January  23, 2012.  In October 2011, Moses Znaimer, President of Zoomer Media,  invited me to give a talk at the Zoomer Life Conference in Toronto. Below is short video  based on that presentation.

In this video I present information about the harmful effects of electrosmog and the beneficial effects of devices that generate pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF).  In Europe these PEMF devices are much more popular than they are in North America.  They are used to treat pain, to enhance healing of bone fractures, to treat depression and other psychological disorders, to promote circulation and functioning of the immune system.

Click here to view the video on YouTube.

In order to better understand how electromagnetic energy affects living organisms, it is important to consider a broad range of exposures and both the harmful and beneficial effects documented in the literature.

Fortunately we have some excellent doctors, scientists, and engineers who have been working with PEMFs for decades and who are willing to share their understanding of this technology.  The work of Dr. Rainer Klopp in Germany is particularly enlightening and is mentioned in the video, as is the work of Dr. Thomas Rau at the Swiss Paracelsus Clinic, Dr. Jeff Daskalakis at the University of Toronto, Dr. Jeff Marrongelle at the  Bioenergimed Metabolic Institute in Pennsylvania, and Dr. Roland Drolet in Quebec.  The devices mentioned in this video include those that promote bone healing; transcranial magnetic stimulation for depression; Rhumart for rheumatism and arthritis; and iMRS and BEMER for a host of symptoms.  Many devices are now available and I expect these devices will become more popular here in North America as well.

Various shielding products to reduce electrosmog exposure are also mentioned in this video.

Please note that our research in the area of PEMF is at an early stage. Inclusion of a product in this video does not necessarily imply endorsement.

Click here to watch Dr Oz on PEMF Therapy and Pain Relief.

January 11, 2012.  On February 25, 2010, Maine Public Utility Commission issued an order to approve the installation of advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) by Central Maine  Power Company (CMP).  The development of this technology was authorized by both federal and state legislation but neither the U.S. Congress nor the Maine Legislature has enacted legislation that mandates participation by electricity customers, or that authorizes utilities to implement mandatory programs.

Federal support for the development of smart meter systems began with the Energy Policy Act of 2005, was supplemented with passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, and funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which set aside $11 billion for the creation of a smart grid.  The Energy Policy Act of 2005 established an optional standard by which utilities are required to make a time-variable rate structure (often accomplished with wireless, digital smart meters, but also with analog meters and wired meters) available “upon customer request.”

On July 29, 2011, the Appellants filed their ten-person Complaint. The Complaint includes extensive citations to peer-reviewed science reports and other documents and publications in support of the allegations that include health and safety, privacy, property rights, constitutional violations, and discrimination.

CMP responded to the Complaint with a one page submission on August 11, 2011. On August 31, 2011, the Commission dismissed the Complaint.  The Appellants filed a Motion to Reconsider. The Motion was denied on October 11, 2011.  The Appellants filed an appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court on January 11, 2012.

For those who are interested in following this case,

1.  Ten-Person Complaint, click here.

2.  Notice of Appeal, click here.

2.  Final Petition for Reconsideration, click here.

3.  Brief of Appellants, click here.

4.  Appendix to Briefs, click here.

5.  Supplement of Legal Authorities, click here.

Attorney for Appellants:

Bruce A. McGlauflin, Esquire
Petruccelli, Martin & Haddow, LLP
Portland, Maine, U.S.A.

January 23, 2012.  Update:  The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) wrote a letter to the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, dated January 19, 2012.

This letter begins:

Dear Commissioners:

The Board of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine opposes the installation of wireless “smart meters” in homes and schools based on a scientific assessment of the current medical literature (references available on request).  Chronic exposure to wireless radiofrequency radiation is a preventable environmental hazard that is sufficiently well documented to warrant immediate preventative public health action.  

The AAEM calls for the following:

• An immediate moratorium on “smart meter” installation until these serious public health issues are resolved.  Continuing with their installation would be extremely irresponsible.
• Modify the revised porposed decision to include hearings on health impact in the second proceedings, along with cost evaluation and community wide opt-out.
• Provide immediate relief to those requesting it and restore the analog meters.

Click here for pdf.

January 9, 2012.  In order to protect students against unnecessary microwave exposure, some parents and teachers have tried to prevent installation of Wi-Fi in their schools. Others have asked to have Wi-Fi replaced with wired internet access.  Here is a situation where a father, on behalf of his child, has taken legal action regarding Wi-Fi at a Portland Public School, in Portland Oregon.

