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

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

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

Abstract

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The talk at U of T was well attended with standing room only (well over 250 in the audience). There were 7 video cameras trained on Mr Trower while he spoke. His talk will be made available within the next couple of weeks.

After giving a presentation that lasted well over one hour, the questions continued for an additional hour showing the interest in this topic.

Mr. Trower received a standing ovation and applause broke out numerous times during this talk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 16, 2010.  Pick of the Week #6:  Clinical & Hygienic Aspects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields.

Dodge, CH.  1969.  Clinical and Hygienic Aspects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields:  A Review of the Soviet and Eastern European Literature.  Biological Effects and Health Implications of Microwave Radiation, Symposium Proceedings, Richmond, Virginia, September 17-19, 1969 (BRH/DBE 70-2) (PB 193 898).

Christopher Dodge, affiliated with the Library of Congress, wrote the first comprehensive review of the world (especially the Soviet and Eastern European) literature on the biological effects of microwaves in 1964.  The current document was written 5 years later during which time the author was with the Biosciences Division, U.S. Naval Observatory, in Washington, D.C. This document concentrates on human clinical studies and occupational hygiene surveys of microwave exposure and is well worth reading.

What is clear is that by the late 1960 the Soviet and Eastern European scientists had conducted numerous studies on the effects of microwave radiation on humans, that biological and health effects were documented for a range of frequencies at non-thermal levels, and that this information was available to the U.S. military.  Why this science was not taken more seriously, why guidelines were not influenced by this research, and why we are still debating thermal vs non-thermal effects is a mystery that I leave for historians and philosophers to debate.

Here are a few gems from this document:

1. By 1933 Soviet scientists recognized that electromagnetic fields affected the human nervous system.  Indeed changes to the central (CNS) and autonomic (ANS) nervous system attributed to radio frequency radiation were frequently documented, as were additional effects as shown in Table 1. Frequencies from 30 MHz to 300 GH at both thermal (greater than 10 mW/cm²) and non-thermal (microW/cm² to milliW/cm²) intensities were known to affect the CNS.
2. The most disappointing aspect of the literature cited was the absence of information on the specific circumstances of the irradiation, characteristics of the environment and the conditions of the body exposed, which makes repetition of the studies difficult.
3. Panov et al. (1966) proposed three chronological stages of human response to microwaves (Table 2).
   - The first stage is not marked by severe episodes such as fainting or dramatic changes in pulse or blood pressure and the subject responds to outpatient treatment.
   - The second stage is called the “syndrome of autonomic and vascular dystonia” and the key features include altered pulse including bradycardia (slow) and tachycardia (rapid), either high or low blood pressure, altered ECG and general neuro-circulatory asthenia.  Severe episodes (fainting) may occur and the subject requires hospitalization of unspecified nature or duration.
   - The third stage is called diencephalic syndrome in which visceral dysfunctions and crisis are observed.  Typical episodes include apathic embolic disorders, hypersomnia, hypokinesis, hypothalamo-pituitary-suprarenal weakness, and inhibition of sexual and digestive reflexes.  Panov claims these changes are not always reversible and that subjects require hospitalization.
4. The general subjective complaints resulting from EMR exposure shown in Table 3 resemble symptoms associated with electrohypersensitivity (EHS).
5. Edelwejn (1966) found that the symptoms (Table 3) experienced by Polish personnel exposed to microwave radiation for up to six hours/day depended on the length of employment and degree of exposure. During the first three years, a dramatic response to microwave exposure accompanied by neurotic symptoms was reported.  This was followed by a gradual adaption phase and then, many years later, by the reappearance of neurologic symptoms. Soviet workers exposed to electric and magnetic fields near hydroelectric stations also complained of symptoms in Table 3.  Ospiov (1965) concluded that most subjective symptoms were reversible and that pathological damage to neural structures was insignificant.
6. In one study, a larger percentage of subjects exposed to weak (1 to 100s microW/cm²) and moderate (100s microW/cm²) levels of EMR experienced symptoms than those who were sporadically exposed to intense levels (3000 to 4000 microW/cm²) (see Figure 1 below, note this figure is based on Table 4 of the original document).
7. Pulsed ultra high frequency (UHF) fields [0.3 to 3 GHz] could be used as a form of contactless electrosleep, which was called radio-sleep.
8. Numerous changes were documented in the blood including altered blood sugar, cholesterol and lipids; altered levels of pyruvic acid, lactic acid, and creatinine; as well as hematopoietic [blood forming processes] and biochemical responses to electromagnetic radiation (see Tables 8,9, 10).
9. Effects on the functioning of and damage to the eyes were mostly documented at either acute or chronic thermal levels of exposure (see Table 11).
10. Major endocrine responses included altered functioning of the pituitary, thyroid and adrenal glands.  Damage to sex glands and functions have been frequently documented after chronic exposure to primarily thermal intensities (Table 12).  Decreased spermatogenesis, altered sex ratio at birth (excess females), changes in menstruation, retarded fetal development, congenital effects in newborns, decreased lactation in nursing mothers have been documented as result of thermal exposure (greater than 10,000 microW/cm²).

