Your body has an energy signalling system that's vital for its
proper function. See Energy Systems. You
need to protect it!
Especially don't expose your child to EMFs. They have a lifetime more to bear this and the full extent of risks is not yet known!
How wireless technology may impact child development
and central nervous system functioning.
Worldwide, children and young people are the fastest growing group of mobile phone users. This growth is actively encouraged by professional advertising campaigns from the mobile phone industry, extolling how indispensable the phones are to their life styles. The scientific community has sounded a clear warning that this trend can be detrimental to the health of our youth. As we await further research, the message is one of caution. Every parent must ask themselves, is it worth the risk?
The founder and director of the Cellular Phone Taskforce (Firstenberg) and cofounder of the Environmental Health Network (Molloy) provide a concise, referenced article on this emerging condition. (From Latitudes, Volume 5 #4)
The author contends that Europeons and Russians know more than Americans about this important issue—and she tells you where you can find the facts you need.
One of the first mainstream publications to question cell phone safety. Read the article!
A heartbreaking account of how a cell phone tower placed next to a family’s farm devastated the health of a Midwest family and their farm animals.
Robert C. Kane, Ph.D, of The Associated Bioelectromagnetics Technologists, Blanchardville, Wisconsin, presents a theory that developmental exposures to electromagnetic radiation may help explain the dramatic recent increase in autism.
Doctors unite to express concern for health effects of mobile phone technology.
Update: March 2004
By Don Maisch
An ongoing problem for the cell phone industry has been on how to respond to the calls for a precautionary approach in relation to the use of cell phones by children. - Notably the advice from the UK Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP), chaired by Sir William Stewart. (2005).
In particular, Sir William's advice to the mobile phone industry to "refrain from promoting the use of mobile phones by children" was not greeted happily in many a corporate board room. - After all, this their Holy Grail where the BIG $$$$ are being made with a bewildering array of shiny gadgets for the kiddies. I saw one yesterday, a snappy looking"scratch and sniff" cell phone that smells of roses when you scratch the case. I hope the instructions include a warning to avoid poking the antenna in the eye when having an olfactory experience. What will they think of next? Perhaps Motorola could team up with Colgate to make the world's first cordless toothbrush phone! At least then the antenna would serve a useful purpose!
In effect, Sir William's advice has placed the concept of a precautionary approach squarely in the sights of the cell phone industry as a threat that needs to be dealt with.
So in a brilliant stroke of genius, someone came up with the idea of why not simply re-define the precautionary approach into something innocuous. And for good measure, have a go at re-writing science itself to give the all-clear for the industry. . . .
To keep track of this ongoing issue I have just placed two new papers (downloadable pdf files) on my web site, as follows:
Children and mobile phone use: Is there a health risk?
The case for extra precautions.
By Don Maisch
The paper "Mobile Phone Use: its time to take precautions", published in the April 2001 issue of the Journal of the Australasian College of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine by this author, examined what was known about the possible hazards of mobile phone use up to that date. (1) At first, this subject may not seem relevant to children's lives until it is realised that today the fastest growing group of mobile phone users are children and young people. This growth is actively encouraged by professional advertising campaigns from the mobile phone industry, extolling how indispensable the phones are to their life styles.
Case History: Walt Disney Co.
An unfortunate example of how youth are deliberately being targeted was investigated by the New York based technical newsletter Microwave News. In the May/June 2002 issue it was reported that in November 2005, just as ABC News was about to air a TV program expressing concern over the use of cell phones by children, the Walt Disney Co. announced that it would no longer allow its cartoon characters to be used to market mobile phones. ABC is a subsidiary of Disney. A Disney spokesperson said at the time that the new policy would remain in effect "until there is reliable evidence establishing the absence of any [health] risks," and that "The well-being of our customers is our first priority." (2)
At first this seems like a responsible position by Disney but it was exposed as a sham in the July/August issue of Microwave News:
"Disney and Motorola are teaming up to tap the 6 -to- 12 year-old customer electronics market. They will roll out the first products -- a two-way radio and a 2.45 GHz cordless phone -- in the fall, with others to follow next year. Motorola states that the walkie-talkies will have a range of up to two miles. And in late July, Disney announced that it is launching a service which will allow customers in Taiwan to download images of Mickey, Donald and Goofy onto their phone screens. In 2005, Disney pledged not to licence its characters for use on cell phones "until there is reliable evidence establishing the absence of any [health] risks." Disney recently reaffirmed this commitment to Microwave News."(3)
The only conclusion one can make here is that somehow, while all the scientists doing research on mobile phone health effects cannot yet come up with the goods on health risks, Disney has found "reliable evidence establishing the absence of any [health] risks". Fortunate news for Disney for now they can proceed with their new telecommunications venture, in partnership with the paragon of truly independent research, MOTOROLA.
This constitutes a serious conflict of interest if Motorola is providing ‘evidence of safety’ while at the same entering into a major capital venture with Disney.
To be fair to Disney, their executives would have only been provided with the opinions of Motorola about the safety of children using mobile phones and may be blissfully unaware that the science is not as black and white as they have been led to believe. Considering that Disney has a significant influence on many millions of children, the possibility of harm being inflicted on these children by their wireless products must be given serious consideration.
With the continuing worldwide mobile phone advertising blitz, produced by the same transnational public relations corporations that previously gave us such delightful cartoon characters as "Joe Camel" for the tobacco industry, no words of warning are heard. However, within the scientific community, there is a growing chorus of expert voices that are urging caution because if there are adverse health effects from mobile phone use, it will be the children who will be in the front line, and who may pay the highest price. For the sake of the future of our children's health we need to seriously heed these voices and limit children's unnecessary use of mobile phones.
Statements of concern from the scientific community:
1) In 1999, as a result of public concerns about possible health hazards from mobile phone technology, the UK Government formed the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP) to examine possible effects of mobile phones and transmitter base stations. This group was headed by Sir William Stewart, the famous British biochemist and president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. What made the Stewart Inquiry unique, was that it was made up almost entirely of biomedical specialists -- and so were able to focus many man-years of acquired specialist knowledge on the problem.
Their report, Mobile Phones and Health, was released in April 2005. In regards to the use of mobile phones by children the IEGMP stated:
"If there are currently unrecognised adverse health effects from the use of mobile phones, children may be more vulnerable because of their developing nervous system, the greater absorption of energy in the tissues of the head and a longer lifetime of exposure. In line with our precautionary approach, we believe that the widespread use of mobile phones by children for non-essential calls should be discouraged. We also recommend that the mobile phone industry should refrain from promoting the use of mobile phones by children."(4)
Sir William said at a science conference at Glasgow University in September 2001 that mobile phone makers often presented their products in adverts as essential "back to school" items for children. Such adverts were irresponsible, said Sir William. He added: "They are irresponsible because children's skulls are not fully developed. They will be using mobile phones for longer, and their effects won't be known for some time to come. Mobile phone technology has been led by the physical sciences. My own view is we ought to be doing more work on the potential biological effects." (5)
In January of 2003 Professor Lawrie Challis, who replaced Sir William Stewart as chairman of the Mobile Telecommunications Health Research team (The Stewart Committee) re-stated the committee’s views on children and mobile phone use. In an interview with a UK paper, Prof Challis mentioned that he was worried by the level of mobile phone use among children. He said more needed to be done towards educating youngsters about limiting the time they spend on phones. (6)
2) Concerns about children using mobile phones was specifically mentioned in a recent report (July, 2002) by the Science and Public Policy Institute, based in Arlington, Virginia, USA. The institute was founded by Dr. George Carlo, who formerly ran the U.S. wireless industry’s $28 million research program into the possible health risks of cell phone use.
