The cost to society of 'crying wolf' at every turn
news.omega
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, Schlegal et al. (1998); significantly induced electronic noise, Occhetta et al. (1999); various disturbances observed and warnings recommended, Trigano et al. (1999)
- · Significantly increases blood pressure, Braune et al. (1998).
Hormone Activity:
- · Reduces the pituitary production of Thyrotropin (Thyroid Stimulating Hormone, TSH):
- · Reduces melatonin significantly, Burch et al. (1997, 1998). A GSM cellphone reduces melatonin, but not significantly in a very small sample (N=18) of subjects, de Seze et al. (1999).
- · A reported but yet to be published Australian Study, EMRAA News, June 2000, used a Clot Retention Test on blood samples to detect hormonal changes. A group of 30 volunteers used a Nokia 6150 cellphone for 10 minutes on each of two consecutive days. The CRT test showed significant changes in the thyroid, pancreas, ovaries, testes and hormonal balance.
Reproductive Activity:
- · Decreases in sperm counts and smaller tube development in rat testes, Dasdag et al. (1999).
- · Increases embryonic mortality of chickens, Youbicier-Simo, Lebecq and Bastide (1998).
Genotoxic Activity:
- · Breaks DNA strands, Verschaeve at al. (1994), Maes et al. (1997), which is still extremely significant p<0.0001, at 0.0024W/kg (1.2 m W/cm2), Phillips et al. (1998).
- · Produces an up to three-fold increase in chromosome aberrations in a dose response manner from all cell phones tested, Tice, Hook and McRee, reported in Microwave News, March/April 1999. The findings were the same when the experiment was repeated and Dr Tice is quoted as stating: "There's no way you're going to get positive results twice over four different technologies as a chance result."
- · Doubles c-fos gene activity (a proto oncogene) for analogue phones and increases it by 41 % for digital phones, Goswami et al. (1999), altered c-jun gene, Ivaschuk et al. (1997), Increased hsp70 messenger RNA, Fritz et al. (1997).
- · Increases Tumour Necrosis Factor (TNK), Fesenko et al. (1999).
- · Increases ODC activity, Penafiel et al. (1997).
- · DNA synthesis and cell proliferation increased after 4 days of 20 min for 3 times/day exposure. Calcium ions were significantly altered, French, Donnellan and McKenzie (1997). Decreased cell proliferation, Kwee and Raskmark (1997), Velizarov, Raskmark and Kwee (1999)
- · Doubles the cancer in mice, Repacholi et al. (1997).
- · Increases the mortality of mobile phone users compared with portable phone users, RR = 1.38, 95%CI: 1.07-1.79, p=0.013, Rothman et al. (1996).
- · Increases human brain tumor rate by 2.5 times (Hardell et al. (1999)). Associated with an angiosarcoma (case study), Hardell (1999)
- · Hardell et al. (2000), for analogue phones OR = 2.62, 95%CI: 1.02-6.71, with higher tumour rates at points of highest exposure.
- · Significantly increases the incidence of eye cancer (Uveal Melanoma), by between OR = 4.2, 95%CI: 1.2-14.5, and OR = 10.1, 95%CI: 1.1-484.4, Stang et al. (2001).
- · United States, Motorola Study Morgan et al. (2000)
High Exposure RR = 1.07 (0.32-2.66) n = 3
Moderate Exposure RR = 1.18 (0.36-2.92) n = 3
High/Mod vs Low RR = 1.13 (0.49-2.31) n = 6
This project underestimated cancer rates by using a high cancer reference group.
- · Carlo and Schram (2001) report that in the industry funded WTR (Wireless Technology Research) programme Dr Joseph Roti Roti confirmed the Tice, Hook and McRee research showing that cellphone radiation significantly damaged DNA through observed micronuclei formation.
