Facts About Radiation In Phones

Dr Charlie Teo (head of neurosurgery at Sydney St. Vincent’s Hospital) and other doctors believe that there is a direct correlation between the use of mobile phones and brain tumours.

Long term exposure affects the body, particularly its electrical organ, and the brain, which is compounded by numerous simultaneous exposures of continuous waves of radiation from radio, TV transmitter towers, cordless phones, power lines and wireless WIFI computing devices.

There is a significant and increasing body of evidence, to date at least eight comprehensive clinical studies internationally and one long-term meta-analysis for a link between mobile phone usage and certain brain tumours.

The “incubation time” may be in the order of 10-20 years. In the years 2008-2012, we will have reached the appropriate length of follow-up time to begin to definitively observe the impact of this global technology on brain tumour incidence rates.

There is enough evidence available to warrant Industry and Governments alike to take immediate steps to reduce exposure of consumers to mobile phone related electromagnetic radiation and to make consumers clearly aware of the potential dangers and how to use this technology sensibly and safely.

The public health ramifications could be similar, if not greater than asbestos and smoking and directly concerns all of us, particularly the younger generation.

Because of our concern, we searched the world to find an effective product to help harmonize the level of EMR and EMF being emitted from mobile telephones, computers, televisions, microwaves and other home and office systems.  We found these:

Tips on Safer Phone Usage

1. Do not sleep with mobile phone in your bedroom as it continuously emits phones give off 216.7 Hz of radiation continuously?

2. Always use your Mobile Cell iPhone on hands free or speak phone. Still not ideal, however, better than holding phone 5/8ths of an inch from your ear as all phone manufacturers recommend.

3. Cordless phones emit more radiation than mobiles; limit your time on the phone. The cordless phone base station is the equivalent to having a Cell Phone Tower in your home!

4. Do not store your iPhone or Smart phone anywhere on your body, such as in your suit pocket (over your heart), pants pocket (over your testicles) or back pocket (over you hip joints), and certainly not in the pram or anywhere near babies heads (as their thin skulls are way more susceptible to radiation). 

 

Keep your iPhone or Smart Phone in bag or place it into something.

5. Do not let young children play with your iPhone or Smart phone, or keep them occupied by talking or listening to them – not even the Games component unless there is no active SIM card or it is on Flight Mode.

6. Try not to use earpieces as they can act as a conduit to for radiation and EMF to travel directly to the ear and brain.

7. EMR and EMF has an accumulative effect on our bodies and become addictive. It is like smoking – try to be as aware as possible.

Showing Heat when with phone radiation to head

Read More...

Cell phones radiation is making headlines again ...

Beginning today, potential cell phone buyers in Berkeley, California will be greeted by a salesperson and a warning concerning potential radiation exposure. 

 

Under the Right to Know ordinance passed unanimously by the Berkeley City Council back in May, cell phone retailers are required to inform consumers that by carrying a cell phone on your person (in your shirt pocket, pants, or bra), “You may exceed the federal guidelines for exposure.” 

 

The warning further states, “The potential risk is greater for children.”

Already, there are federal regulations in place meant to warn cell phone users of the limits of safe radiation that can be expected from normal cell phones and cell phone usage, but under this new set of guidelines, Berkeley lawmakers are heightening the level of concern surrounding mobile devices.
 

 

The science around cell phone radiation has long been a contentious subject — whereas some dismiss claims of cell phone dangers as unwarranted hysterics, others insist that the lack of testing when it comes to cell phones in close proximity with our bodies has stunted the amount of information available. 

 

According to Environmental Health Trust’s Senior Medical Advisor, Dr. Robert Morris, “If industry does not want to advise people about the fact that phones are not tested next to the body, then they should get the FCC to change its requirements for radiation testing. 

 

They cannot do this because, if phones were tested next to the body, they would be found to emit too much radiation to pass current standards.”

Related: Watch out, Apple: Huawei has become the world’s third-largest smartphone vendor

Certainly, there have been a number of studies that seem to link heavy cell phone usage with certain medical side effects. For example, studies in both Australia and India have found that men who use their cell phones most frequently (and keep them in their pants pocket) had lower sperm counts than those who used cell phones less often. 

 

Other studies have also suggested a link between radiation exposure from cell phone usage and certain types of brain cancer.

Still, the skeptics remain thoroughly unimpressed, and even the American Cancer Society has noted that cancer cases observed in people who carry cellphones may be coincidental or anecdotal. 

 

And as Dr. Jerrold T. Bushberg, a medical physicist and a professor of radiology and radiation oncology at the University of California, Davis, told the New York Times, “We’ve been looking for signs of adverse effects at low levels for over 50 years without success. 

 

We can’t say it’s impossible, but if there is a risk it would be very, very low, or we would have seen an increase in brain cancers.”

Proponents of the new Berkeley ordinance, however, say that they’re simply exercising extra caution — after all, the warnings aren’t impinging upon anyone’s right to buy a cellphone. 

 

As Dr. Morris stated, “Over the past twenty years, cell phone use has exploded to the point where it is almost universal, but we have limited understanding of the potential risk caused by these devices. This may well be the largest uncontrolled public health experiment in human history.”

 

Morris noted that the health risks were uncertain, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, part of the World Health Organization) determined that the radiation emitted by cell phones was a possible cause of cancer.

Morris concluded that until more definitive research was conducted, “… it seems prudent to reduce exposures, especially when doing so can involve something as simple as using headphones. Improving consumers’ access to warnings about potential risks, warnings that are already in the phones, is a no-brainer.”

Read More...