The report "Proposals for Supplementary Funding" states on page 4:
"Special concern for children followed from the research. Studies showed that radiation penetrated deeper into the heads of teenagers and children resulting in more exposure to potentially harmful radio waves than adults; the type of genetic damage that was found – micronuclei in human blood – is more likely to occur in growing tissue undergoing mitosis, such as growing brain tissue in children; the wireless industry had targeted children as a growth market and were succeeding in increasing cell phone usage among children and teenagers."
The report also recommends on page the "development of informational materials for children and their parents regarding the science and solutions that can be used in schools." (7)
3) On December 8th 2005, the German Academy of Paediatrics issued a statement-advising parents to restrict their children's use of mobile phones. They advised that all mobile phone users should keep conversations as brief as possible but that additional precautions are appropriate for children in view of "special health risks" associated with their growing bodies. (8)
4) On July 31, 2001, Wolfram Koenig, the new head of the "Bundesamt fur Strahlenschutz, which is the federal authority for radiation protection in Germany, stated in an interview in the "Berliner Morgenpost" that "Parents should take their children away from that technology [mobile phones]". Mr Koenig, also a member of Germany's Greens party, said that "Some people are very sensitive to radiation." and urged companies not to target children in their advertising campaigns. (9)
5) Statement delivered at an Australian Senate Inquiry meeting in 2005: CSIRO Telecommunications and Industrial Physics chief, Gerry Haddad warned that the new telecommunications exposure standards being drafted neglected to take a high enough level of protection, particularly in relation to children. Mr. Haddad said, "Restrict use of mobile phones to children for essential purposes . . A precautionary principle would seem to be a good idea:". Dr. Haddad complained that the CSIRO’s view had been rejected in the formulation of new emission standards that stopped short of advising that children be restricted in their mobile phone use. (10)
6) A day after the release of a Danish mobile phone study titled "Cellular Telephones and Cancer – a Nationwide Cohort Study in Denmark, a panel of scientists in Denmark debated the findings and questioned the validity of the study conclusions. Panel chairman Professor Albert Gjedde, a brain specialist also expressed concern that children could be more vulnerable, because their brain cells are still growing, and therefore EMF had the potential to lead to more serious brain damage than in adults. He advised extreme caution in accepting assurances of safety, and suggested Denmark should reduce children’s exposure to mobile phone emissions to a minimum. (11)
7) Statement from Olle Johansson, Assoc. Professor, The Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Sweden. (September , 2001).
"...Already in 1996, I started to warn in public of the effects on microwave irradiation on children through their use of mobile telephones. The debate has also very much focussed on the responsibility regarding ads and products directly aimed for children, and here in Sweden great alarm has been raised around the propositions to even develop and sell cellphones for the ages up to 5 years."(12)
8) Statement from Sianette Kwee, Professor, Department of Medical Biochemistry, University of Aarhus, Denmark. (Member of the Editorial Board of Bioelectrochemistry. Danish expert representative in the European Union’s COST 281 project "Potential health effects from Emerging Wireless Communication systems", Basic Research group.)
Fields of research: Bioelectrochemistry : electroporation - electrochemistry of biological systems, Bioelectromagnetics: biological effects of environmental electromagnetic fields (extremely low frequency /ELF and microwave /MW), on cell growth in human amnion cells.
"Our studies showed that there was a significant change in cell growth in these cells after being exposed to EMF fields from both power lines (ELF) and from mobile phones (MW). These biological effects were greatest in young and vigorously growing cells, but much less in old cells. These results tell us, that e.g. microwave fields from mobile phones can be expected to affect children to a much greater degree than adults. (13)
9) Statement from Dr. Gerard Hyland of the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, and the International Institute of Biophysics, Neuss-Holzheim, Germany. Excerpt (dealing specifically with children and mobile phone use) from his Report for the STOA Committee of the EU.
"The Increased Vulnerability of Pre-adolescent Children:
Pre-adolescent children can be expected to be (potentially) more at risk than are adults - as recognised in the Report of the UK Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (the Stewart Report) - for the following reasons:
*Absorption of microwaves of the frequency used in mobile telephony is greater (particularly at 900MHz) in an object about the size of a child's head - the so-called head resonance – than in an adult’s, whilst, in consequence of the thinner skull of a child, the penetration of the radiation into the brain is greater than in an adult.
*The still developing nervous system and associated brain-wave activity in a child (and particularly one that is epileptic) are more vulnerable to aggression by the pulses of microwaves used in GSM than is the case with a mature adult. This is because the multi-frame repetition frequency of 8.34Hz and the 2Hz pulsing that characterises the signal from a phone equipped with the energy-saving discontinuous transmission (DTX) mode lie in the range of the alpha and delta brain wave activities, respectively. The fact that these two particular electrical activities are constantly changing in a child until the age of about 12 years, when the delta-waves disappear and the alpha rhythm is finally stabilised, means that a child’s brain must be anticipated to be doubly vulnerable to interference from the GSM pulsing.
*The increased mitotic activity in the cells of developing children makes them more susceptible to genetic damage.
*A child's immune system, whose efficiency is, in any case, degraded by radiation of the kind used in mobile telephony, is generally less robust than is that of an adult, so that the child less able to cope with any adverse health effect provoked by (chronic) exposure to such radiation." (14)
10) Dr Hyland was also an advisor in a small unpublished Spanish study, examining changes in brain activity after a child uses a mobile phone. The study, by Dr. Michael Klieeisen from the Neuro Diagnostic Research Institute in Marbella, Spain found that a single call lasting just two minutes can alter the natural electrical activity of a child’s brain for up to an hour afterwards. It was also found that the microwaves penetrated deep into the brain and not just around the ear.
The subjects were an 11-year-old boy and a 13-year-old girl. Using a CATEEN scanner, linked to a machine measuring brain wave activity, researchers were able to make photographic images of the changes in brain electrical activity.
In a newspaper interview Dr Hyland said that he finds the results "extremely disturbing". "It makes one wonder whether children, whose brains are still developing, should be using mobile phones," he adds. "The results show that children's brains are affected for long periods even after very short-term use. "Their brain wave patterns are abnormal and stay like that for a long period. "This could affect their mood and ability to learn in the classroom if they have been using a phone during break time, for instance. "We don't know all the answers yet, but the alteration in brain waves could lead to things like a lack of concentration, memory loss, inability to learn and aggressive behaviour."
"If I were a parent I would now be extremely wary about allowing my children to use a mobile even for a very short period. My advice would be to avoid mobiles."
Dr Michael Klieeisen, who conducted the study, said: "We were able to see in minute detail what was going on in the brain. "We never expected to see this continuing activity in the brain. "We are worried that delicate balances that exist - such as the immunity to infection and disease - could be altered by interference with chemical balances in the brain." (15) (16)
11) Professor Leif Salford and co-workers, authors of study on possible nerve damage from mobile phone radiation, warn about the possible implications for teenagers.
Professor Salford and colleagues at Lund University in Sweden exposed 12 and 26 week old rats, chosen because their developmental age is comparable to that of human teenagers, to two hours of microwave radiation, comparible to that of a GSM mobile phone. Their brains were examined for damage 50 days later. " The situation of the growing brain might deserve special concern," the authors wrote, "since biological and maturational processes are particularly vulnerable. We cannot exclude that after some decades of often daily use, a whole generation of users may suffer negative effects as early as middle age."