Figure 1.  Percentage of subjects who responded to weak (1 to 100′s microW/cm2), moderate (100′s microW/cm2), and periodic intense (3,000 to 4,000 microW/cm2) levels of microwave radiation. Based on data in Table 4, Dodge, 1969.  [Note:  U.S. and Canadian guidelines are 1,000 microW/cm2 so the weak and moderate exposures are well below these guidelines.]

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

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

Unlike cellphones – the dangers of WiFi come from the fact that it’s always on – pulsing away sending out microwave carrier signals 24 hours a day even is no one is online – and it’s not just coming from the schools transmitters situated on the ceilings.

Apple intends to market the iPad as a digital textbook reader and this portable wireless device is equipped with a very powerful WiFi transmitter – in this case you are holding the iPad WiFi transmitter in your hand and the microwave radiation is going right into your body.

APPLE  FACE TIME

We have all seen the new iPhone adds that show two people communicating via video over their phone.  This is only accomplished via the use of the iPhone’s built in WiFi. The cellular DATA connection is not fast enough for high quality video, but the WiFi feature of the phone will easily allow for video communication.  Once again – you are holding the WiFi transmitter in your hand.  You can now video-talk on the phone via WiFi.

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

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

Several complaints and alternatives were presented to the school board by parents but these were met with deaf ears. The IT department had assured the trustees that there was no proof that WiFi caused any health effects and it was determined that the WiFi would remain turned on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Listen to CBC Radio

WHEN WILL THE PUBIC KNOW THE TRUTH?

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

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

It’s enlightening to see their determination to make a change in public policy but at the same time –  disheartening to realize that these parents need to go to this extreme to present their point to the school board.

August 2, 2010. Pick of the Week #5:  Why the double standard?

Inglis, L.P. 1970.  Why the double standard? – A critical review of Russian work on hazards of microwave radiation.  IEEE International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility, July 14-16.  1970.

Summary

Continued interest in the determination of appropriate national levels of exposure to microwave fields has directed attention to Soviet work in this field.  The vastly different standards adopted in the two countries have aroused much speculation as to the reasons.  In this paper the Russian work is reviewed, and the major individuals identified.  An explanation for the different exposure limits is offered, based partly on the difference in national organization.

COMMENTS

This document is written by Leo P. Inglis, who worked for Atomics International Division, North American Rockwell Corp.– a company involved with the early development of nuclear technology for commercial and government applications.

In “Why the double standard?” Inglis tries to tease apart the reasons for the much lower radio frequency standards used in the USSR compared with those used in the USA.

A much quoted paragraph, and the focus of this document, is the following:

“In the U.S., the thermal effects are generally believed to be the only ones of significance; other contentions are usually dismissed as lacking a provable basis.  In the USSR, non-thermal effects are considered the most significant and are overwhelmingly the ones most studied.”

Several interesting concepts are presented based on Russian research.

1. Biological effects of radio waves are reduced with an increase in wavelength (i.e. at lower frequencies) and that this might be true when comparing different regions of the spectrum, but within the microwave band this general regularity may not exist.
2. There is a possibility of resonant absorption of microwaves by complex protein molecules, particularly enzymes.  The result of such absorption could change molecular structure and when protein structure changes so does its function.
3. Pulsed and modulated radiation are more harmful than continuous waves and may stimulate the nervous system as shown by studies with rabbits that document changes in brain wave activity as measured by EEG, occurring within 10 seconds of microwave exposure (in the absence of heating) and lasting 10 to 15 minutes after irradiation ended.