Shocking new cell phone radiation study reveals increased brain tumor risk for children

Posted: 05 May 2015 12:00 PM PDT The study concluded if children continue using their cell phones in this way, many would be at increased risk of specific brain tumors by their mid-teens. The concern becomes even more alarming given the vast majority of the junior high school students ...

You are subscribed to email updates from Meta Search Alerts copy. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States

Read More...

Cell phones and breast cancer – are they connected?

Posted: 30 Sep 2015 09:15 PM PDT But is the habit a good idea? Dr. Ashley Hendrix (Photo: WKRN) News 2 went to Dr. Ashley Hendrix, a breast surgeon at TriStar Summit Medical Center, to find out if there's a possible connection between cell phone radiation exposure and breast cancer in ...

Do Cell Phone 'Radiation Shields' Work? : Discovery News  Posted: 15 Mar 2014 02:36 AM PDT Cell-phone shields may do little to protect you -- and scientists say they're unnecessary. Continue reading →

You are subscribed to email updates from Meta Search Alerts copy. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States

Read More...

The Hidden Dangers of Cell Phone Radiation

Every day, we’re swimming in a sea of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) produced by electrical appliances, power lines, wiring in buildings, and a slew of other technologies that are part of modern life. From the dishwasher and microwave oven in the kitchen and the clock radio next to your bed, to the cellular phone you hold to your ear—sometimes for hours each day—exposure to EMR is growing and becoming a serious health threat. But there’s a huge public health crisis looming from one particular threat: EMR from cellular phones—both the radiation from the handsets and from the tower-based antennas carrying the signals—which studies have linked to development of brain tumors, genetic damage, and other exposure-related conditions.1-9 Yet the government and a well-funded cell phone industry media machine continue to mislead the unwary public about the dangers of a product used by billions of people. Most recently, a Danish epidemiological study announced to great fanfare the inaccurate conclusion that cell phone use is completely safe.10   George Carlo, PhD, JD, is an epidemiologist and medical scientist who, from 1993 to 1999, headed the first telecommunications industry-backed studies into the dangers of cell phone use. That program remains the largest in the history of the issue. But he ran afoul of the very industry that hired him when his work revealed preventable health hazards associated with cell phone use. In this article, we look at why cell phones are dangerous; Dr. Carlo’s years-long battle to bring the truth about cell phone dangers to the public; the industry’s campaign to discredit him and other scientists in the field; and what you can do to protect yourself now. Cell Phones Reach the Market without Safety Testing The cellular phone industry was born in the early 1980s, when communications technology that had been developed for the Department of Defense was put into commerce by companies focusing on profits. This group, with big ideas but limited resources, pressured government regulatory agencies—particularly the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—to allow cell phones to be sold without pre-market testing. The rationale, known as the “low power exclusion,” distinguished cell phones from dangerous microwave ovens based on the amount of power used to push the microwaves. At that time, the only health effect seen from microwaves involved high power strong enough to heat human tissue. The pressure worked, and cell phones were exempted from any type of regulatory oversight, an exemption that continues today. An eager public grabbed up the cell phones, but according to Dr. George Carlo, “Those phones were slowly prompting a host of health problems.” Today there are more than two billion cell phone users being exposed every day to the dangers of electromagnetic radiation (EMR)—dangers government regulators and the cell phone industry refuse to admit exist. Included are: genetic damage, brain dysfunction, brain tumors, and other conditions such as sleep disorders and headaches.1-9 The amount of time spent on the phone is irrelevant, according to Dr. Carlo, as the danger mechanism is triggered within seconds. Researchers say if there is a safe level of exposure to EMR, it’s so low that we can’t detect it. The cell phone industry is fully aware of the dangers. In fact, enough scientific evidence exists that some companies’ service contracts prohibit suing the cell phone manufacturer or service provider, or joining a class action lawsuit. Still, the public is largely ignorant of the dangers, while the media regularly trumpets new studies showing cell phones are completely safe to use. Yet, Dr. Carlo points out, “None of those studies can prove safety, no matter how well they’re conducted or who’s conducting them.” What’s going on here? While the answer in itself is simplistic, how we got to this point is complex. Flawed Danish Study Reports Cell Phones are Safe In December, 2006, an epidemiological study on cell phone dangers published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute sent the media into a frenzy.10 Newspaper headlines blared: “Danish Study Shows Cell Phone Use is Safe,” while TV newscasters proclaimed, “Go ahead and talk all you want—it’s safe!” The news seemed to be a holiday gift for cell phone users. But unfortunately, it’s a flawed study, funded by the cell phone industry and designed to bring a positive result. The industry’s public relations machine is working in overdrive to assure that the study get top-billing in the media worldwide. According to Dr. George Carlo, the study, by its design, could not identify even a very large risk. Therefore, any claim that it proves there’s no risk from cell phones is a blatant misrepresentation of the data that will give consumers a very dangerous false sense of security. “Epidemiological studies are targets for fixing the outcome because they’re observational in nature instead of experimental,” Dr. Carlo explains. “It’s possible to design studies with pre-determined outcomesthat still fall within the range of acceptable science. Thus, even highly flawed epidemiological studies can be published in peer-reviewed journals because they’re judged against a pragmatic set of standards that assume the highest integrity among the investigators.” Key problems with the study are: There are few discernable differences between who was defined as cell phone users and who wasn’t. Thus, people defined as exposed to radiation were pretty much the same as those defined as not exposed to radiation. With few differences, it’s nearly impossible to find a risk. Users were defined as anyone who made at least one phone call per week for six months between 1982 and 1995. So any person who made 26 calls was a cell phone user and therefore considered exposed to radiation. Those with less than 26 calls were non-users. In reality, the radiation exposure between users and non-users defined in this manner is not discernable. The “exposed” people used ancient cell phone technology bearing little resemblance to cell phones used today. The results, even if reliable, have no relevance to the 2 billion cell phone users today. From 1982 to 1995, cell phone minutes cost much more than today and people used their phones much less. Thus there was very little radiation exposure. During the study’s time frame, people likely to use their cell phones the most were commercial subscribers. Yet this highest exposed group, in whom risk would most easily be identified, was specifically excluded from the study. There were no biological hypotheses tested in the study. It was therefore only a numbers game. Ignored were mechanisms of disease found in other studies of cell phone radiation effects, including genetic damage, blood-brain barrier leakage, and disrupted intercellular communication. The study did not discuss any research supporting the notion that cell phones could cause problems in users. The study itself was inconsistent with cancer statistics published worldwide addressing the Danish population. This study showed a low risk of cancer overall, when in fact Denmark has some of the highest cancer rates in the world. This inconsistency suggested that something in the data does not add up. The cell phone industry constantly guards its financial interests, but unfortunately, an unwitting public can be