The study found that the microwave exposure was associated with leakage of albumin through the blood-brain-barrier and neuronal damage that increased in response to the
amount of exposure. Although the numbers of rats in the study was small the authors stated that "The combined results are highly significant and exhibit a clear dose-response relation."(17)
In an interview with the BBC News, Professor Salford said that "A rat’s brain is very much the same as a human’s. They have the same blood-brain-barrier and neurons. We have good reason to believe what happens in rat’s brains also happens in humans."(18)
"If this effect was to transfer to young mobile users, the effects could be terrifying. We can see reduced brain reserve capacity, meaning those who might normally have got Alzheimer’s dementia in old age could get it much earlier."(19)
Professor Salford then cautioned that mobile phone users should not be alarmed by the findings as it is one observation, in one laboratory with a small number of animals and needs to be repeated. "Nevertheless, it is strong enough to merit more reserch into this area." He then added: "Perhaps putting a mobile phone repeatedly to your head is something that might not be good in the long term.". . . "Maybe we should think about restricting our use of mobile phones," (20)
Prof. Salford said on the UK BBC Radio program "You and Yours"on 5 February 2003 that he would not allow his children to use a mobile phone other than in a real emergency and he chooses not to use one other than when he really has to. He said he rated the reality of brain Damage as a "probability rather than a possibility" (21)
12) WHO Director General on children & mobile phone use:
(Quoted from Microwave News )
"Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, the director general of the World Health Organisation (WHO), favors a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phones, according to press reports from Scandinavia.
In an interview with "Dagbladet Norge" (March 9, 2002), a major Norwegian newspaper , Brundtland discouraged children from using mobile phones. A physician with a degree in public health, Brundtland was a former prime minister of Norway.
Jon Liden, a communications advisor in Brundtland's office in Geneva, confirmed the accuracy of the Norwegian article to Microwave news.
Brundtland's outlook appears to put her at odds with the WHO International EMF Project. "Precautionary policies should not be applied to EMFs," Dr. Michael Repacholi, who oversees the project, stated recently (see MWN, S/O 01). He could not be reached for comment.
Brundtland advises everyone to limit the amount of time on the phone, but she does not think there is enough scientific evidence to issue a formal warning. For herself, Brundtland says that she gets a headache whenever she uses a mobile phone. "In the beginning I felt warmth around my ear. But the discomfort got worse and turned into a headache every time I used a mobile phone," Brundtland said in the interview. Making shorter calls does not help, she added. The interview was featured on the front page of "Dagbladet Norge" and was later picked up by the Swedish Press. (22)
13) Professor Michael Kundi, from the Institute of Environmental Health, University of Vienna, Austria, (writing in the July/August 2002 issue of Microwave News:)
I read with great interest your report on the Rome meeting on the possible risks of mobile phones to children (MWN, M/J02). My institution at the University of Vienna and Physicians for a Healthy Environment (a non-government organisation) have produced an information booklet on Mobile Phones and Children, sponsored by the Austrian Greens Party. It discourages the use of mobiles by children.
The arguments are similar to those that have been put forward by others. In addition, however, it relies on a fact that has not been previously stressed and, to my surprise, appears not to have been discussed in Rome. A child’s skull is not only thinner and surely has different dielectric properties because it has more blood vessels – it also contains many more stem cells which can form blood cells.
Hence, if RFMW radiation has an influence on the development of cancer, its effects will be greater for two reasons. First the most vulnerable cells are only millimeters from the antenna. (To my knowledge, nobody has calculated the SAR within the bone marrow of the skull.) And second, the earlier in life a malign transformation occurs, the more likely it will result in a clinical malignancy. (23)
14) The French Government on March 1, 2002 reiterated an advisory to users of mobile phones, reminding them that, on a precautionary basis, parents should tell their children to limit the use of wireless phones, and that when using an earpiece pregnant women should keep the phone away from their bellies and teenagers should keep it away from their developing sex organs. (24)
15) On October 9, 2002 twenty two medical doctors of the German Interdisciplinary Association for Environmental Medicine (Interdisziplilnare Gesellschaft fur Umweltmedizin e. V. (IGUMED) met in order to discuss their concerns about the increasing level of public ill-health that they considered as a consequence of the increasing levels of high-frequency-radiation (radiofrequency/microwave radiation) from telecommunications technology.
Some of the diseases that they saw as a consequence of the technology are: Learning, concentration, and behavioural disorders (e.g. attention deficit disorder,ADD), extreme fluctuations in blood pressure, ever harder to influence with mediciations, heart rhythm disorders, heart attacks and strokes among an increasingly younger population, brain-degenerative diseases (e.g. Alzheimer's) and epilepsy, leukaemiaand brain tumors
Along with many recommendations they specifically called for a ban on mobile phone use by small children, and restrictions on use by adolescents. (25)
16) The British Medical Association's Board of Science & Education has issued an interim report, "Mobile Phones and Health" on 24th May 2001. The report states that individuals should limit their exposure to RFR and adopt a precautionary approach that specifically includes limiting children's use of mobile phones.(26)
17) From the article "Microwave And Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure: A Growing Environmental Health Crisis?" by Cindy Sage of Sage Consultants. Exerpt from the web site of the San Francisco Medical Society.
“Are Children at Any Greater Risk? Probably, since children are growing and their cells are turning over faster than adults. Many of the studies linking power lines and cancer show that children are particularly sensitive to low EMF levels from chronic exposure and develop leukemias in response. The use of "kiddy mobile phones" with a button for mom and a button for dad are terrible ideas at this point.” (27)
18) Government ministers of both Thailand and Bangladesh have expressed concerns about the use of mobile phones by children.
In Thailand, Purachai Piemsomboon, whose campaign against vice has barred teenagers from pubs and night spots, cited a Japanese study, which he said concluded that mobile phones emitted radiation harmful to brain cells and nerves, especially of young people. He said that if teenagers continued to ignore the warning, a law to ban their use might become necessary. (28)
In Bangladesh, the Environment Minister mentioned the possibility of passing laws to ban mobile phones for children under 16 to protect them from exposure to radiation that could damage their brains. He outlined the plan at a conference of doctors and scientists in the capital, Dhaka. Regulations are also planned to stop companies from selling mobile phones to children. Families will be encouraged to keep them away from children. Bangladesh’s mobile phone companies have critised the proposal, saying there is no scientific basis for the measure. (29)
What the Australian authorities say:
The Australian Communications Authority (ACA) has distributed to every school in the nation a pamphlet titled Mobile phones. . . your health and regulation of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. In relation to possible health effects, the ACA pamphlet states only that "The weight of national and international scientific opinion is that there is no substantiated evidence that using a mobile phone causes harmful health effects." (30)
This pamphlet is quite misleading because it gives a very biased version of the "science". When the ACA pamphlet refers to "The weight of national and international scientific opinion" it is referring to the opinion and radio frequency exposure guidelines set by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) – guidelines recently incorporated into the Australian RF standard. What is omitted from the ACA pamphlet, however, is an admission of the limited relevance of ICNIRP on human exposures.
The ICNIRP guidelines are largely based on high-level, short-term animal exposure studies, conducted to determine exposure limits set to avoid immediate hazards to health (such as heating of body tissue, called a thermal effect) from high level exposures. To quote:
"Most of the established biological effects of exposure to RF fields are consistent with responses to induced heating. . . Most studies examined endpoints other than cancer, many examined physiological and thermo-regulatory responses, effects on behaviour and on the induction of lens opacities (cataracts) and adverse reproductive outcome following acute exposure to relatively high levels of RF fields. Very few studies are relevant to the evaluation of RF exposure on the development of cancer in humans ". (31)
The ACA pamphlet would be more truthful if it added to its conclusion: " . . There is no substantiated evidence that using a mobile phone causes harmful health effects."— because the necessary research has not yet been done.
