Serious Science

Summary of Scientific Sources
Rod Read ES-Support,

Well, I guess no-one is turning to this page for a barrel of laughs, those suspecting they have health reactions to EMR may find some grim satisfaction however that they are not deluded loons.
Repeatedly we are told our most useful service is providing the reassurance that sensitive reactions are real and physical, and backed up by the serious work of many distinguished scientists, despite what skewed media reports infer from complex research.

Health Risks From Electromagnetic Radiation, EMR.

The following scientists have published peer-reviewed, respected papers on health risks from low-level EMFs and/or microwave frequencies. This complex cake can be cut in many ways and is open to abuse by those with money and motivation to employ ‘science’ to ‘prove’ a safe situation pertains when at the very least we know there are real health risks. For those below this is undoubtedly the case, and often powerfully expressed in the brief quotations we supply based on their scientific explorations.
For references, website addresses or bibliographic details are supplied.

Good quality research to answer why some become sickened from the effects of electromagnetic fields and microwaves is our principal request, it is however a politically and commercially offensive suggestion.

The biological effects of EMFs were supposed to be examined in great detail by an expert committee of the USA National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) years ago. This was conducted through a Congressionally chartered organisation which was contracted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1983 to conduct a review of the biological effects of extra low frequency, ELF, EMFs.

Work was discontinued in 1986, due to funding cuts at the EPA, but resumed in 1991. In early 1995 the draft of the 800-page NCRP report was leaked to the New York-based publication Microwave News, whose editor, Dr Louis Slesin, we quote below, and who published the report’s findings in August 1995. The final report was supposed to be publicly available in early 1996, but has received such intense industry opposition to its findings that its final outcome remains uncertain. Will it ever see the light of day against massive opposition fearful of regulation ask concerned scientists today?

The Committee’s membership was described by chairman Dr. Ross Adey as"carefully selected to cover the great majority of societal interests on this scientific problem, including power industry engineers, epidemiologists, public health specialists as well as molecular and cellular biologists". The draft report generally endorses a 2 milligauss, mG (0.2 microtesla, mcT) exposure limit, having immediate implications for new day care centres, schools and playgrounds, and for new transmission lines near existing housing plus different regulation for new developments.

The NCRP Committee states that, "In key areas of bioelectromagnetic research, findings are sufficiently consistent and form a sufficiently coherent picture to suggest plausible connections between ELF EMF exposures and disruption of normal biological processes, in ways meriting detailed examination of potential implications in human health."

Apart from committees our first individual is:

1) Dr Neil Cherry, Lincoln University, New Zealand, cut off by death tragically young. Politically adroit as well, his wide-ranging and summarised research presented to governments can be found at: http://www.nzine.co.nz/features/emr_expert1_revised.html

Dr Cherry

Where he says there “is a substantial body of research which under normal circumstances would be taken to prove that RF/Microwave radiation is genotoxic” and goes on to show how these are not ‘normal circumstances’ due to the nature of the world regulatory body, ICNIRP (this is the acronym for International Commission for Non-Ionising Radiation Protection). ICNIRP which has been hijacked by supporters of this powerful new industry he shows. Our putative regulator the Health Protection Agency, HPA tails along behind we say.

Dr Cherry reports: “Biological Effects From Radiofrequency Non-Ionizing Radiation” (mobiles/microwaves, VHF radio, TV, Wi-fi, wLAN, Bluetooth, radar, MW ovens etc)
He lists studies indicating biological effects at exposure levels far below what would be explained by "thermal effects", (ie heating) and well within the range people are commonly exposed to every day. : NOTE: Most of these exposures lie FAR BELOW the current advisory exposure standards in the US and UK which are based on thermal effects only, called SAR, or Specific Absorption Rate, just simply heating of flesh.
He breakdowns details of other studies worldwide.
1) Studies by Increasing Power Density
2) Studies by Increasing Specific Absorption Rate
3) Standards and Background Levels
4) Listing of Full Citations
In 2000 he presented ‘Evidence that Electromagnetic Radiation is Genotoxic’ and further commented on: ‘The implications for the epidemiology of cancer and cardiac, neurological and reproductive effects.’ For presentations to NZ Parliament and June 2000 in Italy, Austria, Ireland and at the European Parliament in Brussels.

Neil.Cherry@ecan.govt.nz
He said: "Our frame of reference determines what we look at and how we look. And as a consequence, this determines what we find." (from Burke J, The Day the Universe Changed, 1985.)
He gave evidence of low level biological and health effects of EMR, saying,
"This evidence is confirmed and consistent with epidemiological evidence of human beings exposed to these fields, because if a substance damages the genetic material of cells, chromosomes, DNA and genes then it damages tissue cell by cell by cell and therefore causes cancer, reproductive effects, neurological effects and cardiac effects."

2) Dr Henry Lai, University of Washington, Seattle. DNA expert

He has performed decades of work on DNA damage from mobile phone type frequencies, claims to be able to name 600 published peer-reviewed studies showing similar health effects “off the top of my head” at the ‘Children with Leukaemia’ conference. Marvellous slides showing obvious damage. Criticised as mostly with rats, what else? Living humans?!

He says: “Formal research on the biological effects of RFR began more than 30 years ago. In my opinion, the research has been of high quality, innovative, and intelligent. All of us who work in this field should be proud of it. However, knowledge of the possible health effects of RFR is still inadequate and inconclusive. I think the main barrier in understanding the biological effects of RFR is caused by the complex interaction of the different exposure parameters in causing an effect. An independent variable of such complexity is unprecedented in any other field of biological research.”
"We found that a single episode of RFR exposure increases DNA damage in brain cells of the rat. Definitely, DNA damage in cells is cumulative. Related to this is that various lines of evidence suggest that responses of the central nervous system to RFR could be a stress response [Lai, 1992; Lai et al., 1987a]. Stress effects are well known to cumulate over time and involve first adaptation and then an eventual break down of homeostatic processes when the stress persists."
"Since nerve cells do not divide and are not likely to become cancerous, more likely consequences of DNA damage in nerve cells are changes in functions and cell death, which could either lead to or accelerate the development of neurodegenerative diseases. Double strand breaks, if not properly repaired, are known to lead to cell death. Indeed, we have observed an increase in apoptosis (a form of cell death) in cells exposed to RFR (unpublished results). However, another type of brain cells, the glial cells, can become cancerous, resulting from DNA damage."
There is much, much more to be found at: Dr Lai USA