harmed in the process, says Dr. Carlo. “Industry-funded studies in many cases now produce industry-desired outcomes. By tampering with the integrity of scientists, scientific systems and public information steps over the lines of propriety that are appropriate for protecting business interests—especially when the casualty of the interference is public health and safety.” To learn more about the dangers of cell phones and to read Dr. George Carlo’s full formal analysis of the Danish cell phone study, visit the Safe Wireless Initiative website at www.safewireless.org. Lawsuit Prompts Safety Studies In 1993, the cell phone industry was pressured by Congress to invest $28 million into studying cell phone safety. The cause of this sudden concern was massive publicity about a lawsuit filed by Florida businessman David Reynard against cell phone manufacturer NEC. Reynard’s wife, Susan, died of a brain tumor, and he blamed cell phones for her death. Reynard revealed the suit to the public on the Larry King Live show, complete with dramatic x-rays showing the tumor close to where Susan held her cell phone to her head for hours each day. The next day, telecommunications stocks took a big hit on Wall Street and the media had a field day. The industry trade association at the time, the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), went into crisis mode, claiming thousands of studies proved cell phones were safe and what Reynard and his attorney said was bunk. TIA reassured the public that the government had approved cell phones, so that meant they were safe. The media demanded to see the studies, but, says Dr. Carlo, “The industry had lied. The only studies in existence then were on microwave ovens. At that time, 15 million people were using cell phones, a product that had never been tested for safety.” Dr. Carlo Heads Cell Phone Research Cell Phone Radiation: What You Need to Know Originally developed for the Department of Defense, cell phones devices were never tested for safety. They entered the marketplace due to a regulatory loophole. Questions about cell phone safety arose in the early 1990s, when a businessman filed a lawsuit alleging that cell phones caused his wife’s death due to brain cancer. To address the questions surrounding cell phone safety, the cell phone industry set up a non-profit organization, Wireless Technology Research (WTR). Dr. George Carlo was appointed to head WTR’s research efforts. Under Dr. Carlo’s direction, scientists found that cell phone radiation caused DNA damage, impaired DNA repair, and interfered with cardiac pacemakers. European research confirmed Dr. Carlo’s findings. Studies suggest that cell phone radiation contributes to brain dysfunction, tumors, and potentially to conditions such as autism, attention deficit disorder, neurodegenerative disease, and behavioral and psychological problems. Dr. Carlo brought safety information about cell phones to the public through his book, Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age, and by creating the Safe Wireless Initiative and the Mobile Telephone Health Concerns Registry. The best protection against cell phone radiation is keeping a safe distance. Always use a headset to minimize exposure to harmful cell phone radiation. Forced to take action, the cell phone industry set up a non-profit organization, Wireless Technology Research (WTR), to perform the study. Dr. Carlo developed the program outline and was asked to head the research. Oversight of the issue was charged to the FDA, though it could have and probably should have gone to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which fought hard for jurisdiction. But the industry had enough influence in Washington to get whatever overseer it wanted. It simply didn’t want to tangle with EPA because, says Dr. Carlo, “… the EPA is tough.” “Anything that’s ever made a difference in terms of public health has come from the EPA,” he says. “But safety issues that are covered in corruption and questions seem to always have a connection to the FDA, which has been manipulated by pharmaceutical companies since it was born.” When called to help with the cell phone issue, Dr. Carlo was working with the FDA on silicone breast implant research. The choice of Dr. Carlo to head WTR seemed unusual to industry observers. An epidemiologist whose expertise was in public health and how epidemic diseases affect the population, he appeared to lack any experience in researching the effects of EMR on human biology. Based on this, a premature conclusion was drawn by many: Dr. Carlo was an “expert” handpicked by the cell phone industry, and therefore his conclusions would only back up the industry’s claim that cell phones are safe. Dr. Carlo, however, refused to be an easy target. He quickly recruited a group of prominent scientists to work with him, bulletproof experts owning long lists of credentials and reputations that would negate any perception that the research was predestined to be a sham. He also created a Peer Review Board chaired by Harvard University School of Public Health’s Dr. John Graham, something that made FDA officials more comfortable since, at the time, the agency was making negative headlines due to the breast implant controversy. In total, more than 200 doctors and scientists were involved in the project. Strict Study Guidelines Once all involved agreed on what was to be done, Dr. Carlo presented the study’s stakeholders in the industry, the government, and the public with a strict list of criteria for moving forward. “The money had to be independent of the industry—they had to put the money in trust and couldn’t control who got the funds,” he says. “Second, everything had to be peer reviewed before it went public, so if we did find problems after peer review, we could use that information publicly to recommend interventions.” A third requirement was for the FDA to create a formal interagency working group to oversee the work and provide input. The purpose of this was to alleviate any perception that the industry was paying for a result, not for the research itself. But the fourth and last requirement was considered by Dr. Carlo to be highly critical: “Everything needed to be done in sunlight. The media had to have access to everything we did.” The Research Begins The program began, but Dr. Carlo soon discovered that everyone involved had underlying motives.“The industry wanted an insurance policy and to have the government come out and say everything was fine. The FDA, which looked bad because it didn’t require pre-market testing, could be seen as taking steps to remedy that. By ordering the study, law makers appeared to be doing something. Everyone had a chance to wear a white hat.” Dr. Carlo and his team developed new exposure systems that could mimic head-only exposure to EMR in people, as those were the only systems that could approximate what really happened with cell phone exposure. Those exposure systems were then used for both in vitro (laboratory) and in vivo (animal) studies. The in vitro studies used human blood and lymph tissue in test tubes and petri dishes that were exposed to EMR. These studies identified the micronuclei in human blood, for example, associated with cell phone near-field radiation. The in vivo studies used head only exposure systems and laboratory rats. These studies identified DNA damage and other genetic markers. Says Dr. Carlo: “We also conducted four different epidemiological studies on groups of people who used cell phones, and we did clinical intervention studies. For example, studies of people with implanted cardiac pacemakers were instrumental in our making recommendations to prevent interference between cell phones and pacemakers. In all, we conducted more than fifty studies that were peer-reviewed and published in a number of medical and scientific journals.” Industry Seeks to Discredit Findings, Scientists But manipulation by the industry had begun almost immediately at the start of research. While Dr. Carlo and his team had never defined their research as being done to prove the safety of cell phones, the industry internally defined it as an insurance policy to prove that phones were safe. From the outset, what was being said by the cell phone industry in public was different from what was being said by the scientists behind closed doors. The pacemaker studies were a harbinger of bad things to come. Results showed that cell phones do indeed interfere with pacemakers, but moving the phone away from the pacemaker would correct the problem. Amazingly, the industry was extremely upset with the report, complaining