Is it really good science for the ACA to depend upon high-level, short-term animal exposure studies to give assurances of safety with the use of mobile phones, especially where children are concerned? This, in effect, amounts to false advertising for the benefit of the mobile phone industry.
Most importantly, ICNIRP does not examine the possibility of other non-thermal health effects arising from long-term, low-level radiofrequency/microwave exposure, such as from using a mobile phone for years. As such, it is scientifically irrelevant to the issue. From a PR viewpoint however, statements like "The weight of national and international scientific opinion" do sound impressive at first glance.
In 1995, Dr. Ross Adey, one of the world's most respected and senior research scientists commented on the "The weight of national and international scientific opinion" by stating:
"The laboratory evidence for non-thermal effects of both ELF [power frequency] and RF/microwave fields now constitutes a major body of scientific literature in peer-reviewed journals. It is my personal view that to continue to ignore this work in the course of standard setting is irresponsible to the point of being a public scandal."(32)
So what we have is an ideological battle between an increasing number of well qualified experts, calling for a precautionary approach to safeguard our children's health, versus the corporate might of a billion dollar industry with concerns based solely on maximising corporate profits at the possible expense of our children’s future wellbeing. The outcome of this conflict may not be known for many years, until today's young mobile phone users are well into their adulthood. By then, if the warnings of health hazards prove to be true, irreversible damage to the health of many of these people will have been done.
For every parent who is tempted to allow unrestricted mobile phone use by their children, they need to ask themselves: Is it worth the risk?
And, for Walt Disney Co, if the well-being of their customers is truly their first priority, they need to seriously re-consider moving into telecommunications. If nothing else, do they dare take the risk of litigation if the warnings of health hazards are found to be real?
1) Maisch D. "Mobile Phone Use: its time to take precautions" ACNEM Journal, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp 3-10, April 2001.
2) "A Mickey Mouse Policy". Microwave News, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp 19,
3) "Wireless Notes" Microwave News, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp 7,
4) Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, Mobile Phones and Health, Advice to Industry (1.53), pp 8, April 2005.
5) "Mobile Phone Adverts For Children Irresponsible", J. Radowitz, PA News, 10 Sept., 2001.
6) "The Government want us to say that these masts are completely safe and aren't dangerous, but we can't say that" Interview by Andy Mosley - Express & Echo - Friday January 24 2003
8)"German Academy of Pediatrics: Keep Kids Away from Mobiles", Microwave News, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp 5, Jan/Feb 2001.
9)Article in the Berliner Mornenpost, July 31, 2001.
10)The Australian Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee: Inquiry into Electromagnetic Radiation, June 2005. Also: "Kids phone usage fears" The Sunday Tasmanian, March 18, 2001.
11)Maisch D. "Mobile Phone Use: its time to take precautions" ACNEM
Journal, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp 4, April 2001.
12)Personal correspondence with Prof. Olle Johansson, The Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Sweden. (September, 2001).
13)Personal correspondence with Prof. Sianette Kwee, Department of
Medical Biochemistry, University of Aarhus, Denmark.
14) Personal correspondence with Dr. Gerard Hyland, University of
Warwick, Department of Physics, Coventry, England. Excerpt
from his Report for the STOA Committee of the EU. (Specifically
dealing with children and mobile phone use)
15) "The Child Scrambler – What a mobile can do to a youngster’s
brain in 2 minutes", U.K. Sunday Mirror, 27 December 2001.
16) Personal correspondence with Dr. Gerard Hyland.
17) Salford L. Arne A. Eberhardt J. Malmgren L. Persson B. "Nerve Cell Damage in Mammalian Brain after Exposure to Microwaves from GSM Mobile Phones", In press Env. Health Per. http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2003/6039/abstract.pdf
18) "Mobile phones may trigger Alzheimer’s’ BBC News, Health Contents: Medical notes, 5 Feb. 2003. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/health/2728149.stm
19) "Phones damage brains, The Mercury, pp 3, February 7, 2003.
20) "Mobile phones may trigger Alzheimer’s’(as above)
21) "Mobile phone signals kill of brain cells", Powerwatch web site: http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/ Feb. 6. 2003.
22) "WHO Director on Cell Phones: Follow Precautionary Principle",
Microwave News, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp 6, March/April 2002.
23)"More Reasons Children May Be at Risk", Microwave News, Vol.
22, No. 4, pp 13, July/August 2002.
24) "Eye on Europe", Microwave News, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp 5, March/April 2002.
25)As reported by the EMR Network: http://www.emrnetwork.org/news/IGUMED_english.pdf
26) "Mobile Phones and Health" The British Medical Association's Board of Science & Education , 24th May 2001
27) Website of the San Francisco Medical Society http://www.sfms.org/sfm/sfm301h.htm
28) "Thai Minister mulls cellphone ban for youngsters", Channel
News Asia: Southeast Asia News, April 5, 2002.
29) "Bangladesh to ban mobile phones for Children", Ananova-
Orange mobile news service (http://www.ananova.com)
June 3, 2002.
30) "Mobile phones. . .your health and regulation of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation" Australian Communications Authority, April 2001.
31) International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Health Issues Related to the use of hand-held Radiotelephones and Base Transmitters. June 1995.
32) Personal correspondence with Ross Adey, August 1995.
PO Box 96
Arthur Firstenberg and Susan Molloy
The 750,000-watt Doppler weather radar at Fort Dix, New Jersey, overlooks the Township of Brick. Why is that of interest to anyone but meteorologists? It’s not, except that eight out of every 1000 children born in Brick since the radar station was built in 1994 are autistic.
The Brick Township Autism Investigation (1), conducted in 1998 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, uncovered 60 cases of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) among children aged three through ten in this town of 77,000 residents. As in much of the rest of the world, autism is increasing here. But the prevalence of both ASD and classic autism in Brick Township were found to be dramatically higher than normal in the 3-to-5-year-old age group, i.e., those born since 1994.
Forward-thinking educators and parents have done a good job in recent years of tackling the difficult issues involved in protecting sensitive children from chemical contaminants, dyes, preservatives, and allergens in their food, medications, classrooms, and homes. However, an additional burden has been overlooked and even ridiculed as untenable as a factor in many children’s profound neurological and behavioral problems. Some readers may react with disbelief to our suggestion that the Fort Dix Doppler might qualify for a place on the “radar screen” of those scientists who are puzzled by the local epidemic of autism. (2)
The authors of this article are adults who are made extremely sick, sometimes incapacitated, from exposure to “normal” amounts of electromagnetic energy. We’ve seen some children respond as we do, as their well-meaning parents and teachers equip them with newer, faster, more powerful “safety” and communication devices, oblivious to the potential consequences for their children’s health and development. We’re not oblivious to these consequences because we ourselves respond directly and immediately, with debilitating pain, confusion, and neurological symptoms, to cell phones, cordless phones, computers, televisions, and other normal elements of today’s home, work and school environments. And we are in increasingly good company.