3) Dr Gert Oberfeld and REFLEX
The international, Europe-wide REFLEX report also highlights RF-induced DNA breaks, which confirms the work of Dr Lai. The REFLEX project was set up to investigate the effects of low-levels of RF radiation on cellular systems; cost of approximately $3 million. The work was carried out by 12 research groups in seven European countries. Yet again it was shown RF radiation could increase the number of DNA breaks in exposed cells and could also activate a stress response – the production of heat shock proteins.
It was clear chromosome damage could be seen in the cell exposed to mobile phone radiation over 24 hour’s exposure at SAR level 1.3W/kg, ICNIRP/WHO level = 2W/kg, similar chromosome damage can be seen in the cell exposed to irradiation equal to 1600 chest x-rays.

You can view an image of the comet-assay cell damage on Dr Gerd Oberfeld’s Westminster Presentation onradiation research.org
Full report visit: Reflex Report

So there are stricter limits and controls in Dr Oberfeld’s native land of Austria, and over the border in Switzerland, also Italy too.

4) Dr Robert O Becker, pioneer researcher, author of ‘Cross Currents’ 1990, twice nominated for the Nobel Prize.

He warned of all the dangers we now have, down to individual illnesses and specific health effects, but was ignored, and IS ignored.

Dr Becker refers to “the many other studies that have lent support to the causal association between microwave exposure and cancers of all types (not just brain tumours) and genetic abnormalities.” He goes on to say “The scientific data at this time indicate that microwaves have major biological effects at power levels far below those required to cause heating. (our only present safety standards, we add.) The majority of these effects are productive of various disease states, primarily cancer and genetic defects, in those exposed and unexposed offspring. These diseases are not strange new types unique to microwave exposure; they are instead our old, familiar enemies.”

The simple fact is that electromagnetic radiation exposure whether from a wireless wi-fi or wLan system, a cordless phone or proximity to a telecommunication mast or electrical field emitting equipment makes your chances of other illnesses that much greater. How to calculate, how much, and in what specific health area for any particular individual incorporates fantastically complex numbers of variables from age and genetic predisposition to occupational, dietary and lifestyle habits. (complex variables as Dr Lai says above) But nevertheless at root for Becker:
“The hazard comes from the fact that exposure to microwaves, like exposure to any abnormal electromagnetic field, produces stress, a decline in immune-system competency, and changes in the genetic apparatus. Thus the levels of exposure that the government says are ‘safe’ are in fact not safe at all.”

5) Professor Denis L Henshaw H H Wills Physics Laboratory,University of Bristol, Tyndall Avenue, Bristol BS8 1TL Tel: +44 (0) 117 9260353; Fax: +44 (0) 117 9251723; E-mail: d.l.henshaw@bris.ac.uk is bang up to date and researching now.
He is more usually concerned about power lines and proven links with leukaemia, he is however frustrated and angered it seems by the HPA not properly reflecting scientific facts on the ground. Specifically over damaged immune system risks as below, there is a running argument with the HPA, who he advises. The Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR) was set up by the Director of the NRPB in 1990. The terms of reference were:
“to review work on the biological effects of non-ionising radiation relevant to human health and to advise on research priorities”.

Here are excerpts to give a flavour of this running battle:

3rd October 2006
“This document is written in response to a section posted on the HPA website: “What about the Effect of EMFs on Melatonin and Breast Cancer? A Set of Frequently Asked Questions Specifically about Melatonin”. This document may be viewed at:
http://www.hpa.org.uk/radiation/faq/emf/emfsupp3.htm

The set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) and responses, appears to have been written as a follow-up to the recent AGNIR Melatonin Report for which a detailed critique has already been written. This critique may be accessed at:
http://www.electric-fields.bris.ac.uk/CritAGNIR.htm

While there is some merit in the responses given to the FAQs, in many cases the serious errors and misrepresentations in the AGNIR Report are simply repeated, indeed further factually incorrect information is given.

This critique will provide comments on specific items in the FAQs document.
1. Under: “Why did the HPA request the AGNIR to produce a report on power frequency electromagnetic fields, melatonin and the risk of breast cancer?” it is stated:
“The report considers the relevant scientific evidence for the melatonin hypothesis in detail”.
Given that much relevant evidence is not considered at all, this begs the question as to what the AGNIR would regard as “relevant evidence”.

For example, On the 27th April 2005 I was invited to give oral evidence to the AGNIR Melatonin Sub-committee. This evidence summarised the findings described in an invited paper at the World Health Organisation meeting on EMF and Child Health, held in Istanbul in June 2004.
The paper was written jointly with Professor Russ Reiter of the University of Texas Medical Center and was subsequently published in peer-reviewed form by Henshaw & Reiter in Bioelectromagnetics in 2005 (Supp 7, S86-S97). Whereas human volunteer experiments have provided equivocal evidence of melatonin disruption following acute exposure to laboratory-controlled magnetic fields, 12 studies, comprising (i) studies in
volunteers exposed to magnetic fields for several days and (ii) populations exposed to neighbourhood fields have, taken together, found a consistent pattern of melatonin suppression/disruption. The effect is particularly evident when magnetic field switching and/or electric fields are present.

The Henshaw & Reiter peer-reviewed paper is not cited in the Report, despite the fact that it was the subject of invited evidence to the AGNIR. It should be pointed out that the AGNIR Report was not sent for blind peer-review prior to publication, had it been so this omission along with a number of serious errors and misunderstandings would surely have been picked up by the referees.”

“The public could at least be given the facts so that they can make up their minds” says Dr Henshaw

6) Professor Russ Reiter of the University of Texas Medical Centre

Has proclaimed a ‘smoking gun’ level of proof has existed for EMF effects harming melatonin production and hence the functioning of the immune system, thus increasing the likelihood of cancer and other chronic health problems, since 1995. He may be accessed at:
http://www.leukaemiaconference.org/programme/speakers/day3-reiter-pres.pdf scroll through to slide 9.

