[T]he public is now
understandably wary of safety assurances from “official” government scientific
sources w.r.t. [with regard to] electromagnetic pollution. This skepticism is
enhanced when views contrary to official perceived wisdom is [sic], at worst silenced
or, at best, studiously ignored.
March 2001 report by the European Parliament
STOA
We’re all participating in a
giant experiment in involuntary epidemiology—irradiated by cell phones and towers,
cordless phones, satellites, broadcast antennas, military and aviation radar,
TVs, computers, wireless internet, wireless LANs in schools and the workplace,
and now these meters, waiting to see what it does to us.
Actually, we know what it
does to us, so the results shouldn’t come as any surprise.
The main problem isn’t
cancer, although the industry would like you to believe that, because then they
can pull out statistics showing how infrequently it occurs as a result of
low-level radiation. Cancer takes a long time to develop. Typically, other
problems show up first: neurological, reproductive, and cardiac. Problems with
severe headaches, sleep disturbances, memory loss, learning disabilities,
attention deficit disorder, and infertility show up long before cancer. When
cancer does appear, it’s typically brain tumors, leukemia, and lymphoma.
Here are a few things to
keep in mind about the health effects of microwave radiation:
1. Effects at low levels
can be more noticeable than at higher levels.
The existence of a “window
effect” is well documented, in which effects occur at certain frequencies and
power densities but not at those immediately above or below them. However, it’s
not as simple as just mapping these frequencies and power levels, because the
local geomagnetic field and individual susceptibility also influence the result.
Following are a few
examples of the nonlinear nature of the effects, from Arthur Firstenberg’s book
Microwaving Our Planet (see bottom of page for information). In each
case, emphasis has been added:
Firstenberg points out (p.
41) that “calcium ion efflux from brain tissue is extremely sensitive to
irradiation with radiofrequency waves.” He cites four studies and a literature
review. In particular, a 1986 study by Dutta et al. at 915 MHz and various
exposure levels showed that “The effect at 0.0007 mW/g SAR [specific absorption
rate] was quadruple the effect at 2.0 mW/g, in other words 3000 times the
intensity had 4 times less of an effect under these particular conditions.”
Looking at it the other way, an intensity three thousand times lower had an
effect four times greater.
Firstenberg describes a
number of studies on microwave radiation and blood cells. In one, “Chiang et al.
(1989) in their epidemiological study found that white blood cell
phagocytosis was stimulated by chronic exposure to the lowest intensities of
radio waves and inhibited, sometimes severely, by higher intensities. . . .
Exposure levels ranged from 0–4 mW/cm2
to 120 mW/cm2.”
(p. 22)
In another study on blood,
“These results were further refined by a 30-day experiment with guinea pigs at
1, 5, 10, and 50 mW/cm2
(Shandala and Vinogradov 1978). All these intensities increased complement in
the blood and stimulated phagocytosis by neutrophils, but 1 mW/cm2
had the biggest effect, and 50 mW/cm2
the smallest effect.” (p. 23)
The September 2000
newsletter of the Cellular Phone Taskforce, No Place To Hide, reported on
some studies presented at the June 2000 European Parliament meeting on mobile
phones and health. In one presentation, Dr. Lebrecht von Klitzing, of the
Medical University of Lubeck, Germany, said, “Some people become ill at power
densities of less than 10 nanowatts/cm2. . . . Small children are
very sensitive to these emitters, down to field densities of 1 nanowatt/cm2.”
Another article in the
newsletter says that Dr. Leif Salford, of Lund University, Sweden, “had
previously reported that short exposure to microwaves at 915 MHz damages the
blood-brain barrier. . . . ‘The most remarkable observation in our studies,’
said Salford [at the conference], ‘is the fact that SAR values lower than 1 mW/kg
give rise to a more pronounced albumin leakage than higher SAR values. . . .
The situation that the weakest fields, according to our findings, are the
biologically most effective, poses a major problem.’ ”
2. Another effect
independent of power level is resonance,
which occurs at certain frequency ranges where the wavelength is near the size
of a body part. An example is the 900 Mhz range, which has a wavelength of
approximately one foot—a size that can cause resonance in a child’s head
(because some of the radiation is absorbed, and the wavelength decreases). This
intensifies the biological effect. Also, children’s skulls are thinner, so
microwaves penetrate more easily. (Another problem is that children’s cells are
dividing rapidly, which creates more chance for DNA damage. Their immune systems
are not fully developed and can’t defend them against this.)