The results that I found most intriguing were those by Drogochina and Sadchikova (1965), who studied, for several years, individuals exposed to microwave radiation in the course of their work. They investigated the development of various symptoms (which we would today call electrohypersensitivity or EHS) resulting from exposure to radio frequencies in the centimeter wavelengths (high MHz and low GHz frequencies similar to mobile phones and WiFi).  These symptoms fell into three stages.

The initial stage symptoms usually appeared within 3 to 5 years of exposure.  Most characteristic is the asthenic syndrome [note: Asthenic syndrome describes a person characterized by low energy, susceptibility to physical and emotional stress, and a diminished capacity for pleasure], which develops because of the exhausting action of the radio frequencies on the central nervous system, and results in increased fatigue, headaches, and sleepiness during work hours.  Among the biological effects that occur are bradycardia [heart rate less than 60 bpm], changes in heart conduction on the electrocardiograph, weak development of dermographia [development of welts where someone scratches the skin], and hyperhydrosis [excessive perspiration] of the wrists.  Often there is a slight enlargement of the thyroid gland and a tendency towards increase in the leukocyte [white blood cell] count and histamine content of the blood.  All these changes are unstable and can be eliminated by a brief interruption of the work involving exposure.

The second stage develops if exposure continues.  Patients suffer prolonged headaches, pain in the region of the heart, bradycardia, increased blood pressure, pronounced changes in the appearance of the electrocardiogram, a lowered olfactory response, and often such trophic disturbances as loss of hair and brittleness of the nails, and a decrease in sexual potency [Does the surge in the use of Viagra and other drugs to enhance male performance relate to microwave exposure?].  Some medical treatment is required and temporary transfer to other work is mandatory.

The third stage is poorly described in the article.  Symptoms include strong recurring headaches, vertigo and fainting, heart pains, shivering and trembling, gastrointestinal disturbances, pronounced dermographia and hyperhydrosis.  Symptoms can remain even a year after the individual had changed jobs, although at a reduced level.

In the discussion, Inglis quotes from testimony presented by Dr. Charles Susskind (UC Berkeley) before the Senate Committee hearings on “Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1967.”

Dr. Susskind recommends that much basic research at lower power densities should be performed before “. . . we can decide whether we should adopt the much stricter safety level of the Soviet Union.” He also suggests that “non-ionizing radiation might ultimately prove to be a greater problem than ionizing radiation.”

According to Inglis, “If that prophecy should prove correct, I am sure the Russian literature will one day be weighed more carefully than it is at present [i.e. 1970].”  We are fortunate that Dr. Glaser kept these documents.

Others have also expressed concern about the proliferation of microwave radiation.

In a 1973 report submitted by JA Tanner from the Division of Mechanical Engineering and co-authored by faculty  in the Department of Anatomy at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, the authors conclude:

“In view of the expected proliferation of MW [microwave] devices in many different applications, a substantial increase in MW background activity is feared that may endanger human health.  On this basis strict control of the use of these devices must be introduced while present safety standards are revised and extensive research is conducted into long term effects of exposure to low intensity MW radiation.  In particular, a study of the possible accumulative effects of MW radiation (directly or indirectly) through sensitization must be conducted.”

A few years later, Robert O. Becker (MD) stated the following:

“I have no doubt in my mind that at the present time, the greatest polluting element in the earth’s environment is the proliferation of electromagnetic fields. I consider that to be far greater on a global scale, than warming, and the increase in chemical elements in the environment.’’

Inglis (Rockwell Corp.), Susskind (UC Berkeley), Tanner (Mechanical Engineering, Queen’s University) and Becker (Orthopedic Surgeon and Professor SUNY, Syracuse) can’t all be wrong.  So why weren’t they listened to?

It is now 2010.  Forty years have passed yet the thermal debate is alive and well in many developed countries.  The symptoms of asthenia or electrohypersensitivity are becoming more prevalent in society as is our exposure to microwave radiation.  When once this was an occupational illness it has become a societal illness and one that is likely to get worse as we continue to install smart meters on homes, Wi-Max in communities and WiFi in schools.

As I write this biblical images come to mind.