Gro Harlem Brundtland is director-general of the World Health Organization. A medical doctor with a master’s degree in public health, as well as former prime minister of Norway, she has recently been speaking in public about her own sensitivity to computers, cordless phones and cell phones. Not only has she warned parents against allowing their children to use cell phones or microwave ovens, but she said that she herself has become so sensitive to the radiation that she does not allow anyone to enter her office with a cell phone turned on. “If you enter my office, you are invited by me. No one who is invited would like to give me headaches,” she said at a news conference in Oslo on July 1, 2002, where she was attending an international conference on cancer.
Awakening to the potential of electricity to affect children’s health and development can be initially disheartening, because electromagnetic pollution is so inescapable, and its sources so often are “conveniences” for which we’ve eagerly expended considerable resources. It can also be empowering, because it gives parents and practitioners an additional tool and offers a new range of potential factors that may be influencing seemingly intractable health or behavior problems.
Both of us went to school and were graduated from college before personal computers, cell phones, the Internet, and everything that goes along with them even existed. As environmentally sensitive people, we feel lucky to have grown up before today’s conditions became the norm.
What Can We Do?
Computers in the classroom are practically unquestioned now, and that is fine for the durable. However, our society should provide computer-free classrooms for those vulnerable children for whom this is a necessary and effective accommodation.
In schools where wireless computers—or regular computers with wireless keyboards/mice—are installed, even a computer-free classroom will not be an effective intervention for a child whose Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder or Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is triggered or exacerbated by electromagnetic radiation. This is because the microwave frequencies used by these technologies, identical to the frequencies used in a microwave oven, pass through walls and do not respect the boundaries of classrooms.
What we suggest runs counter to the prevailing educational trend, which is to throw more and more computer-enabled devices at physically and developmentally disabled children in an effort to improve their functioning, without any consideration of the potential effects of the extra radiation on their developing nervous systems. When adult populations were sampled within the last year for the prevalence of electrical sensitivity, estimates by researchers varied from 1.5% (Stockholm, Sweden) to 3.3% (state of California) to 7% (Marin County, California) of the population. One patient group in Germany puts the number as high as 15% of the German population. Nobody knows exactly, because this is an isolating, disabling, and ridiculed problem that is still in the public health “closet,” along with most of its victims. Children are the most vulnerable segment of the population. They are also the most unaware of the potential effects of this invisible and largely unacknowledged pollutant coming from equipment that is so fervently sought by their peers and esteemed by their parents and teachers.
Medical facilities, also, are sites of electronics’ proliferation. The growing field of medical telemetry uses wireless technology to monitor the vital signs of hospital patients. But also, in hospitals, nursing homes, day care and elder care facilities, mental health institutions and group homes, remote monitoring of patients is in increasing use, not only for medical purposes, but simply to cut back on personnel costs.
New automobiles have much larger electromagnetic fields than they had ten or twenty years ago. This is due to multiple computer-controlled operating systems, GPS satellite-tracking devices, digital dashboard displays, and, commonly, a cell phone constantly charging in the car.
The situation is not hopeless.
At home, every parent can easily do the following experiment: tonight, before your family goes to bed, unplug all of these items you may have in your home: the TV, the computer, the base unit of the cordless phone, the entertainment center, and the baby monitor. Notice the quality of everyone’s sleep, how you feel in the morning on awakening, and note whether you and your child seem calmer. Appliances should be completely unplugged, not just turned off at a surge protector (which itself may be a source of electromagnetic fields).
If your child has a motorized wheelchair, don’t plug it in overnight next to his or her bed. Often these children are especially vulnerable as they may already have epilepsy, cerebral palsy, or other mobility-impairing conditions.
Electric floor or ceiling heaters, fluorescent lights, dimmer switches, and electronic security systems can all produce problematic electromagnetic fields. Finding all the sources and eliminating or avoiding them requires patience and may be time-consuming but is not necessarily difficult or expensive. Your basic measuring tools are a $40 magnetic field meter, or “gaussmeter,” and a cheap (poorer quality is better for this purpose) battery-operated AM radio. When the gaussmeter reads 0.2 milligauss or less, and the radio, when tuned between stations, remains silent (does not buzz or give loud static), you have a relatively calm environment—especially important in the sleeping area. These two measuring devices will not detect the very high frequency radiation produced by cordless phones, wireless computers, baby monitors, remote controls for appliances, radio-controlled toys, and other wireless equipment. We recommend eliminating wireless technology from the environment altogether.
Many homes will have ambient magnetic fields that cannot be reduced to 0.2 milligauss because of factors outside your control, most commonly nearby power lines and transformers. Neighbors’ activities may also be a factor. But reducing exposures to the extent possible within the home may still have a significant effect, especially on neurological or behavioral problems in developing children. Exposures outside our own control, such as from the street, a radar station or cell tower, at school, or in hospitals and medical facilities, can be dealt with effectively only on a societal level. We have a long way to go before these problems are given the serious attention they deserve.
Ironically, some of our societal problems, such as school violence and kidnappings of children—even before 9/11 added to our worries—are being used as reasons to attach more cell phones to our kids for their safety and our peace of mind. But these very devices, and the millions of towers and antennas that make their use possible, expose all of us to a level of radiation that we know (from studies and painful firsthand experience) can contribute to the anxiety, depression, irritability, impulsivity, confusion, and general unrest that feed the very concerns which led to the need for all those cell phones in the first place. This can begin to change as more of us turn them off and experience the difference.
1. Bertrand, J. et al., Prevalence of Autism in a United States Population: The Brick Township, New Jersey Investigation, Pediatrics 108:1155-1161 (2001).
2. The Doppler appears to be the latest addition to a number of radar facilities in the area. McGuire Air Force Base, Fort Dix Military Reservation, and Lakehurst Naval Air Warfare Center are all located west of Brick. Military jets from those bases, equipped with powerful radars of their own, also fly over Brick on their way out to sea.
George Carlo, Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age, Carroll & Graf, New York, 2001.
Jane M. Healy, Failure to Connect: How Computers Affect Our Children’s Minds—and What We Can Do About It, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1998.
B. Blake Levit, ed., Cell Towers: Wireless Convenience? Or Environmental Hazard?, New Century Publishing, Sheffield, MA, 2005.
Lucinda Grant, The Electrical Sensitivity Handbook, Weldon Publishing, Prescott, AZ, 1995.
Robert O. Becker and Gary Selden, The Body Electric: Electro-magnetism and the Foundation of Life, William Morrow, New York, 1985.
** Electromagnetic field (EMF) meters may be obtained from Alpha Lab, 1280 South 300 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84101, (800)-769-3754 Less EMF, Inc., 26 Valley View Lane, Ghent, NY 12075, (888) LESS-EMF.
About the authors:
Arthur Firstenberg is founder and director of the Cellular Phone Taskforce, a nonprofit organization that disseminates information about electromagnetic radiation and advocates for electrically sensitive people. He is editor of the Taskforce’s publication, No Place to Hide, and the author of Microwaving Our Planet: The Environmental Impact of the Wireless Revolution.
After graduating Phi Beta Kappa from Cornell University in 1971 with a B.A. in mathematics, he went to medical school from 1978 to 1982. Injury by x-ray overdose cut short his career. Firstenberg explains that after receiving about 50 diagnostic x-rays during extensive dental work, he became sensitive to high-powered equipment in the hospitals where he worked. “I could literally feel the radiation from the equipment; it made me weak and dizzy, but I kept working. After several months I collapsed. I was 31 and no one knew the cause of my illness. I was bedridden for about three months and at first I was not sure if I would survive.”