3. Pulsed radiation, of
the type produced by these meters, is more harmful
at the cellular level than continuous-wave. The
meters emit pulses twice in two seconds, although the interval is random.
4. Studies are typically
done for short exposure periods at
higher intensities, because running studies longer costs more money. This allows
the industry to claim that few studies have been done that show effects for
long-term, low-level exposure and that “nonthermal” effects do not exist. But
public health scientists point out that duration is also important, and
long-term, low-level exposure can have equivalent effects.
5. The effects of
radiation are cumulative, in both senses.
The meters add to the cumulative radiation as sources proliferate, and microwave
radiation is cumulative in sense of increasing the body’s sensitivity over time.
Research shows that test subjects don’t always recover completely and that
subsequent exposures can cause effects at lower levels.
6. There are no longer
any control groups, because we are
now exposed to so much radiation. Alasdair Phillips points out the problem in an
email to the Roy Beavers list (archived on the Library page at www.wave-guide.org),
Recently an American epidemiologist, Dr Sam Milham, re-analysed Doll’s own data
presented in his 1956 (Doll & Hill) paper which showed that heavy smokers were
23.7 times more likely to die from lung cancer than non-smokers. However when
you compare the figures for heavy smokers vs light and moderate ones the ORs
[odds ratios] fall to 3.5 and 1.9. When you compare light smokers with moderate
ones you get an OR of only 1.8.
Applying this concept to
microwaves, there are no unexposed and few highly exposed subjects. So
experimental results showing harm compared to a control group can be deceptively
low—like comparing lung cancer in heavy smokers to light or moderate smokers
rather than nonsmokers. This allows the industry to downplay the implications of
health effects.
7. Even in full studies,
sometimes the abstract and/or conclusion may not accurately reflect the study’s
data, especially if the industry was
involved or the researcher is concerned about funding.
For example, Kathleen
Thurmond, M.D., in a 1999 talk, said,
A
study presented by Dr. Ross Adey at the 1996 annual meeting of the
Bioelectromagnetics Society in Victoria, B.C., Canada, showed a decrease in the
incidence of brain tumors in rats chronically exposed to digital cellular
telephone fields. However, there was no mention in his sstudy of the increased
incidence of spinal column tumors found in his research according to a reliable
source. It would be standard scientific practice to at least note this finding
regarding spinal column tumors. Dr. Ross Adey’s research funding by Motorola has
now been terminated.
Dr. Henry Lai was quoted in
the London Times as saying, “They are asking me to change my whole
interpretation of the findings in a way that would make them more favorable to
the mobile phone industry. This is what happened in the tobacco industry. They
had data in their hands but when it was not favorable they did not want to
disclose it.”
The European Parliament
report says, “[A] relatively recent reanalysis of the Lilienfeld report on
the Moscow US Embassy irradiation during the ‘cold’ war, based on
information that only became fully available following the Freedom of
Information Act . . . reveals that the original verdict of no serious health
effects was, in fact, a sanitised version of Lilienfeld’s findings, in which his
statements of concern had been deliberately removed by the State Department.”
Alternatives to reading
every study include abstracts, books or reports that summarize the research, and
capsule descriptions of studies in tabular format. Following are some sources
for each of these:
Dr. Henry Lai, a well-known
bioelectromagnetics researcher at the University of Washington, Seattle, has
compiled a 97-page collection of abstracts from studies conducted between 1995
and 2000. The list, in pdf format, can be found on the Research page of the EMR
Network’s web site. As the web site points out, “80% of these studies
demonstrate some kind of biological effect.”
www.electric-words.com
contains abstracts of many studies.
The Physiological and
Environmental Effects of Non-Ionising Electromagnetic Radiation
is a 34-page report issued in March 2001 by the European Parliament Directorate
General for Research, Scientific and Technological Options Assessment (STOA).
Written by Dr. Gerard Hyland, it pulls no punches in warning of the hazards of
microwave radiation.
Potential and Actual
Adverse Effects of Radiofrequency and Microwave Radiation at Levels Near and
Below 2 uW/cm2, is a
200-page report by Dr. Neil Cherry, of Lincoln University, New Zealand. The
introduction says, “Strong claims by industry representatives and their
consultants that there is no scientific evidence to justify the public’s fears
is scientifically demonstrably wrong.”