that the researchers went off target. When Dr. Carlo and his colleagues published their findings in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1997,11 the industry promptly cut off funding for the overall program. It took nine months for the FDA and the industry to agree on a scaled-down version of the program to continue going forward. Dr. Carlo had volunteered to step down, since he was clearly not seeing eye-to-eye with the industry, but his contract was extended instead, as no one wanted to look bad from a public relations standpoint. The research continued, and what it uncovered would be a dire warning to cell phone users and the industry’s worst nightmare. When the findings were ready for release in 1998, the scientists were suddenly confronted with another challenge: the industry wanted to take over public dissemination of the information, and it tried everything it could to do so. It was faced with disaster and had a lot to lose. Fearing the industry would selectively release research results at best, or hold them back at worst, Dr. Carlo and his colleagues took the information public on their own, creating a highly visible war between the scientists and the industry. An ABC News expose on the subject increased the wrath of the industry. According to Dr. Carlo, “The industry played dirty. It actually hired people to put negative things about me and the other scientists who found problems on the internet, while it tried to distance itself from the program. Auditors were brought in to say we misspent money, but none of that ever held up. They tried every angle possible.” This included discussions with Dr. Carlo’s ex-wife to try to figure out ways to put pressure on him, he says. Threats to his career came from all directions, and Dr. Carlo learned from Congressional insiders that the word around Washington was that he was “unstable.” But all the character assassination paled in comparison to what happened next. Toward the end of 1998, Dr. Carlo’s house mysteriously burned down. Public records show that authorities determined the cause of the blaze was arson, but the case was never solved. Dr. Carlo refuses to discuss the incident and will only confirm that it happened. By this time, enough was enough. Dr. Carlo soon went “underground,” shunning the public eye and purposely making himself difficult to find. Why Cell Phones are Dangerous A cellular phone is basically a radio that sends signals on waves to a base station. The carrier signal generates two types of radiation fields: a near-field plume and a far-field plume. Living organisms, too, generate electromagnetic fields at the cellular, tissue, organ, and organism level; this is called the biofield. Both the near-field and far-field plumes from cell phones and in the environment can wreak havoc with the human biofield, and when the biofield is compromised in any way, says Dr. Carlo, so is metabolism and physiology. “The near field plume is the one we’re most concerned with. This plume that’s generated within five or six inches of the center of a cell phone’s antenna is determined by the amount of power necessary to carry the signal to the base station,” he explains. “The more power there is, the farther the plume radiates the dangerous information-carrying radio waves.” A carrier wave oscillates at 1900 megahertz (MHz) in most phones, which is mostly invisible to our biological tissue and doesn’t do damage. The information-carrying secondary wave necessary to interpret voice or data is the problem, says Dr. Carlo. That wave cycles in a hertz (Hz) range familiar to the body. Your heart, for example, beats at two cycles per second, or two Hz. Our bodies recognize the information-carrying wave as an “invader,” setting in place protective biochemical reactions that alter physiology and cause biological problems that include intracellular free-radical buildup, leakage in the blood-brain barrier, genetic damage, disruption of intercellular communication, and an increase in the risk of tumors. The health dangers of recognizing the signal, therefore, aren’t from direct damage, but rather are due to the biochemical responses in the cell. Here’s what happens: Cellular energy is now used for protection rather than metabolism. Cell membranes harden, keeping nutrients out and waste products in. Waste accumulating inside the cells creates a higher concentration of free radicals, leading to both disruption of DNA repair (micronuclei) and cellular dysfunction. Unwanted cell death occurs, releasing the micronuclei from the disrupted DNA repair into the fluid between cells (interstitial fluid), where they are free to replicate and proliferate. This, says Dr. Carlo, is the most likely mechanism that contributes to cancer. Damage occurs to proteins on the cell membrane, resulting in disruption of intercellular communication. When cells can’t communicate with each other, the result is impaired tissue, organ, and organism function. In the blood-brain barrier, for example, cells can’t keep dangerous chemicals from reaching the brain tissue, which results in damage. With the background levels of information-carrying radio waves dramatically increasing because of the widespread use of cell phones,Wi-Fi, and other wireless communication, the effects from the near and far-fields are very similar. Overall, says Dr. Carlo, almost all of the acute and chronic symptoms seen in electrosensitive patients can be explained in some part by disrupted intercellular communication. These symptoms of electrosensitivity include inability to sleep, general malaise, and headaches. Could this explain the increase in recent years of conditions such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, and anxiety disorder? “One thing all these conditions have in common is a disruption, to varying degrees, of intercellular communication. When we were growing up, TV antennas were on top of our houses and such waves were up in the sky. Cell phones and Wi-Fi have brought those things down to the street, integrated them into the environment, and that’s absolutely new. The recognition mechanism, where protein vibration sensors on the cell membrane pick up a signal and interpret it as an invader, only works because the body recognizes something it’s never seen before.” As to increases in brain tumors tied to cell phone use, it’s too early to tell due to a lack of hard data, says Dr. Carlo. “We’re never going to see that in time to have it matter. Here in the US, we’re six years behind in getting the brain tumor database completed, and currently the best data are from 1999. By the time you see any data showing an increase, the ticking time bomb is set.” Epidemic curve projections, however, indicate that in 2006, we can expect to see 40,000 to 50,000 cases of brain and eye cancer. This is based on published peer-reviewed studies that allow calculation of risk and construction of epidemic curves. By 2010, says Dr. Carlo, expect that number to be between 400,000 and 500,000 new cases worldwide. “This means we’re on the beginning curve of an epidemic, with epidemic defined as a change in the occurrence of a disease that is so dramatic in its increase that it portends serious public health consequences,” says Dr. Carlo. “This is what’s not being told to the public. One of the things that I suggest to people who use a cell phone is to use an air tube headset. If you use a wired headset, the current moving through the wire of the headset attracts ambient informational carrying radio waves and thereby increases your exposure.” Gauss Meters: Detecting Electromagnetic Radiation Invisible electromagnetic radiation surrounds us each day, emanating from diverse sources such as power lines, home wiring, computers, televisions, microwave ovens, photocopy machines, and cell phones. While undetectable to the eye, scientists have proposed that electromagnetic radiation may pose serious health effects, ranging from childhood leukemia to brain tumors. As scientists continue to unravel the precise health dangers of electromagnetic radiation, it makes good sense to avoid these potentially dangerous frequencies as much as possible. A gauss meter is a useful tool you can use to measure electromagnetic radiation in your home and work environments. Using the gauss meter at varied locations, you can easily detect electromagnetic radiation “hot spots” where exposure to these ominous frequencies is the greatest. Armed with this crucial information, you can then avoid these areas, re-arranging furniture or electronic devices as needed in order to avoid unnecessary exposure to electromagnetic radiation.