I image the sea level rising as Noah gathers his family and the animals on his boat. It rained for 40 days and 40 nights and we have had at least 40 years of knowing this technology is harmful.

Today, instead of water, levels of microwave radiation are rising and many have already suffered from exposure.  Complaints of insomnia, chronic fatigue, chronic pain, allergies, depression, anxiety, heart problems, cancers, reproductive problems, neurological disorders, diabetes are on the rise and studies show these are the symptoms associated with electrosmog.  Countless people will die as the technology invades our homes, schools, and communities.  The Noah equivalents call themselves electromagnetic refugees.  They find safe havens and ensure their homes and communities are electromagnetically clean.

I also image Moses descending from Mount Sinai seeing his people dancing around a calf made of gold, a false god.  Is the thermal standard not a false god that governments have fabricated and are worshipping?  What will it take for the blind to see and the deaf to hear what governments and industry have been hiding and negating for the last 40 years? Moses didn’t live to see the promised land and many of my colleagues wonder if they will see what happened to cigarettes also happen to wireless technology during their lifetime.

What we need is labelling and awareness raising of the hazards of this type of radiation.  We need more protective guidelines in those countries still falsely worshiping the golden calf and stating that heating is the only effect of microwave exposure.  We need a shift to wired technology, especially fibre optics that is much faster, more secure, and safer than wireless.  We need to change behaviour and limit places where wireless is allowed.  We can all built a boat to carry us to safety or we can have the levels of microwave radiation recede to levels that are tolerable to the most sensitive in our society.

The choice is ours but it will take a monumental effort to achieve.

July 30, 2010. 60 antennas stand in villages and towns near Rome

A court-ordered study has found that electromagnetic waves beamed by Vatican Radio leave residents living near the station’s antennas at a higher risk of cancer. Italy’s most prestigious cancer research hospital, now admits that there is a connection between radio and microwave radiation and the cancer incidents.

The new 300-page research report, by a team at Milan’s National Tumor Institute led by Andrea Micheli, supports the claim of Cesano residents: Children living at a distance of 12 km or less from the antennas have a higher chance of dying from leukemia or lymphoma.

The researchers also said that a court prevented her colleagues from making the report available to media and they also could not discuss its content. According to magistrates, the report justifies the current investigation of six officials of Vatican Radio for manslaughter.

The report states:

“There has been an important, coherent and meaningful correlation between exposure to Vatican Radio’s structures and the risk of leukaemia and lymphoma in children.”  The report also stated that there were risks of dying form cancer for people who had resided at least 10 years within a nine-kilometre (5.5-mile) radius of the radio’s giant antenna towers near Cesano, some 20 kilometres north of Rome.

The radio’s director, Federico Lombardi, disputed the report, saying: “Vatican Radio is astonished to hear the news on the results of the study.” Lombardi, who is also the Vatican spokesman, added: “Vatican Radio has always observed international directives on electromagnetic emissions and since 2001 has observed more restrictive norms set by Italy to allay the concerns of the neighbouring populations.”

Speaking on Vatican Radio, he said: “According to international scientific literature on the matter, the existence of a causal link like the one apparently hypothesised by the report had never been established.”

Herein lies the problem – The World Health Organization and other governing bodies that regulate wireless communication technologies have set safety standards based upon the heating of skin tissue – not upon the magnetic fields these waves have on the cell inside our bodies.  ”It if does not heat you it does not hurt you” we are told.   Now, we are informed by cancer specialists that more children are getting leukaemia within 5 miles of the towers. The population living right beside the towers are showing symptoms of Radio Wave Illness. More people are dying from cancer.  How much more proof do we need?  These are world renown scientists from prestigious cancer institutions.

A Rome judge ordered the report in 2005 as part of an investigation into a complaint filed in 2001 by Cesano residents who alleged health hazards posed by the electromagnetic waves. A 2001 investigation by Italy’s environment ministry showed that magnetic fields in the area were six times more powerful than allowed, while Rome’s Lazio region estimated that the rate of deaths from leukaemia among children in the Cesano area was three times higher than in adjoining areas.