He is also on the website below, where Dr Cherry summarises:

"In Professor Reiter’s book, published in 1995, he describes the evidence that EMR/EMF does reduce melatonin as a "Smoking Gun" level of proof. That is, there is considerable scientific evidence but at that time it wasn’t sufficient for scientific proof. By considering more recent information, and the extensive results of biometeorological research, and linking the melatonin research to the calcium ion research, the level of proof can be seen as causal. The multiple observations of melatonin reduction in EMR exposed populations means that EMR exposure increases the incidence of all of the conditions identified by Reiter and Robinson above, including impaired immune system, diseases from infections and viruses, arthritis, diabetes, cancer, reproductive, neurological and cardiac disease and/or death. Epidemiological evidence of exposed workers and residential populations confirms all of these, except arthritis, have been identified to occur in EMR exposed human populations.”

A little brief, but vital, concentrated biology and clear science here is necessary, and well worth the short effort. This may well be the key sez I, Rod.

“The Pineal Gland:
The pineal gland, a pea-sized organ near the centre of the brain, converts serotonin into melatonin. This has a strong diurnal (daily) pattern, with high melatonin output at night and low melatonin output during the day. Alternatively, serotonin dominates the day and is lower at night. The Melatonin/Serotonin cycle is a primary physiological driver of the daily metabolic, awake/sleep cycle. Melatonin is a vital part of many of the bodies biochemical systems, including sleep and learning and its free radical scavenging in all cells and hence is a potent antioxidant with anti-aging and anti-cancer properties. It helps to protect embryonic foetuses. Melatonin mediates many hormone functions, assists in maintaining immune system health and virus protection.
Through regulation of the cyclic AMP (cAMP) pathway, the serotonin/melatonin transformation is controlled.
A key element of the cAMP pathway is calcium ions. Substances that can alter cellular calcium ions act at many levels involving many cell receptors and cellular processes. Calcium ion efflux from the pinealocytes has the effect of reducing melatonin through reducing the cAMP.

EMR alters calcium ion homeostasis:
Electromagnetic radiation across the spectrum alters calcium ion homeostasis in cells. The primary factor is the ELF modulation of the signal, Bawin and Adey (1976), Adey (1980). This occurs in a complex set of exposure windows. The efflux and influx for calcium ions also varies with ambient temperature, geomagnetic field strength and orientation, and signal intensity, Blackman et al. (1988, 1989, 1991). Blackman (1990) concludes that this is an established biological mechanism. Blackman et al. (1991) showed that Ca2+ efflux occurred for tissue temperatures of 36° C and 37 ° C and not at 35° C and 38° C. They comment that these could be very good reasons why experimental outcomes have been difficult to confirm in some laboratories. This shows why high SAR exposures do not produce altered calcium ions because the rise in tissue temperature takes the tissue outside the homeostatic thermal range within which calcium ion efflux/influx occurs to regulate normal cell behaviour.
The calcium ion efflux research demonstrates one of the fundamental principles of EMR research. Under given specific conditions the calcium ion efflux (positive or negative) does occur at some combination of exposure conditions, but not at a nearby slightly different set of conditions. This is because of the "window" non-linear nature of the effect with respect to modulation frequency and intensity in particular. Also, one set of conditions that produce a significant effect in one laboratory does not produce any observed effect in another laboratory because it has a different geomagnetic field. On the other hand, in real world situations workers or residents are continually passing through effective and non-effective windows of exposure.”
See http://www.feb.se/EMFguru/Research/emf-emr/EMR-Reduces-Melatonin.htm

7) Professor Gerard J Hyland
Associate Fellow, Department of Physics, University of Warwick*, UK. Executive Member, International Institute of Biophysics*
Neuss-Holzheim, Germany. He is socially/politically aware.

This professor is most concerned about EM bioeffects on living systems and has said “we are ourselves, as living human beings, electromagnetic instruments of exquisite sensitivity”.
He shows in “How Exposure to GSM & TETRA Base-station Radiation can Adversely Affect Humans” available in full at http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/reports/20030701_hyland_basestations.pdf

“What the Mobile Phone Industry and the various national governmental Regulatory Bodies (such as the NRPB/HPA in the UK) dispute is that the very weak, pulsed microwave radiation used in GSM and TETRA exerts
any non-thermal biological influences that entail adverse health reactions. Their conviction that, provided its intensity complies with the ICNIRP safety guidelines, the radiation is not harmful to humans derives,
however, firstly, from the erroneous view that considers electromagnetic fields to be toxins to the body - rather than accepting them as an integral feature of its living state - and secondly, from an outdated ‘linear’ mindset that prejudices the conclusion that exposure to weak radiation (below Guideline levels) can entail
only correspondingly weak effects, and vice versa. The invalidity of the latter is clearly indicated by the existence of the ‘informational’ influences referred to above, which, being contingent on our aliveness, are
inherently non-linear effects – i.e. they depend not only on the electromagnetic field to which a subject is exposed, but also on the state of the individual at the time of exposure: any attempt to understand such
effects from a purely linear perspective is thus doomed, in that it is inherently unable to address the most discriminating feature of all, namely, the ‘aliveness’ of the system under consideration”.

He gave evidence on ‘The Physiological and Environmental Effects of Non-ionising Electromagnetic Radiation’ – to the European Parliament.
http://www.europarl.eu.int/stoa/publi/default_en.htm), This work had been commissioned by the Scientific and Technological Options Assessment (STOA) Programme of the Directorate-General for Research of the European Parliament towards the end of the year 2000.