Read More...

Electromagnetic radiation and health

Electromagnetic radiation can be classified into two types: ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation, based on its capability of ionizing atoms and breaking chemical bonds.

Ultraviolet and higher frequencies, such as X-rays or gamma rays are ionizing, and these pose their own special hazards: see radiation and radiation poisoning.

Non-ionizing radiation, discussed here, is associated with electrical and biological hazards.

Types of hazards

Electrical hazards

Very strong radiation can induce current capable of delivering an electric shock to persons or animals. It can also overload and destroy electrical equipment. The induction of currents by oscillating magnetic fields is also the way in which solar storms disrupt the operation of electrical and electronic systems, causing damage to and even the explosion of power distribution transformers,^[1] blackouts (as occurred in 1989), and interference with electromagnetic signals (e.g. radio, TV, and telephone signals).^[2]

Fire hazards

Extremely high power electromagnetic radiation can cause electric currents strong enough to create sparks (electrical arcs) when an induced voltage exceeds the breakdown voltage of the surrounding medium (e.g. air). These sparks can then ignite flammable materials or gases, possibly leading to an explosion.

This can be a particular hazard in the vicinity of explosives or pyrotechnics, since an electrical overload might ignite them. This risk is commonly referred to as HERO (Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation to Ordnance). MIL-STD-464A mandates assessment of HERO in a system, but Navy document OD 30393 provides design principles and practices for controlling electromagnetic hazards to ordnance.

On the other hand, the risk related to fueling is known as HERF (Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation to Fuel). NAVSEA OP 3565 Vol. 1 could be used to evaluate HERF, which states a maximum power density of 0.09 W/m² for frequencies under 225 MHz (i.e. 4.2 meters for a 40 W emitter).

Biological hazards

The best understood biological effect of electromagnetic fields is to cause dielectric heating. For example, touching or standing around an antenna while a high-power transmitter is in operation can cause severe burns. These are exactly the kind of burns that would be caused inside a microwave oven.

This heating effect varies with the power and the frequency of the electromagnetic energy. A measure of the heating effect is the specific absorption rate or SAR, which has units of watts per kilogram (W/kg). The IEEE^[3] and many national governments have established safety limits for exposure to various frequencies of electromagnetic energy based on SAR, mainly based on ICNIRP Guidelines,^[4] which guard against thermal damage.