The Vatican now believes that the government of Italy is to blame for allowing builders to purchase land adjacent to the towers to create towns and villages. The limits may be too high right beside the towers, but the reason that the towers were constructed in a remote area is so that the towers would have no effect on the populations of large cities such as Rome.  If this is the case, and that everyone in the wireless industry knows there is a problem, why does every government in the world allow cell phone communication towers to be placed on the rooftops of apartment buildings?  Right under the roof of people 24 hours a day?

The History of Vatican Radio

Guglielmo Marconi, the first to broadcast radio across the Atlantic ocean, came to the Vatican in 1931 and kissed the popes ring. By February 12th of that year Pope Pius XI inaugurated the airwaves of Vatican Radio. Marconi was an Italian catholic, and Pius was originally from Milan.  The idea originated with the Dir. General of Communications for Vatican City, Giuseppe Gianfranceschi who drew up plans for a wireless station in the Vatican that year.

Signals from two medium-wave transmitters reach all of Italy at all times, and 27 shortwave antennas are beamed at selected parts of the world in different languages at varying times. All papal speeches, news programs, and religious events are dispatched in 34 languages to all the corners of the world. To the Vatican, it’s as important as the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe were to the United States at the height of the Cold War.

To the inhabitants of Cesano and neighboring communities, the antennas, some transmitting at 600 kilowatts, its something of a nuisance and more —some people are hearing the Pope’s voice picked up by their front-door intercom……a warning of a possible death sentence from Vatican Radio radiation.

July 28, 2010.  Researchers prove damage occurs in the mobility and DNA fragmentation of sperm if near the WiFi transmitter. 24/07/2010 | Romina Martoglio.  From Lavoz.com

Assumptions are well known that the electromagnetic waves radiated by cell phones, microwave ovens, computers and electrical appliances may cause adverse health effects. In fact, the World Health Organization (WHO) has formed a special division for researchers studying the effect of electromagnetic radiation.

As for the effect of these radiations on the reproduction of human beings, some scientific studies have suggested that electromagnetic waves generated by cell phones may affect sperm quality. On the other hand, it is proposed that the use of laptops (Laptop) could affect sperm production due to increased temperature in the testes to be used on the legs.

A group of researchers from Cordoba, members of Nascentis reproductive medicine center, decided to analyze the effect of laptops on the sperm, and concluded that the use of laptop mobility result in damage and fragment the DNA of these cells, to the point that might affect male reproductive capacity.

“We have found that exposure to the laptops connected to Wi-Fi, mobility decreases and increases the damage to the sperm DNA. Although these studies were performed in vitro, our results suggest it could be a cause of low fertility” says Conrado Avendaño.

While we need further research, our first advice is that people avoid using the laptop on your lap, ESPECIALLY if they are connected to Wi-Fi”, states Sánchez Sarmiento..

The direction of this research was provided by Conrado Avendaño, a biochemist specializing in Andrology. He was accompanied by a team of Ariela Mata, a specialist in Reproductive Biology and Chief of the Laboratory of Embryology, Cesar Sanchez Sarmiento, medical director, Andrew Juarez Villanueva, head of Gynecologic Endoscopy and Valeria Martinez, laboratory specializing in Andrology and Embryology.

For this study, they evaluated semen samples from healthy donors with no history of recent illnesses. Each sample was divided into two portions which were placed in separate rooms at a controlled temperature. One of the fractions was incubated near a laptop connected to the Internet via Wi-Fi, thus, to mimic the situation in which men place the machine on their legs.

“After four hours of incubation of sperm under two different conditions, we found that in the group exposed to the laptop, a large percentage of sperm was affected,” said Conrado Avendaño.

Results. There are three factors that were examined to study the sperm quality: if the sperm were alive, if they moved and if the sperm DNA was intact. “The study showed that exposure to these devices did not cause the death of sperm,” said Avendano.

Meanwhile, the analysis of mobility, it was found that in the group exposed to WiFi radiation, there was less sperm that are moving faster and an increase in the amount of stationary sperm.

“This is a sobering if you take into account that the sperm are moving progressively to finally be able to reach the egg and fertilize it, and then form an embryo,” said César Sánchez Sarmiento.

Finally in terms of sperm DNA integrity, was found through a study known as “Tunnel”, which both groups of spermatozoa had a significant difference. “In the fraction exposed to radiation had a significant increase in sperm with fragmented DNA (broken),” said Avendano. Sánchez Sarmiento argues that the importance of this aspect is that reproductive medicine has proven that “one of the causes of changes in fertilization and embryonic development is therefore the break in the DNA molecules of the sperm.”