Firstenberg’s symptoms included a slow heartbeat, chest pain, extreme shortness of breath on exertion, and weight loss. By reading Eastern European literature on the subject, he eventually discovered that he had the symptoms of radio wave sickness. He later learned that any type of electromagnetic field may provoke similar illness in sensitive people, which commonly manifests with nausea, dizziness, headache, irritability, insomnia, and difficulty with memory and concentration. He also gradually became chemically hypersensitive.
His therapeutic approach is strict avoidance. At home, he has no computer, no television, no wireless equipment, no microwave, and uses only incandescent lighting. He moved cross-country to Mendocino, California which has minimal electrical pollution, and he is symptom-free as long as he avoids exposure.
As is often the case in advocacy organizations, Firstenberg’s personal experience led him to study the condition that plagued him. He is now an international spokesperson and advisor on the subject of electrical sensitivity (ES). He can be contacted by phone at (707) 937-3990 or mail: P.O. Box 1337, Mendocino, CA 95460.
Susan Molloy has an MA in disability policy and provides referrals and troubleshooting for people with symptoms provoked by environmental exposures. She is cofounder of the Environmental Health Network (EHN) of California and edited EHN’s newsletter for 11 years. She served as chair of the Independent Living Council in Arizona and works at New Horizons Independent Living Center in Prescott Valley. She works from home due to her inability to withstand electromagnetic exposure, and uses a custom-shielded computer provided by Arizona Rehabilitation Services Administration.
Molloy has a history of allergies since childhood and was hospitalized with chemical sensitivities at age 31. ES symptoms emerged shortly after this. “When I go under power lines or fluorescent lights it feels like a blow to the top of my head,” she explains. Asked if she could run errands, Molloy explains, “I can go into articless and other buildings. It’s getting back out that’s the problem. I tend to lose coordination and would often be stumbling if I didn’t use a wheelchair. I get disoriented and my speech is also affected.” Professional-grade ear protectors help soften the impact of auditory hypersensitivity to motor noises. She feels that living in the desert, where she keeps appliances to a minimum, has given her more stamina.
“I’d like to think that Arthur and I are just special cases, that people can stand back and distance themselves from our difficulties. I’d like to think that others won’t suffer similar problems. But we know better. The numbers are growing, and no one is listening.” She can be reached at (928) 536-4625 or email@example.com.
Margaret Meade Glaser
I was gratified that you included the topic of electromagnetic effects on biology, particularly from high frequencies used in wireless transmissions, in Latitudes (Vol. 5, #4). What Americans need to know, and what they are not being told, is that three out of four independent (non-industry sponsored) research studies worldwide are showing biological effects from low-level, nonionizing radiation similar to that used in wireless communications. These are called "nonthermal effects" because they occur at levels too low to cause tissue heating. The telecom industry, and the FCC's safe exposure guidelines, recognize only thermal (heating) effects. That means that exposures at intensity (power) levels below that threshold are officially being considered "safe" while the research is suggesting otherwise.
For clarity's sake, the frequency range of nonionizing radiation used in wireless communications is referred to as "radiofrequency/microwave radiation" or RF/MW. Microwave ovens get their name from the fact that they use this type of radiation to cook food (you could call this an example of a thermal effect). Radar frequencies are also in this range.
While the FCC maintains that its guidelines are protective,
and indeed may be heading toward relaxing them significantly in the near future, that is not the position that was put
forth by a federal interagency workgroup of nonionizing radiation experts. In a letter to a standards setting
committee in 1999 (1), they outlined fourteen points which they believed needed to be addressed before any FCC
guidelines could be deemed credible and sufficiently protective of the public. Nothing was done with these
(2) July 2002 letter to Janet Newton from Norbert Hankin, Scientist, Radiation Protection Division of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in response to a letter to Administrator Christie Whitman. See above URL for (1). Also September 2002 letter to Margaret M. Glaser from Frank Marcinowski, Chief of the Division in response to a letter to Administrator Whitman (not posted).
(3) October 2002, the Freiburger Appeal. See www.emrnetwork.org/news/IGUMED_english.pdf
(4) R. Santini study published in "Pathologie
(5) Local Control of Cellular Towers
Act (S3103) sponsored by Sen. Leahy,
Click on the link below, or copy and paste it into your browser:
Sheila Rogers, editor of Latitudes
This account, obtained by interviewing the mother of this family, has all the makings of a documentary. The name of the cell phone company and the source is withheld while the family looks for a lawyer willing to take the case (see note).
Meredith and her husband were dairy farmers on over 150 acres of rolling green land that had been passed down for generations. They had grown to love the simple lifestyle that came with hard work, fresh air, and farming in the Midwest. They and their four children enjoyed good health and happy days.
When the cell phone tower was erected twelve years ago they weren’t too concerned, though they were certainly not pleased that it was just over the property line on the adjoining land and only 800 feet from their house. It was an eyesore, but they were assured it was perfectly safe. “It’s like a 100-watt light bulb,” the company often told people.
“We were naïve,” says Meredith. “Over the next few months, we watched as our herd that grazed near the tower became emaciated and agitated—a change from their normally fat and contented state. The whole herd developed rough coats. The vet was puzzled, but blood work produced no answers.”
Meanwhile, within six months the parents noticed changes in their children. There were skin rashes—unusual, raised “hot spots.” They had recurrent kidney infections. The youngest two kids became dramatically hyperactive, and the older ones complained of foggy thinking and concentration problems. Then sleep disturbances crept in. Meredith, in her early thirties, began to develop joint problems.
“Everyone’s symptoms were worse,” she explained, “on foggy or rainy days. I since learned this was because the moisture increases the electrical conductivity. There were times when my preschool child would literally spin in circles.” One day she discovered that their tower had become the “hub” for the entire state. “We buried cows that winter,” she recalls.
Searching for solutions and options, they tracked down a researcher at the Environmental Protection Agency, who gave her the first useful advice they’d had. He told her that as a government official he should reassure her that they were safe. But with his “citizen cap” on, he had to say that they should move immediately.
With hopes of returning one day, they sold the herd but had someone keep the heifers for them. Within two to three months of moving to an electrically clean area in upper Michigan, health problems began to subside. After a year, they all were feeling strong once more. The only problem was that their farm was unattended, they were out of money, and they desperately needed to farm again.
About this time, they spoke with new owners of the cell phone company. The staff expressed disdain for flagrant safety lapses of the previous tower owners. The family was assured that if they returned, everything would now be fine. Excited at the news, they went back to their farm.
It was not long before symptoms returned. The children lost weight and the girls began to lose hair. Meredith was pregnant but not gaining weight. That son was unfortunately born with anomalies—birth defects that fit no particular syndrome. Neighbors also had complaints; the suicide rate increased in town, and unusual seizures were reported.
Now, some calves were born with front legs shorter than the back and with deformed hooves; some had large tumors—one tumor was three feet in diameter and the calf could not be delivered alive, even with a C-section. And the tumors were not typical to the species.
They had been back for three years when a pediatrician saw the son’s birth defects, heard the story, and told them to leave town. Why had they stayed so long? “We had to make a living. And somehow, when it’s gradually happening, you’re in denial—you don’t see it for what it is,” Meredith said.
They managed to buy a farm in a safe area and start anew. “My husband insisted we take the cows with us, and within three days they were chewing their cuds—something they hadn’t done for years.” The young boy, though, remains electrically sensitive and hyperactive. Meredith says that if he is within two and a half miles of a tower he develops flushed skin. Computer terminals and fluorescent lights in articless increase symptoms. He has food sensitivities, and damp weather continues to affect him.
And the land—what happened to the farm? Meredith sighs. “It just sits there. Empty. Selling the farm has not been considered. Should we let this happen to someone else?” End
Robert C. Kane, Ph.D.