There are publications which support the existence of complex biological effects of weaker non-thermal electromagnetic fields (see Bioelectromagnetics), including weak ELF magnetic fields^[5][6] and modulated RF and microwave fields.^[7] Fundamental mechanisms of the interaction between biological material and electromagnetic fields at non-thermal levels are not fully understood.^[8]

A 2009 study at the University of Basel in Switzerland found that intermittent (but not continuous) exposure of human cells to a 50 Hz electromagnetic field at a flux density of 1 mT (or 10 G) induced a slight but significant increase of DNA fragmentation in the Comet assay.^[9] However that level of exposure is already above current established safety exposure limits.

Positions of governments and scientific bodies

World Health Organization

In May 2011, the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer published a review of the evidence on health risks of electromagnetic fields (EMFs), and concluded that there was limited evidence that cellphone users might be at increased risk of glioma and acoustic neuroma, and that there was inadequate evidence of any other health risks posed by EMF.^[10][11] This "possibly carcinogenic" classification was often misinterpreted, meaning only "that there is very little scientific evidence as to the carcinogenicity of cell phone use".^[12]

Health Canada

"There is no conclusive evidence of any harm caused by exposures [to electric and magnetic fields] at levels found in Canadian homes and schools, including those located just outside the boundaries of power line corridors."^[13]

U.S. military definition

In Federal Standard 1037C, the United States government adopts the following definition:

Electromagnetic radiation hazards (RADHAZ or EMR hazards): Hazards caused by a transmitter/antenna installation that generates electromagnetic radiation in the vicinity of ordnance, personnel, or fueling operations in excess of established safe levels or increases the existing levels to a hazardous level; or a personnel, fueling, or ordnance installation located in an area that is illuminated by electromagnetic radiation at a level that is hazardous to the planned operations or occupancy. These hazards will exist when an electromagnetic field of sufficient intensity is generated to: (a) induce or otherwise couple currents or voltages large enough to initiate electroexplosive devices or other sensitive explosive components of weapon systems, ordnance, or explosive devices; (b) cause harmful or injurious effects to humans and wildlife; (c) create sparks having sufficient magnitude to ignite flammable mixtures of materials that must be handled in the affected area. —Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms

Electric power transmission

The preponderance of evidence suggests that the low-power, low-frequency, electromagnetic radiation associated with household current does not constitute a short or long term health hazard, and although some biophysical mechanisms for the promotion of cancer have been proposed (such as the electric fields around power lines attracting aerosol pollutants^[14][15]), none have been substantiated.

Nevertheless, some research has reported correlation with a number of adverse health effects, although controversy can include whether observed correlation implies causation. These include, but are not limited to, childhood leukemia,^[16] adult leukemia,^[22] neurodegenerative diseases (such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis),^[23][24][25] miscarriage,^[26][27][28] and Alzheimer's disease.^[29] Some research has found no relationship with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, or multiple sclerosis.^[29]

Mitigation

One response to the potential dangers of overhead power lines is to place them underground. The earth and enclosures surrounding underground cables prevent the electric field from radiating significantly beyond the power lines, and greatly reduce the magnetic field strength radiating from the power lines, into the surrounding area.^[30] However, the cost of burying and maintaining cables at transmission voltages is several times greater than overhead power lines.^[31]

Leukemia and cancer

Suggesting no significant link

In 1997 the National Cancer Institute (NCI) released a report published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the result of a seven-year epidemiological investigation. The study investigated 638 children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and 620 controls and concluded that their study provided "little evidence that living in homes characterized by high measured time-weighted average magnetic-field levels or by the highest wire-code category increases the risk of ALL in children."^[32]

Following the report, the US Department of Energy disbanded the EMF Research and Public Information Dissemination (RAPID) Program, saying that its services were no longer needed.^[33]

In 2005, the Canadian Federal-Provincial-Territorial Radiation Protection Committee said, "The outcome of a recently conducted pooled analysis of several epidemiological studies shows a two-fold increase in the risk of leukemia in children living in homes, where the average magnetic field levels are greater than 0.4 microtesla (4 milligauss). [However,] it is the opinion of [this committee] that the epidemiological evidence to date is not strong enough to justify a conclusion that EMFs in Canadian homes, regardless of locations from power lines, cause leukemia in children."^[34]

The World Health Organization issued a fact sheet, No. 322, in June, 2007 based on the findings of a WHO work group (2007), the IARC (2002) and the ICNIRP (2003), which reviewed research conducted since the earlier publication. The fact sheet says "that there are no substantive health issues related to ELF electric fields at levels generally encountered by members of the public."

 For ELF magnetic fields, the fact sheet says, "the evidence related to childhood leukaemia is not strong enough to be considered causal", and "[as regards] other childhood cancers, cancers in adults, ...

The WHO Task Group concluded that scientific evidence supporting an association between ELF magnetic field exposure and all of these health effects is much weaker than for childhood leukaemia. In some instances (i.e., for ... breast cancer) the evidence suggests that these fields do not cause them."^[16]

According to Dr. Lakshmikumar at the National Physical Laboratory, India, a direct, causal, link between RF radiation and cancer (including leukemia) would require one to be "willing to discard Planck's Law… and the entire body of quantum physics." ^[35]

In 2010, Maslanyj et al., applying the Bradford-Hill criteria to available evidence, considered the application of low-cost exposure reduction measures as appropriate precautionary responses to "small and uncertain public health risks". Even after pooling all the data, they found it fell short of establishing "strength of association, dose-response relationship, biological plausibility and coherence, and analogy". They recognised that controversy would continue so long as other interpretations of the data were possible.^[36]

Suggesting a significant link

In 2001, Ahlbom et al. conducted a review into EMFs and Health, and found that there was a doubling in childhood leukemia for magnetic fields of over 0.4 µT, but said that it "... may be partly due to bias. This is difficult to interpret in the absence of a known mechanism or reproducible experimental support."^[37]


In 2002 a study by Michelozzi et al. found a relationship between leukemia and proximity to the Vatican Radio station transmitters although "the study has limitations because of the small number of cases and the lack of exposure data."^[38]

In 2005 Draper et al. found a 70% increase in childhood leukemia for those living within 200 metres (656 ft) of an overhead transmission line, and a 23% increase for those living between 200 and 600 metres (656 and 1,969 ft). The authors concluded that "the relation may be due to chance or confounding."