Morrison v. Portland Public Schools:  United States District Court, District of Oregon, Portland Division, Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-00739-MO

Shawn E. Abrell is the Lead Counsel and Tyl W. Bakker is the Local Counsel for Plantiffs.

Below are links to expert testimony provided on behalf of the Plaintiff and Defendant.

This is an important case as it could be precedent setting.

Click below for links to testimony.

On behalf of Plaintiff:

1.  Barry Trower:  Amended Declaration; Addendum A.

2.  Curtis Bennett:  Second Amended Declaration.

3.  Dr. David Carpenter:  Amended Declaration.

4.  Lloyd Morgan:  Amended Declaration; Addendum E–Poster Re-evaluation of the INTERPHONE Study, Addendum F–Poster Exposure Limits; Addendum G–Poster How Many Brain Tumors; Addendum H–Poster Incidence Rate Model; Addendum I–Brain Tumors in Children.

5.  Dr. Magda Havas:  Declaration; Addendum A–Studies; Addendum B–Boston Petition; Addendum C–International Appeals; Addendum D–Presentation.

6.  Second Amended Complaint

On behalf of Defendant

7.  Dr. David Savitz:  Declaration.

January 7, 2012.  In 2010, we published a paper that showed radiation from a cordless phone at 2.4 GHz affects the heart. Click here for a copy of that publication and here to watch the youtube video.

We heard from many people who acknowledged that they experience heart palpitations in certain environments and are unable to use mobile phones and be near cell phone antennas and Wi-Fi routers.  We also learned that some students in schools with Wi-Fi experience a racing heart. Cardiologist, Dr. Stephen Sinatra, believes that those who have undiagnosed heart conditions may be particularly vulnerable to radio frequency radiation.

In the past we were concerned about the radiation from a microwave oven affecting heart monitors.  Those heart monitors have been improved and are now shielded against radio frequency radiation. Our hearts are NOT shielded and our exposure to radio frequency radiation includes not only microwave ovens but mobile phones, cell phone antennas, wireless routers, smart meters, wireless computer games, blue tooth, and wireless baby monitors.

Our study was criticized and the claim was made that our results were due to electromagnetic interference (EMI).

EMI refers to disruption of an electronic circuit with an electromagnetic signal. A common example is the static you hear as you drive under high voltage transmission lines with your radio tuned to an AM station.  The static on the radio is EMI.

In our experiment the radiation from the cordless phone may have affected the receiver, placed near the heart, creating spurious results.  If this were the case, the signal would interfere each time but that did not happen. We were convinced our results were real (i.e. that we were recording changes in the heart rather than changes in the equipment)  but the criticism of EMI was worth testing.

Was there a critical distance where the radiation from the cordless phone interfered with the equipment we were using?

So we designed an experiment to test for EMI.  The results are in our new video.  Click here to watch the video.

NOTE:  There is an error in our previous video (2010).  We refer to the cordless phone as a DECT phone.  Technically DECT phones radiate between 1880 and 1930 MHz and the phone we used provides a signal at 2400 MHz.  We do have DECT phones in North America but they operate at a different frequency than those in Europe.  DECT 6.0 phones in U.S. and Canada operate at 1.9 GHz.

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.  With growing concern about climate change, the carbon budget, depletion of fossil fuels, air pollution from dirty coal, radiation from nuclear power plants, and the need for a secure energy supply, more attention and funding are being diverted to renewable energy. Among the various types of renewable energy, wind has received a lot of attention, in part, due to opposition from communities earmarked for wind turbines and from communities that have experienced wind turbines firsthand.

Some people who live near wind turbines report difficulty sleeping and various symptoms of ill health and attribute these problems to noise and shadow flicker—two elements they can perceive. Indeed the U.S. National Research Council (Risser et al., 2007) identify noise and shadow flicker as the two key impacts of wind turbines on human health and well-being.

However, it is much more complicated then that.  In addition to noise and shadow flicker, infra-sound (low frequency vibrations that we cannot hear), dirty electricity, and ground current can all contribute to ill health near wind turbines.  Since sensitivity to sound vibrations and electromagnetic waves varies from person to person, not everyone in the same home responds the same way.

With a growing interest in renewable forms of energy, the technology has to be not only energy efficient but also human friendly.

A paper on wind turbines by Magda Havas and David Colling’s  has just been published.   Abstract is below.  For a copy of the paper 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 31, 2011.  Because we cannot hear, see, feel, taste, or smell microwave (MW) or radio frequency (RF) radiation most people are unaware when they are exposed, unless of course they are sensitive or have a meter to measure their exposure.