“Since the advent of this technology, an ever-increasing number of people in many different countries have been reporting a similar array of adverse health symptoms of a predominantly neurological kind, such as sleep disturbance, headache, inability to focus and concentrate, impaired memory, confusion, and sensation of pressure in the head. The severity of these symptoms displays a wide range of subjective variation, ranging from mild discomfort to great distress - so great, in some cases, that those affected have been forced to sell their houses at financial loss and move to areas that are less electromagnetically polluted in this way.
This is a totally unacceptable state of affairs, which arguably contravenes the Human Right Act, and which, in many cases, has had a quite devastating effect on the families involved. Despite the existence of many well-organised and extremely well-informed local citizen groups, there is an identifiable need for a mechanism of global communication and cooperation whereby the experiences of those who have been affected can be pooled and shared, not only to provide a robust defence against the 'establishment' view that this technology is harmless, but also, hopefully, to identify and focus future epidemiological research requirements; this Website (mast victims http://www.mast-victims.org/index.php?content=forward )makes a valuable and much needed contribution to realising this important goal.”

Professor Hyland as an independent academic draws social/political conclusions about the handling of this issue:

“Sadly, people cannot rely on the protection of their governments in this field of environmental pollution, since governments freely admit to a vested interest in continuing to promote the growth of mobile telephony. In the UK, for example, the Government netted £22.5 Billion from the auction of the 3G licences, whilst the annual revenue from mobile telephony is currently around £15 Billion; clearly, it is in governments' interests not to find any problems with this bounteous technology. Accordingly, we have, in the UK, the obscene spectacle of the government body responsible for protecting the public from adverse effects of electromagnetic exposure (the National Radiological Protection Board, NRPB, now HPA-RPD) being engaged by the mobile phone industry to speak at meetings in support of the safety of their products: the industry knows that it will not be disappointed.”

8) Prof. William Ross Adey

From Dr Mae Wan-Ho and Prof Peter Saunders http://www.i-sis.org.uk/CMPBDASG.php :
“Prof Adey died on 20 May 2004, having "made fundamental contributions to the emerging science of the biological effects of electromagnetic fields".

Adey aptly summed up why there has been so little progress in research into the biological effects of electromagnetic fields: "The history of bioelectromagnetics epitomises a range of problems that arise whenever a community of sciences is confronted with a frontier that delves deeply into the established orthodoxies of biology, the physical sciences and engineering. These conflicts have become even more sharply defined when emerging new knowledge in bioelectromagnetics research has challenged the conventional wisdom in each part of this trinity.”

"At no point in the last 20 years has public school education ensured that a majority of citizens has even a basic understanding of sophisticated communication devices and systems, such as telephones, radio and television. Similarly, automotive engineering remains a sea of vast ignorance for most users. Nor is such knowledge considered appropriate or necessary. In summary, we have become superstitious users of an ever-growing range of technologies, but we are now unable to escape the web that they have woven around us."

9) Dr Mae Wan Ho
ISIS Press Release 15/02/05 http://www.i-sis.org.uk/CMPBDASG.php
Biological effects can be on many levels; on specific organs like the brain, or on systems like neurological, hormonal, nervous or digestive, and even right down at the cellular level. After all we are really only a large sack of electrolytic fluid, held in tiny differentiated cells. Roger Coghill describes us so in ‘Something in the Air’ enquiries@cogreslab.co :
“The human body is an electrically conducting fluid – just a big sack of salty water” and these endogenous systems are “easily disturbed by alien electrons entering our delicate biological systems of electron exchange”
‘A Break-through in Understanding Non-Thermal Electromagnetic Field Effects’ is the title of Dr Wan Ho’s presentation of her research: “Regulators of EMFs have been saying for years, “If it doesn't burn you, it is safe”, and “There are no conceivable mechanisms that could explain how EMFs with energies below the thermal threshold could have any effect.” That is why they have continued to set exposure standards that fail to protect the public and employees in the workplace. Many serious ‘non-thermal' effects have been documented, at field intensities far below the exposure standards.”
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho reviews new and old scientific findings to explain how the physics and chemistry of the collective water structure in the cell and the organism can interact with extremely weak EMFs to cause a multitude of biological effects. Some we have discussed above as calcium-ion efflux resulting in EMFs reducing melatonin production.
A popular version of her scientific paper, ‘Non-Thermal Electromagnetic Fields & Cell Water’ , was presented at the Green Network Conference, Science, Medicine and the Law, in RIBA, London, UK, 31 Jan – 2 February 2005. ES-UK attended and talked with her about the real health risks.

10) Dr Gerald Goldberg is a concerned well known medical doctor with holistic perspective, broadcasts on radio in NYC area.
Would you put your head in a Microwave Oven
Very short, easy to read and understand book ISBN: I-4259-0480-7

About the book:
"In this book I examine the common link between microwave radiation and seemingly unrelated illnesses. The book demonstrates that the rising incidence of certain illnesses and cancers across broad geographic regions parallels the increasing rise in exposure and use of microwave radiation. This book is a common sense approach to the subject which is presented in a clear language that the layman can understand. Also it is liberally referenced from the scientific literature. The book is designed to be generally informative as well as a reference source for the average reader. Additionally I have provided a wealth of resources that have been shown to be beneficial to offset the consequences of excess microwave exposure."

11) Anke Huss, Matthias Egger, Kerstin Hug, Karin Huwiler-Müntener and Martin Röösli
Deal with BIAS, PR spin, commercial influence and lack of scientific objectivity of ‘scientific’ reporting on this issue, in an objective scientific way.
“Source of Funding and Results of Studies of Health Effects of Mobile Phone Use: Systematic Review of Experimental Studies”
(in Environmental Health Physics, in press, published online September 15, 2006 http://www.ehponline.org/members/2006/9149/9149.pdf )
“The objective of this study was to examine whether the source of funding of studies of the effects of low-level radiofrequency radiation is associated with the results of studies.”
There is systematic bias apparent according to funding:

“Of the 59 studies analyzed, the studies exclusively funded by industry reported the largest number of outcomes but were least likely to report a statistically significant result: the odds ratio was 0.11 (95% confidence interval 0.02 to 0.78), compared to studies funded by public agencies or charities. The authors concluded that the interpretation of results from studies of health effects of radiofrequency radiation should take sponsorship into account.”