- · Muscat et al. (2000) report elevated brain cancer in cellphone users in the United States, with cerebral tumors occurring more frequently on the side of the head where the mobile phone had been used, (26 vs 15 cases, p=0.06) and for a rare brain cancer, neuroepitheliomatous, OR = 2.1, 95%CI: 0.9-4.7. Mean use of cell phones was 2.5 years for cases and 2.2 years for controls, showing that a small increase in cellphone use (0.3 years) produces a large increase in brain cancer risk.
- · Cell phone users in Denmark Johansen et al. (2001)
Duration of digital subscription <1 yr 1-2yrs ³ 3 yrs
Relative to reference group SIR 0.7 0.9 1.2
Relative to <1 yr group RR 1.0 1.29 1.71
Other cancers are set out in "Table 2" below. Over 67 % of phone users had used their phones for 2 years or less. The reference group had a higher than average cancer rate than the age range of cell phone users, underestimating the cancer rates. This is shown by Standard Incidence Ratios (SIR) of some groups being as little as 0.6. For example SIR for users for <1 year is 0.7.
Table two shows that even with little cellphone use, and even with the use of a high cancer reference group, there are several elevated cancers approaching significance: Testicular cancer SIR = 1.12, 95%CI: 0.97-1.30, Cervical cancer, SIR = 1.34, 95%CI: 0.95-1.85, Female Pharynx cancer, SIR 2.43, 95%CI: 0.65-6.22, Esophagus cancer, SIR = 1.53, 95%CI: 0.31-4.46 and female breast cancer, SIR = 1.08, 95%CI: 0.91-1.26.
Conclusions:
To date over 50 studies have shown adverse biological or human health effects specifically from cell phone radiation. These research results to date clearly show that cell phones and cell phone radiation are a strong risk factor for all of the adverse health effects identified for EMR because they share the same biological mechanisms. The greatest risk is to cell phone users because of the high exposure to their heads and the great sensitivity of brain tissue and brain processes. DNA damage accelerates cell death in the brain, advancing neurodegenerative diseases and brain cancer. Brain tumour is already an identified risk factor. Cell phones are carried on people's belts and in breast pockets. Hence liver cancer, breast cancer and testicular cancer became probable risk factors.
Altered attention and cognition, as well as the diversion of talking on a phone while driving is a significant risk factor for accidents and fatal accidents.
Some cardiac pacemakers are susceptible to active cell phone signals, recommending keeping cell phones away from hearts and pacemakers.
Because the biological mechanisms are shown and EMR has been observed to significantly increase the following effects, there is extremely strong evidence to conclude that cell phones are a risk factor for breast, liver, testicular and brain cancer. It is also probable that we will observe a very wide range of other effects including cardiac, neurological and reproductive illness and death. Since cell phone radiation cause many cell damages including DNA and chromosome damage, all of these effects will also be caused by cell sites.
Dose-response studies of neurological, cardiac, reproductive and cancer effects in human populations all point to a near zero exposure level of no effect, Cherry (2000). Since cellphone radiation mimics RF/MW radiation effects which mimics ELF biological and health, the adverse effects occur across the spectrum and includes cellphone radiation, with a safe exposure level of zero.
Hence a risk reduction and public health protection based on keeping exposure below a level that doubles the risk, identifies 0.1 m W/cm2 as the maximum acceptable exposure. This should allow a mean life-time exposure to be less than 0.01m W/cm2 which is necessary to reduce the risk of neurological effects. The lower level is necessary because of the exquisite sensitivity of the brain.
Clearly, these are not insignificant scientific studies, but there are many more. If you read the Bio-Initiative report, which can be accessed at www.bioinitiative.org , you will understand that the scientific evidence of cell phones, causing adverse health effects, is very clear.
Its about time that reporters put away their cell phones for a few days and conduct investigative reports about the real facts of cell phones and the known damage being caused by microwave radiation.
In the case of cell phones and the adverse health effects that they cause, it is already too late to cry wolf. The wolf pack (cell phones, cordless phones, WiFi wireless games etc.) is already inside the house and they are starting to devour the occupants.
I will be glad to provide further information.
Yours sincerely
Martin Weatherall