An April 2001 press release
by the
ECOLOG-Institut, in Hannover,
Germany, says that the institute’s report on cellular microwave exposure
presents “the results and recommendations of the comprehensive study carried out
by order of the German T-Mobil, in which physicists, medical scientists, and
biologists took part.” (The press release and study are available in German on
the Institute’s web site.)
There are a number of scientific findings from investigations on sub-populations
with an elevated exposition to high frequency electromagnetic fields and from
animal experiments that have to be taken seriously. These findings point on a
cancer-promoting effect of high frequency electromagnetic fields used by
cellular telephone technology. Experiments on cell cultures yielded clear
evidence for geno-toxic effects of these fields, like DNA breaks and damage to
chromosomes, so that even a cancer-initiating effect cannot be excluded any
longer. The findings that high frequency electro-magnetic fields influence cell
transformation, cell promotion and cell communication also point on a
carcinogenic potential of the fields used for cellular telephony. Moreover
disturbances of other cellular processes, like the synthesis of proteins and the
control of cell functions by enzymes, have been demonstrated.
In numerous experiments on humans as on animals influences on the central
nervous system were proven, which reach from neuro-chemical effects to
modifications of the brain potentials and impairments of certain brain
functions. The latter effects for instance have been demonstrated by animal
experiments and e.g. showed up as deficits in the ability to learn simple tasks
when exposed to the fields. From experiments with volunteers, who were exposed
to the fields of mobile telephones, there is clear evidence for influences on
certain cognitive functions. Possible risks for the brain also arise from an
increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier to potentially harmful
substances, observed in several experiments on animals exposed to mobile
telephone fields.
The scientist at the ECOLOG-Institute also found some evidence for disturbances
of the hormone and the immune system. High frequency electromagnetic fields
cause stress reactions, showing up in an increased production of stress hormones
in experimental animals and they lead to a reduction of the concentration of the
hormone melatonin in the blood of exposed animals. The latter finding is
important, because melatonin has a central control function for the hormone
system and the diurnal biological rhythms and it is able to retard the
development of certain tumours.
Dr. Peter Neitzke, coordinator
of the institute’s working group, says this:
80 per cent of the papers published in scientific journals do not contribute
anything to the evaluation of possible health risks due to the electromagnetic
fields emitted by cellular telephones and their base stations. The remainder
however, on which our assessment relies, is made so good and is in itself so
consistent that we must take the findings referring to health risks seriously.
In order to improve the protection of the public against the possibly harmful
effects of the electromagnetic fields from cellular telephones and their base
stations, we need much lower precautionary standards. . . .” [Italics
added.]
The report
says, “The ECOLOG-institute recommends not to exceed a precautionary standard of
0,01 W/m2 [ = 1 microwatt per square centimeter] when siting cellular
telephone base stations in the proximity of dwellings, schools, kindergartens,
hospitals, and similarly sensitive uses.”
In a commentary to this,
Dr. Neil Cherry, a well-known EMF researcher in New Zealand, says, “The actual
expose levels at which these genetic effects are shown are about 0.5 to 1.2
microWatt/sq cm. These are not safe levels, they are just experimental levels
that show that at extremely low experimental levels genotoxic response
occur—cell-by-cell. There is no safe threshold.”
In other words, the maximum
level the ECOLOG-Institute recommends is already the level at which, as Dr.
Cherry points out, genetic effects occur. This also happens to be about the same
exposure level from a cell-phone tower with a single set of antennas, sometimes
as much as 1000 feet away or more, depending on terrain, obstructions, signal
strength, etc. When another telecom with the same signal strength colocates on
the tower, the radiation increases.
A list of about two dozen
studies on low-level microwaves, compiled by Cindy Sage, a consultant on EMF
mitigation, can be found on the Library page at www.wave-guide.org. The list is
grouped by exposure level (from .1 to 120 mW/cm2)
and SAR (Specific Absorption Rate).
As part of his Radio
Wave Packet, Arthur Firstenberg, president of the Cellular Phone Taskforce,
has created a list of about 40 studies grouped by exposure level, beginning as
low as 10–13 mW/cm2
and extending to 10 mW/cm2. Therefore, it has
little overlap with Cindy Sage’s list and is more applicable to the levels
encountered with microwave meters and cell towers. It also includes Soviet and
Russian research.
Arthur Firstenberg has also
written a book, Microwaving Our Planet (currently out of print), with
brief descriptions of studies grouped by the affected system (nervous,
reproductive, heart, respiratory, etc.) and, under each system, by whether the
study was done on humans, animals, or cells.
|