12) Professor Michaels. David Michaels is a Research Professor and Associate Chairman of the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health at the George Washington University (as reported in the Guardian G2 of 31.03.06,). http://www.gwumc.edu/sphhs/faculty/michaels_david.cfm

“Studies which manage to find independent funding, and report risks and dangers, are regularly and quickly contradicted by apparently similar studies or criticised at expensively organised conferences by hired scientists employed to do exactly that. The same names crop up regularly citing and quoting each other’s publications giving an impression of consensus, that there is nothing to worry about. Industry we consider has learnt lessons from the history of tobacco, lead in petrol and asbestos and is applying them to EMFs and microwave science.” By the process of ‘manufacturing doubt’, Professor Michaels has described how this is done in the serious periodical of record ‘The Scientific American’. This Professor of Public Health at the George Washington University, an ex-US assistant Secretary of Energy from 1998 to 2001, explains this ongoing programme of resistance to unwelcome and commercially threatening scientific news.
"DOUBT Is Their Product", says Michaels, scientific uncertainty is being deliberately created, manufactured he claims, by profitable corporations to protect their activities from interfering public interest health regulation.
“ By definition, uncertainties abound in our work (as scientists)” he writes, “Of course this is exactly what industry wants… it has mastered the art of manufacturing uncertainty, of demanding often impossible proof over common-sense precaution in the realm of public health”.
A named cigarette-maker once noted in a memo he quotes, stating:
“Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public”
"Toward that end the tobacco industry “dissected every study, highlighted every question, magnified every flaw, cast every possible doubt every possible time…” It was all a charade, of course because the real science was inexorable. But the uncertainty campaign was effective: it delayed public-health protections and compensation for tobacco’s victims, for decades."
“There is lots of science out there but who has the time and energy to puzzle through it? And especially if the issues are kept scientifically contentious, and inconclusive, so debate is prolonged, and then no regulatory/health protective actions are taken” Prof Michaels concludes.

If we may say so, we at ES-UK are taking the time and making the unpaid effort. And so does the next scientist:
13) Dr Grahame Blackwell Independent UK physicist and consultant at http://www.starweave.com/ He has summarised these studies of masts.
Six Studies Showing Ill-Health Effects From Masts
Document produced by Dr Grahame Blackwell 21 Feb 2005
1. Study of the health of people living in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations.
Santini et al. Pathol Biol (Paris) [Pathologie Biologie (Paris)] 2002; 50: 369 – 73
Found significant health effects on people living within 300 metres of mobile phone base stations.
Conclusions include the recommendation:
“… it is advisable that mobile phone base stations not be sited closer than 300meters to populations”
2. Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO)
Study for the Netherlands Ministries of Economic Affairs, Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment,and Health, Welfare and Sport
“Effects of Global Communications System Radio-Frequency Fields On Well Being and Cognitive Function of Human Subjects With and Without Subjective Complaints” (September 2003)
Found significant effects on wellbeing, according to a number of internationally-recognised criteria (including headaches, muscle fatigue/pain, dizziness etc) from 3G mast emissions well below accepted ‘safety’ levels (less than 1/25,000th of ICNIRP guidelines). Those who had previously been noted as ‘electrosensitive’ under a scheme in that country were shown to have more pronounced ill-effects, though others were also shown to experience significant effects.

3. THE MICROWAVE SYNDROME FURTHER ASPECTS OF A SPANISH STUDY
Oberfeld Gerd1, Navarro A. Enrique3, Portoles Manue12, Maestu Ceferino4,
Gomez Perretta Claudio2
1) Public Health Department Salzburg, Austria
2) University Hospital La Fe. Valencia, Spain
3) Department of Applied Physics, University Valencia, Spain
4) Foundation European Bioelectromagnetism (FEB) Madrid, Spain
Presented at an International Conference in Kos (Greece), 2004
This study found significant ill-health effects in those living in the vicinity of two GSM mobile phone base stations. They observed that:
“The strongest five associations found are depressive tendency, fatigue, sleeping disorder, difficulty in concentration and cardiovascular problems.”
As their conclusion the research team wrote:
“Based on the data of this study the advice would be to strive for levels not higher than 0.02 V/m for the sum total, which is equal to a power density of 0.0001 µW/cni2 or 1 µW/m2, which is the indoor exposure value for GSM base stations proposed on empirical evidence by the Public Health Office of the Government of Salzburg in 2002.”

4. INCREASED INCIDENCE OF CANCER NEAR A CELL-PHONE TRANSMITTER STATION.
Ronni Wolf MD1, Danny Wolf MD21. The Dermatology Unit, Kaplan Medical Center, Rechovot, and the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, ISRAEL.
2. The Pediatric Outpatient Clinic, Hasharon Region, Kupat Holim, ISRAEL.
Published in:
International Journal of Cancer Prevention Volume 1, No. 2, April 2004
This study, based on medical records of people living within 350 metres of a long-established phone mast, showed a fourfold increased incidence of cancer generally compared with the general population of Israel, and a tenfold increase specifically among women, compared with the surrounding locality further from the mast.

5. Naila Study, Germany (November 2004)
Report by researchers (five medical doctors)
Following the call by Wolfram König, President of the Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (Federal Agency for radiation protection), to all doctors of medicine to collaborate actively in the assessment of the risk posed by cellular radiation, the aim of our study was to examine whether people living close to cellular transmitter antennas were exposed to a heightened risk of taking ill with malignant tumors.
The basis of the data used for the survey were PC fi1es of the case histories of patients between the years 1994 and 2004. While adhering to data protection, the personal data of almost 1.000 patients were evaluated for this study, which was completed without any external financial support. It is intended to continue the project in the form of a register.
The result of the study shows that the proportion of newly developing cancer cases was significantly higher among those patients who had lived during the past ten years at a distance of up to 400 metres from the cellular transmitter site, which bas been in operation since 1993, compared to those patients living further away, and that the patients fell ill on average 8 years earlier.
In the years 1999-2004, i.e. after five years’ operation of the transmitting installation, the relative risk of getting cancer had trebled for the residents of the area in the proximity of the installation compared to the inhabitants of Naila outside the area.

