instead of the original 40%.

The authors, Swerdlow et al., critique some of the best studies ever conducted–those by Lennart Hardell and his group in Sweden–and the senior author on that report was recently asked to resign from IARC because of a conflict of interest. IARC’s recent recommendation was to classify radio frequency radiation as a “possible human carcinogen.”  See WHO’s new classification of RFR:  What does this mean for Canada?

They do mention that Hardell’s research “reported a markedly raised risk and positive dose-response gradient for malignant tumours but not for meningioma,”  but they failed to give the odds ratios.  They are provided here for malignant tumours and for benign tumours as both are important.

Instead of an 40% increased risk for gliomas as found in the INTERPHONE study, Hardell et al. report risks for commulative liftime use as high as 130%, 270% and 490% for cordless, digital cell phones and analogue cell phones respectively.  For acoustic neuroma, a benign tumour, the risks for these phones was 50%, 50% and 190%.  The highest risk was 280% for analogue phones with a latency period of greater than 15 years.  All of these were statistically significant (P=0.05).

The authors failed to mention a number of studies with similarly inconvenient results.  But, perhaps that is to be expected.

So who do you believe?  Those with a conflict of interest who claim not to have one or those without?

Worth reading, Sean Arthur Joyce’s brilliant commentary Conflict of Interest Rules the 21st Century.

July 1, 2011.  Health Canada seems to be confused about the recent WHO/IARC classification of radio frequency electromagnetic fields as a “possible human carcinogen.”

Ms Beth Pieterson (Director General, Environment and Radiation Health Services Directorate, Health Canada) stated, “We don’t know the long-term effects of Wi-Fi … From all evidence we have today, there is no evidence based on international experts telling us that there is a cause for concern from exposure to Wi-Fi.”

But didn’t we just hear from the World Health Organization that radio frequency radiation is a “possible human carcinogen”?

“Health Canada says the classification doesn’t include wireless.” But the Chair of the Committee that reviewed the research disagrees with Ms Pieterson.

Dr. Johnathan Samet stated in an email to reporter Kristy Kirkup, ”The classification covers radio frequency electromagnetic radiation, which would include wireless.”

This classificaiton includes not only mobile phones but Wi-Fi, wireless baby monitors, wireless smart meters, cell phone antennas, broadcast antennas, radar antennas, weather antennas, satellite communications, and other wireless devices that use radio frequency radiation to transmit information.

Saying that, “radio frequency radiation is possibly harmful but Wi-Fi is safe” is like saying, “lead in paint is harmful but lead in gasoline is safe,”  or that, “mercury in fish is harmful but mercury in dental amalgam is safe!”

Why is it that pharmaceuticals require extensive testing before drugs are released on the market but wireless technology is exempt from this type of testing?

Why is it that pharmacies keep a record to ensure that people don’t mix the “wrong medications,” but being exposed to multiple types of radio frequency radiation is OK?

Why is it that children are given “children’s aspirin” but are able to be exposed to “industrial strength Wi-Fi” in schools?

Why is it that school boards are ignoring the wishes of parents and are unwilling to provide a choice so that some kids can connect to the internet with wires rather than radio frequencies flowing through the air and through their bodies?

Health agencies do not require “conclusive evidence” to act in a “precautionary” way. Why is Health Canada protecting the wireless industry instead of the health of Canadians?

At the end of the article Ms Pieterson said, “Canada certainly supports WHO recommendations and the findings of IARC.”  Does that mean that Health Canada will now do something about radio frequency radiation in Canada or are we still waiting for “conclusive evidence?”

Read article:  Kristy Kirkup, July 1, 2011.
Wi-Fi dispute continues to raise concerns

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.

June 10, 2011.   The Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board (KPRDSB) is having a public meeting regarding WiFi in schools but only a few select individuals are allowed to present.  Individuals who oppose WiFi installations, in favor of wired installations, are not allowed to present.