The authors considered it unlikely that the increase from 200 m to 600 m is related to magnetic fields as they are well below 0.4 µT at this distance.^[39] Bristol University (UK) has published work on a theory that could account for this increase, and would also provide a potential mechanism, being that the electric fields around power lines attract aerosol pollutants.^[15]

Other findings

The World Health Organisation issued Factsheet No. 263 in October 2001 on ELF (Extremely low frequency) EMFs and cancer. It said that they were "possibly carcinogenic", based primarily on IARC's similar evaluation with respect to childhood leukemia. It also said that there was "insufficient" data to draw any conclusions on other cancers.^[40]

The WHO later noted that result had been based on evidence which was "weakened by methodological problems" and that "on balance, the evidence related to childhood leukaemia is not strong enough to be considered causal."^[16]

In 2007, the UK Health Protection Agency produced a paper showing that 43% of homes with magnetic fields of over 0.4 µT are associated with overground or underground circuits of 132 kV and above.^[41]

UK SAGE report

The UK Department of Health set up the Stakeholder Advisory Group on ELF EMFs (SAGE) to explore the implications and to make recommendations for a precautionary approach to power frequency electric and magnetic fields in light of any evidence of a link between EMF and childhood leukemia.

The first interim assessment of this group was released in April 2007 [1], and found that the link between proximity to power lines and childhood leukemia was sufficient to warrant a precautionary recommendation, including an option to lay new power lines underground where possible and to prevent the building of new residential buildings within 60 m (197 ft) of existing power lines.

The latter of these options was not an official recommendation to government as the cost-benefit analysis based on the increased risk for childhood leukemia alone was considered insufficient to warrant it. The option was considered necessary for inclusion as, if found to be real, the weaker association with other health effects would make it worth implementing.^[42]

Mobile telephones

Mobile phone radiation and health concerns have been raised, especially following the enormous increase in the use of wireless mobile telephony throughout the world (as of August 2005, there were more than 2 billion users worldwide). Mobile phones use electromagnetic radiation in the microwave range, and some^[43] believe this may be harmful to human health.^[44]

These concerns have induced a large body of research (both epidemiological and experimental, in non-human animals as well as in humans).^[45][46]

Concerns about effects on health have also been raised regarding other digital wireless systems, such as data communication networks.

The World Health Organization, based upon the consensus view of the scientific and medical communities, states that health effects (e.g. headaches or promotion of cancer) are unlikely to be caused by cellular phones or their base stations,^[47][48] and expects to make recommendations about mobile phones in the third quarter of 2010 at the earliest, or the first quarter of 2011 at the latest^[49].

Read More...

Specific absorption rate

Specific absorption rate (SAR) is a measure of the rate at which energy is absorbed by the body when exposed to a radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic field; although, it can also refer to absorption of other forms of energy by tissue, including ultrasound.^[1] It is defined as the power absorbed per mass of tissue and has units of watts per kilogram (W/kg).^[2]

SAR is usually averaged either over the whole body, or over a small sample volume (typically 1 g or 10 g of tissue). The value cited is then the maximum level measured in the body part studied over the stated volume or mass.

Calculation

SAR for electromagnetic energy can be calculated from the electric field within the tissue as:

where

is the sample electrical conductivity

is the RMS electric field

is the sample density

SAR measures exposure to fields between 100 kHz and 10 GHz (generally known as radio waves).^[3] It is commonly used to measure power absorbed from mobile phones and during MRI scans.

The value will depend heavily on the geometry of the part of the body that is exposed to the RF energy, and on the exact location and geometry of the RF source.

Thus tests must be made with each specific source, such as a mobile phone model, and at the intended position of use. For example, when measuring the SAR due to a mobile phone the phone is placed at the head in a talk position.

The SAR value is then measured at the location that has the highest absorption rate in the entire head, which in the case of a mobile phone is often as close to the phone's antenna as possible. Various governments have defined safety limits for exposure to RF energy produced by mobile devices that mainly exposes the head or a limb for the RF energy:

• United States: the FCC requires that phones sold have a SAR level at or below 1.6 watts per kilogram (W/kg) taken over the volume containing a mass of 1 gram of tissue that is absorbing the most signal.
• European Union: CENELEC specify SAR limits within the EU, following IEC standards. For mobile phones, and other such hand-held devices, the SAR limit is 2 W/kg averaged over the 10 g of tissue absorbing the most signal (IEC 62209-1). For Magnetic Resonance Imaging the limits (described in IEC 60601-2-33) are slightly more complicated:

	Whole body SAR	Partial body SAR	Head SAR	Local SAR
Body Region	whole body	exposed body part	head	head	trunk	extremities
Operating Mode ↓	(W/kg)	(W/kg)	(W/kg)	(W/kg)	(W/kg)	(W/kg)
Normal	2	2 - 10 (b)	3.2	10 (c)	10	20
1st Level Controlled	4	4 - 10 (b)	3.2	10 (c)	10	20
2nd Level Controlled	>4	>(4 - 10) (b)	>3.2	>10 (c)	>10	>20
Short term SAR	The SAR limit over any 10 s period shall not exceed three times the stated values

Note: Averaging time of 6 minutes.