Photograph of man with laptop computer from London Tech Calendar Collection 2010

July 26, 2010.  Cancer Mortality near Air Force Bases.

Lester, J.R. and D.F. Moore.  1982.  Cancer Mortality and Air Force Bases.  Journal of Bioelectricity 1(1): 72-82.

Abstract:

Nationally, counties with an Air Force Base were found to have significantly higher incidences of cancer mortality during 1950-1969 compared to counties without an Air Force Base.

RESULTS

This study is based on 92 active Air Force bases that were in operation during 1950-1969 in the United States. The authors hypothesize that the chronic low intensity microwave exposure to peak pulse patterns, characteristic of radar, could influence immunocompetence and account for the high cancer mortality near air bases. They cite a 1979 study by Meecham and Shaw that documents a 20% higher mortality rate for residents within 2 to 3 miles of the Los Angeles International Airport compared to a neighborhood 8 to 9 miles away.  In addition to cancers a higher incidence of birth defects and nervous breakdowns, among residents who live near airports, was reported in Japan and Great Britain.

COMMENTS

This study brings to mind, PAVE PAWS, the US Air Force Radar Base that was installed in 1979 and was the focus of several cancer cluster studies in Cape Code, including an elevated rate of Ewing’s Sarcoma (a malignant tumor often found in bone with a peak occurrence between 10 and 20 years of age). According to the National Academies’ National Research Council report in 2005 and the Massachusetts Department of Health report in 2007 the radiation was unlikely to have played a primary role in the incidence of the various cancers and health effects.

However, based on Air Force measurements outside the security fence, values for average and maximum power density  (attachment 4) are well above the Russian guidelines of 10 microW/cm2 with “corrected average” values ranging from 10 to 230 microW/cm2.

THEN VS. NOW

The 1982 study by Lester  (PhD) and Moore (MD) was based on the period 1950 to 1969.  Airports and air force bases have changed dramatically since that period with many more transmitters and frequencies.

The good news is that few homes are built near large international airports. The bad news is that those who work at an airport (or an air force base) and those who work near airports, like hotel employees, are exposed to radar.  I stayed at an hotel that was several kilometers away from the Toronto International Airport and I was still able to measure the airport radar in my hotel room.  At that hotel employees said that their customers had difficult sleeping but they attributed this to noise from car traffic.

Jerry Straub recently wrote, ”When I first started flying, in the 1950′s, they still had aircraft radios which were tuned by a hand-crank or knob (analog device).  As electronic technology has progressed, aircraft radios have become magnificent solid state devices with virtually unlimited ability to control frequencies and discriminate between them.”

Then airports had two frequencies; (control) tower and ground (control). Here’s the URL for the current airport information for Detroit Metro (DTW): http://www.airnav.com/airport/KDTW (see table below).

There are about 37 frequencies in use at DTW for communication, plus another 9 locally  for navigation. This does not include the frequencies used for instrument approaches for each runway.

If cancer rates near air force bases and airports were elevated prior to the 1980s, I wonder what they are today and how is this radiation affecting those on board aircrafts, especially the crew?

RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION ON AIRPLANES

A few years ago I was returning from the US and, while the plane was loading, I asked the pilot and co-pilot if they knew what levels of radiation they were exposed to in the cockpit.  The co-pilot frowned and told me that the airline industry monitored the levels a few years earlier but they were never provided with the results, which wasn’t good news.   Wonder what happened to that study?

On that flight I gave the pilot my RF meter and he did measurements in the cockpit during the flight. The values were below FCC guidelines but were well above Russian levels of 10 micoW/cm2.   I measured the levels of radiation in the cabin during flight and found they decreased from the front to the rear of the plane. The highest reading I measured was around 35 microW/cm2.

MAGNETIC FIELDS ON AIRPLANES

A few years ago I measured low frequency magnetic fields on an airplane. Instead of 50 or 60 Hz, airplanes operate at 400 Hz.  The lowest levels of magnetic fields were at the rear of the plane (around 3 to 5 mG) and the highest readings were in first class (around 20 to 30 mG).

