Subject: The cost to society of 'crying wolf' at every turn
Martin Weatherall
RR3, Bright,
Ontario
N0J 1B0
519 463 6251
Sunday August 10th, 2008
Opinion at -
The Vancouver Sun
Dear Vancouver Sun
I was very disappointed at the
editorial by Dan Gardner on Saturday August 09, 2008 and his very
negative comments about Dr. Ronald Herberman and Toronto Public Health,
on the subject of cell phone safety. He is very misinformed, if he
really thinks that there is little serious science that links cell
phones to serious adverse health effects. http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=87b807ca-5e04-45c0-96e1-f430600827d8&k=3172
Here are some effects, caused by cell
phones, that were documented by (the late) Dr. Neil Cherry in 2001 -
Cell Phone Radiation Research:
For years the cell phone
companies and government authorities have assured us that cell phone
are perfectly safe. For example, they claim that the particular set of
radiation parameter associated with cell phones are not the same as any
other radio signal and therefore earlier research does not apply. They
also mount biased review teams who falsely dismiss any results that
indicate adverse biological and health effects and the flawed
pre-assumption that the only possible effect is tissue heating. There
is a very large body of scientific research that challenges this view.
Now we have published research, primarily funded by governments and
industry that shows that cell phone radiation causes the following
effects:
Neurological Activity:
·
Alters brain
activity including EEG, Von Klitzing (1995), Mann and Roschkle (1996),
Krause et al. (2000).
·
Disturbs
sleep, Mann and Roschkle (1996), Bordely et al. (1999).
·
Alters sleep
EEG after awake exposure, Huber et al. (2000).
·
Alters human
reaction times, Preece et al. (1999), Induced potentials, Eulitz et al.
(1998), slow brain potentials, Freude et al. (1998), Response and speed
of switching attention (need for car driving) significantly worse,
Hladky et al. (1999). Altered reaction times and working memory
function (positive), Koivisto et al. (2000), Krause et al. (2000).
·
Brain cortex
interaction as shown by significantly altered human EEG by cellphone
radiation, during a 15 minute exposure, Lebedeva et al. (2000).
·
Weakens the
blood brain barrier (p<0.0001): Persson, B.R.R., Salford, L.G. and
Brun, A., 1997.
·
A Fifteen
minute exposure, increased auditory brainstem response and hearing
deficiency in 2 kHz to 10 kHz range, Kellenyi et al. (1999).
·
While
driving, with 50 minutes per month with a cell phone, a highly
significant 5.6-fold increase in accident risk, Violanti et al. (1996);
a 2-fold increase in fatal accidents with cell phone in car, Violanti
et al. (1998); impairs cognitive load and detection thresholds, Lamble
et al. (1999). In a large Canadian study Redelmeier and Tibshirani
(1997) the risk of collision when using a cellphone was 4 time higher,
RR = 4.3, 95%CI 3.0-6.5. Calls close to the time of collision has RR
=4.8 for 5 minutes and RR = 5.9, p<0.001, for 15 minutes.
·
Significant
changes in local temperature, and in physiologic parameters of the CNS
and cardiovascular system, Khdnisskii, Moshkarev and Fomenko (1999).
·
Causes
memory loss, concentration difficulties, fatigue, and headache, in a
dose response manner, (Mild et al. (1998)). Headache, discomfort,
nausea, Hocking (1998).
Figure 7: Prevalence of symptoms
for Norwegian mobile phone users, mainly analogue, with various
categories of length of calling time per day, Mild et al. (1998).
Figure 8: Prevalence of symptoms
for Swedish mobile phone users, mainly digital, with various categories
of length of calling time per day, Mild et al. (1998).
These are the same symptoms that
have frequently been reported as "Microwave Sickness Syndrome" or
"Radiofrequency Sickness Syndrome", Baranski and Czerski (1976) and Johnson-Liakouris
(1998).
Cardiac Activity:
·
Cardiac
pacemaker interference: skipped three beats, Barbaro et al. (1996);
showed interference, Hofgartner et al. (1996); significant
interference, p<0.05 Chen et al. (1996); extremely highly
significant interference, p=0.0003, Naegeli et al. (1996); p<0.0001,
Altamura et al. (1997); reversible interference,