Notes:
(a) Local SAR is determined over the mass of 10 g.
(b) The limit scales dynamically with the ratio "exposed patient mass / patient mass":
NORMAL OPERATING MODE: Partial body SAR = 10 W/kg – (8 W/kg * exposed patient mass / patient mass)
FIRST LEVEL CONTROLLED OPERATING MODE: Partial body SAR = 10 W/kg – (6 W/kg * exposed patient mass / patient mass)
(c) In cases where the orbit is in the field of a small local RF transmit coil, care should be taken to ensure that the temperature rise is limited to 1 °C.
In comparison to the short term, relatively intensive exposures described above, for long term environmental exposure of the general public there is a limit of 0.08 W/kg averaged over the whole body.^[4].

Read More...

Wi-Fi and cell phones are especially dangerous to children

Should we be concerned about radiation from our cell phones (which we carry with us everywhere) and our Wi-Fi (which is nearly ubiquitous these days)?

Read More...

Public & Professional Concern about EMF harm

What the Leading Experts Say about Electromagnetic Pollution

“The problem is, man-made electromagnetic exposures aren’t “normal.” They are artificial artifacts, with unusual intensities, signaling characteristics, pulsing patterns, and wave forms, that don’t exist in nature. And they can misdirect cells in myriad ways.

Every aspect of the ecosystem may be affected, including all living species from animals, humans, plants and even microorganisms in water and soil.”

B. Blake Levitt Former New York Times journalist and author Electromagnetic Fields, A Consumer’s Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves and Editor of Cell Towers, Wireless Convenience? Or Environmental Hazard? 

“Very recently, new research is suggesting that nearly all the human plagues which emerged in the twentieth century, like common acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children, female breast cancer, malignant melanoma and asthma, can be tied to some facet of our use of electricity.  

There is an urgent need for governments and individuals to take steps to minimize community and personal EMF exposures.”

Samuel Milham MD, MPH Medical epidemiologist in occupational epidemiology.

Researcher First scientist to report increased cancers in electrical workers and to link childhood leukemia with the spread of residential electrification.

“Federal and State public heath agencies are not officially addressing what many concerned scientists and medical doctors now see as an emerging public health problem. There are no health surveillance or remedial response systems in place to advise citizens about electromagnetic radiation  exposure (EMR). 

As wireless technology evolves, ambient background levels increase, creating electrical pollution conditions which are becoming ubiquitous and more invasive.”

Libby Kelley, MA Managing Secretariat International Commission For Electromagnetic Safety; Founder, Council on Wireless Technology Impacts; EMF environmental consultant,
Co-Producer of documentary, “Public Exposure: DNA, Democracy and the Wireless Revolution”;

 

The January 2008 report issued by the National Academy of Sciences committee whose task was to examine the needs and gaps in the research on the biological effects of exposure to these antennas points out that the research studies to date do not adequately represent exposure realities. … 

A federal research strategy to address these very serious inadequacies in the science on which our government is basing health policy is sorely needed now.”

Janet Newton President, The EMR Policy Institute www.EMRPolicy.org 

“We are compelled to confirm the existence of non-thermal effects of electromagnetic fields on living matter, which seem to occur at every level of investigation from molecular to epidemiological. 

Recent epidemiological evidence is stronger than before. We recognize the growing public health problem known as electrohypersensitivity. 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 exposure standards are developed.” (partial statement)

The Venice Resolution, initiated by the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS) on June 6, 2008, and now signed by nearly 50 peer reviewed scientists worldwide

We are constantly being bathed in an increasing sea of radiation from exposure to the above, as well as electrical appliances, computers, Bluetooth devices, Wi-Fi installations and over 2,000 communications satellites in outer space that shower us with signals to GPS receivers. 

New WiMax transmitters on cell phone towers that have a range of up to two square miles compared to Wi-Fi’s 300 feet will soon turn the core of North America into one huge electromagnetic hot spot. Children are more severely affected because their brains are developing and their skulls are thinner.”

Paul J. Rosch, MD Clinical Professor of Medicine and Psychiatry, New York Medical College; Honorary Vice President International Stress Management Association; Diplomate, National Board of Medical Examiners; Full Member, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences; Fellow, The Royal Society of Medicine; Emeritus Member, The Bioelectromagnetics Society

“Radio frequency radiation and other forms of electromagnetic pollution are harmful at orders of magnitude well below existing guidelines. Science is one of the tools society uses to decide health policy. In the case of telecommunications equipment, such as cell phones, wireless networks, cell phone antennas, PDAs, and portable phones, the science is being ignored.

Magda Havas, PhD Associate Professor, Environment & Resource Studies, Trent University, Canada. 

“Sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation is the emerging health problem of the 21st century.  It is imperative health practitioners, governments, schools and parents learn more about it. The human health stakes are significant”.

William Rea, MD Founder & Director of the Environmental Health Center, Dallas Past President, American Academy of Environmental Medicine

“There is no question EMFs have a major effect on neurological functioning. They slow our brain waves and affect our long-term mental clarity. We should minimize exposures as much as possible to optimize neurotransmitter levels and prevent deterioration of health”.

Eric Braverman, MD Brain researcher, Author The Edge Effect, and Director of Path Medical in New York City and The PATH Foundation.

Read More...

Cell Phone Radiation Is “Possibly Carcinogenic.”

Using a mobile phone may increase your risk for certain kinds of brain cancers. That was the scientific conclusion relayed today by a working group of 31 scientists from 14 countries meeting at the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO/IARC) who completed a review of the available scientific evidence on cell-phone radiation and brain tumors.

Read More...