Some meters that detect MW radiation convert the MW signal into sound, which mimics the frequencies and pulses emitted by various devices including mobile phones, wireless baby monitors, blue tooth devices, Wi-Fi routers and smart phones or cell phone antennas.  These meters are more informative that those which just provide a digital number.  The audio meters can tell you the different audio signatures these device make.  And there is evidence that the pulsed digital frequencies are more harmful than continuous wave forms.

The sounds made by the devices in the image below have been recorded and you can download an interactive pdf  that contains the sounds (click here to download).  ATTENTION:  you must accept or trust this document after you have opened it for playback.  Go to “options” and select “trust this document always”.

You can listen to the frequencies as you click on each image.  You will notice that each device produces a slightly different frequency and pulse rate.

Can you imagine the cacophony of sounds we would hear when all of these devices are operating in one environment? Unfortunately this is the norm in many places including homes, schools, medical clinics, office buildings, coffee shops as well as in most urban communities.

To watch a video of how to use the meter, click here.  If you would like to purchase your own meter here are a few of my suggestions.  To measure radio frequency radiation you can use the gigahertz solution meters available here or the acoustimeter available here.  I highly recommend that if you purchase a meter, purchase one with sound so you can determine which device is operating from the sound signature.

Some people, who have developed a sensitivity to this radiation experience various symptoms when they are exposed including tinnitus (ringing in the ear), metallic taste, headache, foggy brain, dizziness, anxiety, heart palpitations, depression.  Some can’t sleep if they are exposed at night and the most common exposure in the bedroom is the cordless phone beside the bed or perhaps the cordless phone or Wi-Fi in another room or in neighbouring homes.  So even if you don’t have wireless technology in your home, your neighour’s wireless technology does not respect your personal living environment and encroaches since it penetrates walls and other types of structures.

Infants, exposed to wireless baby monitors, are at greatest risk because they are very sensitive to environmental contaminants and this radiation is a “contaminant”.

The Federal Communication Commission (FCC)  and Health Canada (HC) should ban wireless baby monitors that constantly emit MW radiation.  Indeed, they should ban any household device that emits constant radiation. In Europe, “voice-activated” baby monitors are available.  In Europe , “on demand” cordless phones are common but in North America few people know they exist and voice-activated baby monitors are not yet available in stores.

We are told that smart meters emit radiation for only a few seconds each day.  That certainly isn’t the case for some smart meters.  Click here to listen to the sound (radiation) generated by one smart meter in Ontario documented by MartinWeatherall.

In 2002, I wrote an article for the Peterborough Examiner called “Cell Tower Blues.”  This story  is relevant to this discussion of exposure and our ability to sense microwave radiation.   Click here to download this article.

If you would like to hear the radiation in your environment there are several meters that make sound.

December 31, 2011.  On Nov. 3, Dr. Franz Adlkofer, former Executive Director of the VERUM Foundation for Behavior and Environment, spoke to a Harvard Law School audience as part of the lectures and events series hosted by the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics.

In his lecture, “Protection Against Radiation is in Conflict with Science,” Adlkofer discussed the difficulties he and other scientists face when presenting research on the carcinogenic effects of electromagnetic fields emanating from cell phones. He also discussed the institutional corruption which he says obstructs their research.

Adlkofer described his experience with the EU-funded study REFLEX, which aimed to explore the effects of cell-phone radiation on the brain. The study’s conclusions demonstrated that low frequency as well as radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below the allowed exposure limits displayed gene-damaging potential.

In 2004, shortly after releasing those findings, Adlkofer was the target of allegations questioning the validity of the findings and even accusing him of fraud. While an ethics panel eventually dismissed the accusations, his struggle against slander continues, he said.

In May 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified high frequency electromagnetic fields including cell phone radiation as merely “possibly carcinogenic” for humans, Adlkofer said, but he pointed out that studies such as REFLEX were not taken into account in reaching that determination. Had they been, he said, the classification likely would have changed from “possibly” carcinogenic to “probably.”

“The practices of institutional corruption in the area of wireless communication are of enormous concern,” said Adlkofer, “if one considers the still uncertain outcome of the ongoing field study with five billion participants. Based on the unjustified trivializing reports distributed by the mass media by order and on account of the wireless communication industry, the general public cannot understand that its future wellbeing and health may be at stake. The people even distrust those scientists who warn. In democracies, it is a basic principle that above power and their owners are laws, rules, and regulations. Since in the area of wireless communication this principle has been severely violated it is in the interest of a democratic society to insist on its compliance.”

—Sophy Bishop

http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2011/11/18_safra-center-cellphone-radiation-corruption.html

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