Abstract—Recently disclosed epidemiological data indicate a dramatic increase in the incidence of autism spectrum disorders. Previously, the incidence of autism has been reported as 4-5 per 10,000 children. The most recent evidence indicates an increased incidence of about 1 per 500 children. However, the etiology of autism is yet to be determined. The recently disclosed data suggest a possible correlation between autism incidence and a previously unconsidered environmental toxin. It is generally accepted in the scientific community that radiofrequency radiation is a biologically active substance. It is also readily acknowledged that human exposures to radiofrequency radiation have become pervasive during the past twenty years, whereas such exposures were uncommon prior to that time. It is suggested that fetal or neo-natal exposures to radiofrequency radiation may be associated with an increased incidence of autism.
Prior to the twentieth century the only sources of radiofrequency (RF) radiation were the hyper-low levels of RF energy originating from our sun and the even lower levels of extra-solar RF noise. It is in this environment of low-level RF radiation that life on earth developed and exists to this day.
During the 1940s, primarily as a result of research and development performed as a part of the war effort, industry and the military establishment were successful in bringing the state of RF energy generation to maturity. From that time onward we have witnessed a broad range of commercial RF energy product applications including, most notably, broadcast FM radio, radar, television, public-service mobile communication transceivers, residential microwave ovens, and the portable cellular telephone.
Initially, the contribution of each radiating device was imperceptible when weighed against the background of incoming solar radiation. However, over the span of decades the number of terrestrial RF radiation sources, now counted in the billions, has increased to the degree that, presently, the base radiation level is many thousands of times higher than from solar RF energy impinging on the earth.
Notwithstanding the proliferation of RF radiation sources during the early decades of the “radiofrequency age”, the 1940s through the 1970s, humans were seldom exposed to RF radiation at levels that might cause concern. Since the late 1970s a number of commercial products have become ubiquitous, which provide human exposures to levels of RF radiation that are significantly higher than either of the previous or present background levels. Research reports indicate that RF exposure levels, typically encountered from some commercial products, may induce alterations of biological processes or damage to the genome 1 – 13.
Concurrently the incidence of autism diagnoses demonstrates a pronounced, approximately linear, nearly three-fold increase occurring during the last twenty years. “The question as to when autism begins in any child remains to be answered. Some studies provide support for a prenatal or perinatal origin for autism.” 14 For several decades prior to 1980 autism incidence remained essentially invariant; reportedly at about one diagnosed case per 2005 children. Byrd has reported a present autism incidence of about one per 700 children.
RF radiation sources have become commonplace in the personal human environment from approximately 1980 to the present. Operation of an RF radiation source such as a two-way radio or a cell phone exposes the operator to levels of RF radiation shown to be biologically active. Operation of an RF radiation source also exposes others, in the near proximity, to similarly biologically active levels of electromagnetic field intensities 15.
Some of the known effects of exposure to RF radiation include cognitive impairment 16, memory deficit 17, EEG modifications 18, DNA damage 3 - 12, chromosome aberrations 6, micronucleus formation 7, 22, fetal malformation 1, 2, increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier 19, 23, altered cellular calcium efflux 20 and altered cell proliferation 21.
RF radiation exposures from residential microwave ovens are, typically, on the order of 1 milli-watt per cm2. RF radiation exposures from cell phones range from about 0.1 to 10.0 milli-watt per cm2. Portable two-way radios provide similar exposure levels. The scientific literature confirms that RF radiation exposures, at levels more than 1,000 times lower than described immediately preceding, or on the order of 1.0 micro-watt per cm2, induce significant changes in biological processes or molecular repair mechanisms 12.
During gestation the possibility of unobservable embryonic and fetal damage is increased as mothers-to-be utilize and are exposed to the emissions from RF radiation devices. Researchers have emphatically reported that an embryo or fetus should not be exposed to radiofrequency radiation such as that emitted by the portable cell phone or portable telephone. One particular reason to avoid RF radiation exposure during pregnancy is that an embryo or fetus may not be fully protected by amniotic fluid for extended periods of time due to the natural movement of the embryo or fetus within the womb. Secondly, the pelvic structure promotes deep RF radiation penetration and that radiation can be absorbed within the developing embryo or fetus.
Other researchers have postulated that there may exist a previously unidentified environmental toxin associated with the observed increased incidence of autism. For example, the works of Byrd (California - 1999) 14, Bertrand 24, (New Jersey - 2001), Taylor 25, (United Kingdom – 1999), and Chakrabarti & Fombonne 26, (United Kingdom – 2001) clearly support the proposition that the identified increased incidence of autism has an origin at about 1980: an increased incidence that has its origin established at the very time the personal RF radiation devices came into popular use – about 1980. We propose that RF radiation, a new form of exposure of the human embryo, fetus, and infant, and an acknowledged environmental toxin under many exposure conditions, may be associated with the increased incidence of autism. This proposition is further based on the fact that these radiating products are periodically and typically utilized in the embryonic, fetal and neonatal environment. RF radiation is the only known toxin, exposure to which is wholly correlated with the repeatedly documented increased incidence of autism: now reported by at least some researchers as greater than 1 per 100 newborn.
Correspondence to: Robert C. Kane, The Associated Bioelectromagnetics Technologists, P.O. Box 133, Blanchardville, Wisconsin 53516-0133. FAX: 608 523-6500; E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
1 Berman E, Kinn JB, and Carter HB, Observations of mouse fetuses after irradiation with 2.45 GHz microwaves, Health Physics, 35, pp. 791-801, 1978.
2 Kaplan J, Polson P, Rebert C, Lunan K, and Gage M, Biological and behavioral effects of prenatal and postnatal exposure to 2450-MHz electromagnetic radiation in the squirrel monkey, Radio Science, 17(5S), pp. 135S-144S, 1982.
3 Sagripanti JL, and Swicord ML, DNA structural changes caused by microwave radiation, Int J Radiat Biol, 50(1), pp. 47-50, 1986.
4 Leszczynski D, Joenväärä S, Reivinen J, and Kuokka R. Non-thermal activation of the hsp27/p38MAPK stress pathway by mobile phone radiation in human endothelial cells: Molecular mechanism for cancer and blood-brain barrier-related effects, Differentiation, 70, pp. 120 – 129, 2002.
5 Sagripanti JL, Swicord ML, and Davis CC, Microwave effects on plasmid DNA, Radiation Research 110, pp. 219-231, 1987.
6 Fucic A, Garaj-Vrhovac V, Skara M, and Dimitrovic B, X-rays, microwaves and vinyl chloride monomer: their clastogenic and aneugenic activity, using the micronucleus assay on human lymphocytes, Mutat Res 282(4), pp. 265-271, 1992.
7 Maes A, Verschaeve L, Arroyo A, De Wagter C, and Vercruyssen L, In vitro cytogenetic effects of 2450 MHz waves on human peripheral blood lymphocytes, Bioelectromagnetics 14(6), pp. 495-501, 1993.
8 Sarkar S, Ali S, and Behari J, Effect of low power microwave on the mouse genome: a direct DNA analysis, Mutat Res 320, (1-2), pp. 141-147, 1994.
9 Lai H, and Singh NP, Acute low-intensity microwave exposure increases DNA single-strand breaks in rat brain cells, Bioelectromagnetics, 16(3), pp. 207-210, 1995.
10 Lai H, and Singh NP, Single- and double-strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells after acute exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, Int J Radiat Biol, 69(4), pp. 513-521, 1996.