6. Austrian Study
Press Release 1st May 2005
“The radiation of a cell phone base station at a distance of 80 metres causes significant changes of the electrical currents in the brains of testees (measured by electroencephalogram, EEG). All the testees said they felt unwell during the radiation, some of them seriously.”
That is the result of an investigation by a team of Austrian scientists. They measured alpha 1 (8 to 10 Hz), alpha 2 (10 to 12 Hz) and beta waves (13 to 20 Hz). A small density of GSM 900 and GSM 1800 radiation already caused several significant changes in these three frequency ranges. This means the body is stressed - temporarily this may have some positive effect, in the long run however stress certainly reduces the quality of life, capacity for work and state of health.
The results of the research will be published in international scientific magazines and confirmed by replication. The research was financed by Land Salzburg in Austria. The testees were nine women and three men between 20 and 78, who considered themselves 'electrosensitive'. They were invited to sit in a chair, eyes covered and ears plugged. Of course they were not aware of the sequence of the tests.
The side of the room directed at the cell phone base station was shielded against radiation, except for a small part which could be (un)shielded easily. In the first phase, the radiation density near the head was 26 mikroWatt/m2, in the second phase 3327 mikroWatt/m2 and in the third phase 26 mikroWatt/m2 again. Several other environmental parameters were measured to be sure they could not influence the results, such as radiation by television and FM-radio, noise, CO2, temperature, relative humidity, low frequency magnetic fields and soherics (electrical discharges in the atmosphere, possibly causing radiation).
During the second phase the parameters of all the brainwaves, measured by EEG, changed significantly. Afterwards the testees were asked to describe their experiences. All of them felt unwell during the second phase. They reported symptoms like buzzing in the head, palpitations of the heart, unwellness, lightheadedness, anxiety, breathlessness, respiratory problems, nervousness, agitation, headache, tinnitus, heat sensation and depression.
According to the scientists, this is the first worldwide proof of significant changes of the electrical currents in the brain by a cell phone base station at a distance of 80 metres. It has been scientifically established before that the radiation of cell phone base stations leads to unwellness and health complaints.
NOTE: These are the only studies known of that specifically consider the effects of masts on people. All six of these studies show clear and significant ill-health effects. There are no known studies relating to health effects of masts that do not show such ill-health effects.
In this respect, any statement by industry or official sources that claims (or suggests) that:
(a) There is no evidence of ill-health effects from masts;
or
(b) The overwhelming evidence is that masts do not cause ill-health effects;
is completely and blatantly untrue.
Dr Grahame Blackwell also says
“The Tide Has Turned. Believe It!!
Just when the Roman Empire appeared to be at its peak, it was already in decline and its days were numbered. In exactly the same way, the mobile phone industry seems to be in total control - but it’s not. Public Opinion is alerted, Public Opinion is on the move - and Public Opinion is a force to be reckoned with. Operators and politicians would do well to remember the moving hand that wrote on the wall at King Belshazzar’s great feast:
“You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting.
Your kingdom will be divided.”
The writing is on the wall for the phone (& TETRA) operators. Will they have the wisdom and the courage to co-operate with the public to find a better way - a way that benefits everybody - before it’s too late for them?”
Possibly, but when? Imminently?
14) Li Liangdu journalist and Cao Zhaojin, an electromagnetic radiation expert from the Environment Supervision Institute of the Academy of Preventive Medical Science China.
‘Living in Microwaves’ China.org.cn July 6, 2004 http://www.china.org.cn/english/2004/Jul/100459.htm
"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology." The words of Carl Sagan, the American astronomer famous for popularizing science, describe well the global situation with regard to electromagnetic radiation. Daily we are immersed in the electromagnetic fields (EMFs) that provide so many conveniences in our lives: computer monitors, power lines, mobile phones. But they may well also be providing us with serious, even lethal, health problems.
During the past 30 years, about 25,000 essays on the biological and medical effects of EMFs have been published. Although it is widely felt that research in this area is far from sufficient, we have in fact accumulated more data than in many other traditional subjects, including some branches of chemistry.
In 1982, Samuel Milham conducted a study in the US state of Washington on the effects of large electrical and magnetic fields on workers. Milham, an occupational health physician, wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that he found more leukemia-related deaths in men whose work brought them in contact with electrical and magnetic fields, such as employees of utility companies.
More recently, the Institute of Cure and Prevention of Occupational Disease of Hunan Province completed a study on the effects of radiation on technicians who have close contact with large EMFs. The comparison group was office workers exposed only to low-level EMFs in far smaller fields. The results show that technicians suffered insomnia, heart palpitations or hair loss at far higher rates than the other group. Their cardiogram abnormity rate was 37.8 percent, compared with 16.1 percent in the comparison group.
The technicians also suffered poorer eyesight, probably due to the heat effects of microwave. Since human eye is filled with liquid that can easily absorb microwave radiation, their temperature may become elevated with exposure to EMFs. It is believed that this may solidify proteins, causing the eye's lens to develop "microwave cataracts."
In addition, more than 64 studies in the United States and Europe have linked chronic exposure to magnetic fields, such as those from power lines and computer monitors, to unusually high incidences of cancer, leukemia, and tumors. EMFs are linked to headaches, cataracts, heart problems, stress, fatigue, nausea, insomnia, Alzheimer's disease, chest pain, and significantly higher than expected rates of leukemia. Animal experiments have shown higher rates of birth defects and miscarriages.
Many Chinese ask the question, "Are we safe?" TV and radio transmission towers, power lines and mobile phone base stations cast shadows over virtually every corner in big cities such as Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou. Although evidence is incomplete and inconsistent, it is clear that there is a correlation of some sort between microwaves and health.
Exposure to high-level EMFs has been shown to be harmful, but there is no definite answer concerning moderate levels.
Laboratory studies on humans exposed to moderate EMFs have showed no observable changes in blood pressure, body temperature, sleep, appetite or physical functions. Other studies have found no mood and behavior changes in human subjects.
But according to environmental supervision data, one percent of China's mobile phone base stations exceed the environmental management standard for EMF density (8μW/cm² ), and some top the national standard of 40μW/ cm² . For instance, among the 3,000 base stations in the Beijing area owned by China Mobile and China Unicom, six exceed the standard; of the 5,000 base stations in Liaoning Province, the number rises to 10.”
"China has stricter microwave standards than developed countries like the United States. However, the density of EMFs in Chinese cities is higher than that in other countries. Microwave radiation in developed countries is much lower than the set standard," said Cao Zhaojin, an electromagnetic radiation expert from the Environment Supervision Institute of the Academy of Preventive Medical Science.
"According to current research, it is hard to distinguish between harmful and non-harmful radiation. A low radiation level does not mean it is safe. That is why developed countries demand radiation in public places must be much lower than the standard."
Obviously China's big cities are actually teetering on the rim of a radiation hazard.
The issue of mobile phones as a source of danger has been hotly debated. Mobile phones use microwaves to transmit signals. The emission power is between 0.25 and 2 W (the old standard being 3 to 5 W). But because mobile phones are operated in such close proximity to -- actually in contact with -- the body of the user, the radiation is great. Cao noted that both Chinese and foreign experts have measured electromagnetic density around mobile phone antennas. In most cases, the figure varies from 10 to several hundred μW/ cm² . When a phone is in use, that figure can reach as high as 1,000 μW/ cm². If a user uses a 900 MHz phone, the temperature of his ear and adjacent skin will rise significantly, as much as 2.5 degrees Celsius. Heat under the level of the skin may affect brain activity and the neural system.
Studies on cat, rat, and chick brain cells show that low-frequency electromagnetic radiation interacts with brain activity and could cause a host of negative symptoms, from heightened stress and depression, slowed reaction and learning disabilities to miscarriages, fetal deformities and cancer. In 1996, the World Health Organization (WHO) established the International Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Project to address the health issues associated with exposure to EMFs. A comprehensive report is expected to be complete between 2005 and 2006.
The WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has recently concluded the first step in WHO's health risk assessment process by classifying EMFs. This year, IARC expects to have adequate data to complete its assessment.