On this particular flight (it was prior to 911) I was allowed  into the cockpit and measured the magnetic fields while the plane was in flight. High readings (over 100 milliGauss) came from conduits that carried the electrical wires behind the pilot and co-pilot.  The magnetic field near the window was also high (over 100 mG) and I was told that the window was heated to keep it flexible. When the pilot turned off the heating element the magnetic field dropped sharply.

The pilot thought for a moment and said that many of his colleagues, who had retired at age 55, developed cancer and didn’t live long after retirement.

According to the scientific literature, levels of 2 to 4 mG for residential exposure have been associated with increased incidence of childhood leukemia; levels of 2 to 12 mG have been associated with breast cancer, brain tumors and adult leukemia from occupational exposure; and levels of 16 mG with miscarriages during the first trimester.

WIFI ON AIRPLANES AND AT AIRPORTS

The most recent change on airplanes is the introduction of WiFi.  A friend who recently flew on a commercial flight with WiFi complained of feeling unwell.

Flying is a dangerous business and it is become more dangerous with all of this additional exposure to radiation at the airport and on the aircraft. Wonder how long it will take for the airline industry to recognize that the lower the levels of radiation the safer the flight for the crew and passengers alike?

July 22, 2010:  Peterborough Examiner. Adding light to heat of WiFi debate.

Are microwaves, emitted by WiFi and mobile phones, safe? Why is this question so controversial and why can’t scientist agree on the answer?

Let’s take a closer look at the WiFi debate. Microwave radiation was first used for radar

during the Second World War and exposure was restricted to military personnel. The original guidelines were based on the ability of a 70 kilogram male to dissipate heat. The effects of microwave exposure -cataracts, reduced sperm viability, headaches, and tinnitus -were assumed to be due to heating.

Today we use microwaves to talk to and text our friends (mobile phones) and to share data (WiFi). We are all exposed, including young children who are the most vulnerable among us. Canada’s guidelines are still based on a heating effect despite numerous scientific studies documenting adverse effects that are non-thermal and potentially life threatening.

So the WiFi debate hinges on the question, “Is heating the only adverse effect of microwave exposure?”

The current heat-based Health Canada guideline for microwaves is 1,000 microWatts/cm2. Levels of microwave radiation are unlikely to exceed that guideline in most Canadian environments and so we have nothing to worry about. Right? Wrong!

Let’s take a look at the other side of the debate.

Some countries have much lower guidelines than Canada. The guidelines in Russia and in Salzburg, Austria are 1% and 0.01% (respectively) of our federal guidelines. These countries do not follow the U.S. military assumption from the 1950s that, “damage associated with heating is the only possible effect of microwave radiation.”

Scientific studies document biological and health effects well below the thermal guideline at levels to which we are currently exposed in the classroom and in our homes and offices.

These effects include difficulty sleeping, fatigue, chronic pain, skin problems, difficulty concentrating, poor short-term memory, dizziness, nausea, tinnitus, depression, anxiety, irritability as well as cancers and reproductive problems..

Even Health Canada (Safety Code 6 1999) acknowledges that sensitivity to radiation varies and that, “Certain members of the general public may be more susceptible to harm from RF [radio frequency] and microwave exposure.”

During the past 10 years various countries and institutions (including Toronto Public Health) have issued warnings about the use of cell phones (which are still more prevalent than WiFi) and scientists and medical doctors worldwide have signed at least 10 Resolutions and Appeals, asking that regulatory agencies revise their guidelines downward to take into account the non-thermal effects of this radiation.

It takes time for policy to catch up to the science, especially when maintaining the status quo has financial benefits for both the government and for the multi-billion dollar wireless industry. We knew that cigarette smoking was unhealthy back in the 1950s but it took several decades to develop the political will to acknowledge this and limit smoking in public places.

The same is happening with microwave radiation. The user of the technology has the greatest exposure but those who are near the antennas that communicate with WiFi computers or with mobile phones are exposed to “second hand radiation” that is also dangerous.

Do we really want to risk the health of students and teachers for the convenience of wireless technology when wired technology does the same job without microwave exposure?

I, for one, would like to err on the side of caution, especially in schools where the health of children is at stake.

Magda Havas is Associate Professor of Environmental and Resource Studies at Trent University.

Article ID# 2679960