11 Repacholi MH, Basten A, Gebski V, Noonan D, Finnie J, and Harris AW, Lymphomas in E mu-Pim1 transgenic mice exposed to pulsed 900 MHz electromagnetic fields. Radiat Res, 147(5), pp. 631-640, 1997.
12 Phillips JL, Ivaschuk O, Ishida-Jones T, Jones RA, Campbell-Beachler M, and Haggren W, DNA damage in Molt-4 T-lymphoblastoid cells exposed to cellular telephone radiofrequency fields in vitro, Bioelectrochemistry and Bioenergetics, 45, pp. 103-110, 1998.
13 Hardell L, Hansson Mild K, Pahlson A, Hallquist A, Ionizing radiation, cellular telephones and the risk of brain tumours. Europ J Cancer Prevent 10, pp. 523-529, 2001.
14 Byrd RS, Sigman M. Bono M, et al, Report to the legislature on the principal findings from the epidemiology of autism in California: a comprehensive pilot study, M.I.N.D. Institute, University of California, Davis, 2002
15 Bawin SM, Kaczmarek LK, and Adey WR, Effects of modulated VHF fields on the central nervous system, Ann NY Acad. Sci, 247, pp. 74-81, 1975.
16 Chiang H, Yao GD, Fang QS, Wang KQ, Lu DZ, Zhou YK, Health effects of environmental electromagnetic fields. J. Bioelectricity 8:127-131, 1989.
17 Lai H, Horita A, and Guy AW, Microwave irradiation affects radial-arm maze performance in the rat, Bioelectromagnetics 15(2), pp. 95-104, 1994.
18 von Klitzing L, Low-frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields influence EEG of man, Phys. Medica, 11, pp. 77-80, 1995.
19 Salford LG, Brun A, Sturesson K, Eberhardt JL, and Persson BR, Permeability of the blood-brain radiation on cytolytic T lymphocytes, FASEB J , 10(8), pp. 913-919, 1996.
20 Paul Raj R, Behari J, and Rao AR, Effect of amplitude modulated RF radiation on calcium ion efflux and ODC activity in chronically exposed rat brain, Indian J Biochem Biophys, 36(5), pp. 337-340, 1999.
21 Cleary SF, Du Z, Cao G, Liu LM, and McCrady C, Effect of isothermal radiofrequency barrier induced by 915 MHz electromagnetic radiation, continuous wave and modulated at 8, 16, 50, and 200 Hz. Microsc Res Tech, 27(6), pp. 535-542, 1994.
22 d'Ambrosio G, Massa R, Scarfi MR, and Zeni O, Cytogenetic damage in human lymphocytes following GMSK phase modulated microwave exposure. Bioelectromagnetics, 23, pp. 7-13, 2002.
23 Persson BR, Salford LG, and Brun A, Blood-brain barrier permeability in rats exposed to electromagnetic fields used in wireless communication, Wireless Network 3, pp. 455-461, 1997.
24 Bertrand J, Mars A, Boyle C, Bove F, Yeargin-Allsopp M, Decoufle P., Prevalence of Autism in a United States Population: The Brick Township, New Jersey Investigation, Pediatrics, 108 (5), pp. 1155-1161, Nov. 2001.
25 Taylor B, Miller E, Farringdon et al, MMR Vaccine and Autism: No Epidemiological Evidence for a Causal Association, Lancet, 353, pp. 2026-2029, 1999.
26 Chakrabarti S, & Fombonne E, Pervasive Developmental Disorders in Preschool Children, JAMA, 285 (24), 2001.
Hundreds of physicians have been signing a petition that raises health concerns over mobile phone technology: base stations, mobile phones and digital cordless phones. The appeal states:
We have observed, in recent years, a dramatic rise in severe and chronic diseases among our patients, especially:
Moreover, we have observed an ever-increasing occurrence of various disorders, often misdiagnosed in patients as psychosomatic:
The Freiburger Appeal states: "We can no longer believe this to be purely coincidence, far too often do we observe a marked concentration of particular illnesses in correspondingly HFMR-polluted areas or apartments. Too often does a long-term disease or affliction improve or disappear in a relatively short time after reduction or elimination of HFMR pollution in the patient's environment. Too often are our observations confirmed by on-site measurements of HFMR of unusual intensity. On the basis of our daily experiences, we hold the current mobile communications technology (introduced in 1992 and since then globally extensive) and cordless digital telephones (DECT standard) to be among the fundamental triggers for this fatal development. One can no longer evade these pulsed microwaves. They heighten the risk of already-present chemical/physical influences, stress the body–s immune system, and can bring the body–s still-functioning regulatory mechanisms to a halt. Pregnant women, children, adolescents, elderly and sick people are especially at risk".
For more information/source: Mast Sanity, Affiliated to the Campaign for Planning Sanity http://www.mastsanity.org; A copy of the 'Freiburger Appeal' can be obtained from the web site.
You have a sophisticated body electronics system that is vital to its function. So don't allow yourself to be exposed to health risks invisibly imposed by EMF radiation from electric & magnetic fields and pulsed microwave transmission signals, which are at frequencies that disrupt your brain and cellular functions. Cellphone and cordless phone use does carry well-established risks! EMF stress occurs with all other electric and electronic devices, too. There are adverse health effects - see What Doctors Warn. Scientific studies have shown that EMF exposure has a cumulative effect, increasing over time. Be sure to reduce the risks for your children who face a lifetime of exposure and those with poorer health conditions, they are especially at risk. For an appreciation of this start at Child Risks.
Depletion of your body's bioenergy causes a lowered energetic capability, at a fundamental atomic level. See Atoms & EMF. Disturbance of it's inherent bioenergetic system results in disruptions to cellular functions and a compromised immune system. Start at Energy Systems. Quite simply, your body systems are no longer able to work in the way that they would if such destructive interference from EMR was not imposed on you. To see how human energies are affected by common electronic devices see bioenergy test charts showing patterns typical of that experienced by everyone from Human Tests.
If you can't understand why the authorities are allowing you to be exposed to such risks, start at my Research page. So-called "safety" regulations only consider thermal (tissue heating) effects, but frighteningly disregard low frequency biological effects. Strong vested interests resist change to this in spite of mounting evidence. For your own health and safety, and sustainable wellness, you need to adopt the Precautionary Principle with some urgency to avoid the risks of the invisible hazard of EMR that do compromise your health. You can now make use of the amazing new GIA Wellness protection available to reduce the effects of EMR, and have the chance to enjoy sustainable wellness. See GIA Wellness Protection Products.
Find out more so you can immediately protect yourself and achieve optimal health in our increasingly electropolluted world.
Health and safety needs to be treated seriously. Be sure to get GIA Wellness (formerly Biopro Technology) protection for others that you care about, too. Tell others about my website and the wealth of information it provides so they can avail themselves of this and the amazing new Biopro protection against the adverse health risks of increasing exposure to EMF in our modern technological world.
INTERESTING STUFF? GET THE LATEST BY ADDING YOURSELF & OTHERS TO MY MAILER LIST ON MY BIOENERGY MAILERS PAGE
Others to assist in worthwhile protection enterprise?
Do you know of any enterprising people who care about others and may like to join with me in this worthwhile undertaking of providing protection to others from this growing EMF radiation hazard? You'll enjoy an additional income stream, too.
* Free Bioenergy test subject to product purchase and reasonable proximity to me or you pay travel costs, all at my discretion.
E mail Tim Leitch here or use my Feedback page. Any hyperlink issues, please let me know by email. Thanks.