15) Professor Olle Johansson, Karolinska Health Insitute, University of Stockholm, Sweden
With Shabnam Gangi, Yong Liang, Ken Yoshimura, Chen Jing and Peng-Yue Liu on this research paper:
“Cutaneous mast cells are altered in normal healthy volunteers sitting in front of ordinary TVs/PCs – results from open-field provocation experiments”
Background: Considerable controversy has surrounded the question of possible biological responses to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) generated from visual display terminals (VDTs), such as personal computers (PCs) and ordinary television sets (TVs). The cellular and molecular mechanisms for such potential harmful health hazards have not yet been understood, although clues from the literature include mast cells and histamine. The aim of this study was therefore to investigate possible biological mast cell responses to TV/PC screens.
Results: Our present in vivo study indicates that normal cutaneous mast cells could be altered by exposure from ordinary TV/PC screens. To our great surprise, we found the number of mast cells in the papillary and reticular dermis to increase, to varying degrees, in 5 out the 13 subjects after such an exposure. A migration of mast cells towards the uppermost dermis appeared as the most important event. Thus, the normally upper "empty zone" of the dermis disappeared, and instead, a higher density of mast cells were found in this zone. These cells also seemed to have a tendency to increase in number towards the epidermal-dermal junctional zone and some of them lost their granular content and the cytoplasm shrunk (=degranulation). These findings could only be seen in the exposed skin. Two of the 13 cases instead showed a decrease in mast cell number, but the shift in mast cells towards the upper dermis was still visible. Twenty-four hours after the provocation, the cellular number and location were normalized in all subjects.
Conclusions: By definition, normal healthy volunteers are assumed not to react to a TV/PC screen provocation. To our great surprise, this proved not to be true. The present results might lay a foundation to understand the underlying cause of so-called "screen dermatitis" with special reference to mast cells. However, blind or double-blind experiments using patients ought to be further investigated in order to find out the exact cause for the observed changes. Such causes include the effects of surrounding airborne chemicals, stress factors, etc.
Dictionary: mast cell n.
A cell found in connective tissue that contains numerous basophilic granules and releases substances such as heparin and histamine in response to injury or inflammation of bodily tissues.
his•ta•mine n.
A physiologically active amine, C5H9N3, found in plant and animal tissue and released from mast cells as part of an allergic reaction in humans. It stimulates gastric secretion and causes dilation of capillaries, constriction of bronchial smooth muscle, and decreased blood pressure.
In the Stockholm municipality - were I live and work as a scientist with the responsibility to investigate comprehensive issues for persons with EHS - such persons have the possibility to get their home sanitized for EMFs. It means for example that ordinary electricity cables are changed to special cables. Furthermore, the electric stove can be changed to a gas stove and walls, roof and floors can be covered with special wallpaper or paint with a special shelter to stop EMFs from the outside (from neighbours and mobile telephony base stations). Even the windows can be covered with a thin aluminum foil as an efficient measure to restrain EMFs to get into the room/home. If these alterations turn out not to be optimal they have the possibility to rent small cottages in the countryside that the Stockholm municipality owns. These areas have lower levels of irradiation than others. The Stockholm municipality also intend to build a village with houses that are specially designed for persons who are electrohypersensitive. This village will be located in a low-level irradiation area.
Persons with EHS also have a general (legal) right to be supported by their employer so that they can work despite of this impairment. For instance, they can get special equipment such as computers that are of low-emission type, that high-frequency fluorescent lamps are changed to ordinary light bulbs, no wireless DECT telephones in their rooms, and so on.”
More at http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20050426_who.asp
Professor Johansson lists scientific authorities at http://www.radiationresearch.org/newsletterPDFs/ProfessorOlleJohansson.pdf