I asked to be a presenter but was not given permission despite the fact that new information from various organizations has been recently made available and that I have scientific expertise regarding the health effects of radio frequency radiation.  I was told ” this is not a debate”.

The School Board approved having WiFi installed in KPRD schools earlier this year, despite the fact that parents and others presented evidence that this form of radiation may not be safe and that it was better to err on the side of caution.  Medical Doctors (David Carpenter and Stephen Sinatra) wrote to the school board stating this radiation was not safe.

The recent (May 31, 2011) World Health Organization reclassification of radio frequency electromagnetic fields (which includes WiFi radiation) as a “possible human carcinogen” is being ignored.

The recent recommendations by the Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe (Canada has observer status) that “for children in general, and particularly in schools and classrooms, give preference to wired Internet connections, and strictly regulate the use of mobile phones by schoolchildren on school premises” is being ignored.

Studies at Queen’s University (Kingston, Ontario) and elsewhere, which show that this radiation (from cell phone and wireless computers) affects sperm quality and may adversely affect reproduction, is being ignored.

Parents are silenced.  Trustees are not returning calls.  Teachers have been disciplined for questioning school board policy.  Teachers who are sensitive to this radiation fear that they will not be able to continue teaching once the WiFi routers are activated.

We asked that wired internet access be used (indeed this is already present at many schools).  But this request was ignored.

If WiFi is installed, we asked that the system be designed so that:

1. WiFi routers can be turned off when not in use;
2. WiFi-free areas be established in schools; and
3. Students-whose parents do not want them exposed-be allowed to use wired computers for internet access. While this would not eliminate their exposure it would reduce it since the highest levels of radiation are near the computers.

We have yet to hear if any of these recommendations are being seriously considered.

We are told that the level of radiation from WiFi in classrooms is so low it can’t possibly have any health effects. Yet, levels of radiation at a school in Collingwood exceeded the Safety Code 6 Guidelines in one classroom nearest the computer!  Click here for this report.  Clearly those making such statements about how low levels are and that they can’t possibly have biological effects are unfamiliar with the research.

As I scientist, who knows how harmful this radiation is, it is impossible for me to remain silent. If it weren’t for the children, I would walk away from this, allow the school board to install WiFi and then document the changes over time.  Some children will remain unaffected but some will become ill immediately and others will become ill over a period of time.  How many will develop cancer and have reproductive problems only time will tell.  The same will happen to teachers.  The question is no longer “if this will happen” but rather “how many will be adversely affected and how quickly”.

No University Ethic Board in North America would grant permission for this type of research (i.e. to expose children, grades K to 12, to low level microwave radiation for hours each day for 13 years and to study the biological effects).  And while schools and libraries in other parts of the world are removing WiFi, the KPRD School Board is going ahead with this experiment despite International Authorities recommending otherwise.

We exposed children to lead, to asbestos, to DDT, to second hand smoke before we realized this exposure was harmful.  Now toys from China with lead paint are returned and make headline news!  Yet we are willing to expose children to microwave radiation in the classroom AFTER we are told this radiation is unsafe at levels below existing federal and international guidelines.  This is willful ignorance and has legal implications.

In a recent letter I sent to Ms Diane Lloyd, Chair KPRD School Board, I shared with her three of my favorite quotes.  I provide them here.

Those of you who are reading this message, please do not let this happen in your community.  Children are precious.  As adults it is our responsibility to protect them.

Minimizing microwave and radio frequency radiation in schools is essential and that means preventing or regulating the use if WiFi and other types of wireless technology inside school buildings and ensuring that antennas (broadcast, radar, cell phone, WiMax) are placed  as far away from school property as possible.

Reducing exposure in the home is equally important.  Sources in the home include cordless phones, cell phones, wireless baby monitors, WiFi and smart meters (electricity, water, gas).  Sources external to the home include nearby antennas and wireless devices used by your neighbors.