16) Professor Hallberg Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, S-171 77, Stockholm, Sweden. Melanoma Research. 16(2):115-118, April 2006.http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/(2bs5kg55j5wm3c45uaxxrmy2)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,1,7;journal,6,17;linkingpublicationresults,1:105519,1
“FM Broadcasting Exposure Time and Malignant Melanoma Incidence”
Professors Örjan Hallberg and Olle Johansson
Abstract:
Object: To analyze the age-specific incidence of malignant melanoma in Sweden since 1958 in order to see if the reported general increase in incidence would be explained by a sudden exposure to an environmental stress to the population. Methods: Incidence data for all age groups was collected from the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare databases for each year between 1958 and 2002. The incidence in all 288 municipalities of Sweden was correlated to the number of FM transmitters covering each municipality. Results: The age-specific incidence was found to be constant over the last 20–30 years for people younger than 50 years while the incidence for older age groups still are constantly increasing. The total incidence in different municipalities was found to be a strong function of the number of covering FM transmitters. Conclusions: The age-specific incidence of malignant melanoma of the skin appears to be following a pattern of response to an imposed environmental change in 1955. We believe that the frequency modulation (FM) broadcasting radiation at whole-body resonant frequencies is such an environmental stress.
17) Dr Jerry Philips is currently Professor and Director of the Science Learning Center at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. He was one of the first scientists to study the health effects of cell phone radiation - recruited to do work by Motorola. But when Phillips' research came up with results the cell phone company didn't like - they shut down any attempts to publish his work according to http://www.mastvictims.org/index.php?content=resources and their audio interview
He writes: "[the following] Fits with the present discussion of EMF exposure and suicide. Your readers should be reminded of several studies that appeared in the literature in the 80s and 90s also providing a statistical association between 60 Hz EMF exposure and increased suicide incidence."
“For those of you who (again) have been asking about Moulder ... and the criteria of acceptance or rejection he applies to research ... in making his statements that deny any existence of EMF bioeffects (at conditions of exposure experienced in the "normal" work or home environment), the following experiment is a good example of the kind of thing he routinely ignores..... It has no peer review, no replication..... Just as there has not been in the "suicide research" (of Savitz et al) reported earlier today. That kind of "don't accept the evidence until conclusively proved" science is, of course, the kind of "science" that protected the tobacco industry for more than fifty years..... Hundreds of research results like the following went ignored..... It seems that we will soon be saying the same about EMF -- "hundreds" of such results are being ignored ... by an establishment "tobacco-science criterion" that is designed to protect the vested interests.... The status-quo......
.....While the 'tobacco-science Moulders' of the world ... continue to broadcast that "there is no problem."
Clearly, the "establishment" goal is the protection of $$$$$$$ at the expense of people.....!!!!
That is simply NOT the approach that should be our guide in matters of public health..... We will ALWAYS end up in the "fix" that we are now in ... with lead, asbestos. tobacco, etc
From: jphillips@hal.bscs.org

Subj: The Savitz-van Wijngaarden study which showed possible
EMF/suicide linkage....

18) Massot O, Grimaldi B, Bailly J, Kochanek M, Deschamps F, Lambrozo J, Fillion G, Unite de Pharmacologie Neuro-Immuno-Endocrinienne, Institut Pasteur, 25-28 rue du docteur Roux, Paris, France.
Heavy going, hard science below, for illustration rather than understanding for most non-scientists but it explains why magnetic fields screw up the central nervous system via the hormone serotonin.
http://www.emf-portal.org/suche.php?sform=1&go=MALDI
“Magnetic field desensitizes 5-HT(1B) receptor in brain: pharmacological and functional studies.”
Abstract: It was previously suggested that exposure to magnetic fields (MFs) could generate dysfunction of the CNS. The physiological manifestations described lead us to postulate that these symptoms might be related to a dysfunction of the serotonergic system and particularly of the 5-HT (1B) receptors. Accordingly, MFs could modify the conformation of these receptors altering their functional activities. In rat brain membrane preparations, we showed that the affinity constant of 5-HT for 5-HT(1B) receptors was modified under exposure to MFs since K(d) varied from 4.7+/-0.5 to 12+/-3 nM in control and exposed (2.5 mT) membranes, respectively.
This effect was intensity-dependent (the sigmoidal dose-response curve was characterized by an EI(50) of 662+/-69 muT and a maximal increase of 321+/-13% of the control K(d)), reversible, temperature-dependent and specific to the 5-HT(1B) receptors. Similar results have also been obtained with the human 5-HT(1B) receptors. In parallel assays, the functional activity of 5-HT(1B) receptors was investigated.
The capacity of a 5-HT(1B) agonist to inhibit the cAMP production was reduced by 37% (53.7+/-3.5% to 33.7+/-4.1%) following exposure to MFs and the cellular activity of the receptors (inhibition of the synaptosomal release of 5-HT) also was markedly reduced (66.5+/-3.2% to 28.5+/-4.2%). These results clearly show that in in vitro assays, MF specifically interacts with 5-HT(1B) receptors, inducing structural changes of the protein that result in a functional desensitization of the receptors. Thus, in vivo, exposure to MFs may lead to physiological changes, particularly in the field of mood disorders where the 5-HT system is strongly involved.

19) Dr Don Maisch Independent outspoken physicist in Australia
http://www.emfacts.com/papers/newspeak.pdf
He describes the ‘weasel words’ techniques used to obscure the sleight of verbal hand that turns black into white on this ES issue.
“Newspeak”, far from being a fictional medium of expression, is alive and well in the ongoing Cellphone controversy. George Orwell’s classic Sci-fi novel ‘1984’ probably sits in many a corporate reference library, under a section titled: “Risk Management”.
Let’s have a look at how Newspeak is being applied to the well known concept The Precautionary Principle/Approach, as it is defined in three expert committee mobile phone reports.
1) The UK Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP), chaired by Sir William Stewart. (2000)2
2) The UK Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation (AGNIR) (2004)3
3) The reports from the the Electromagnetic Fields Committee of the Health Council of the Netherlands,
titled: Mobile Telephones: An Evaluation of Health Effects (2002 and 2004)4
The Precautionary Principle/Approach. The “Oldspeak” definition:
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/reg/precaut/precaute.shtml
“The precautionary approach/principle is widely recognized as a distinctive approach to managing threats of serious or irreversible harm where there is scientific uncertainty. It is not new - what is new is the increasing complexity of the science and the public debate about the ability of governments to respond to such situations.”
“The application of “precaution” recognizes that the absence of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing decisions where there is a risk of serious or irreversible harm.”
1) The UK Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP)
The IEGMP independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, chaired by Sir William Stewart based much of its recommendations on the Oldspeak version of the precautionary approach. Here are just a few quotes from the main conclusions of the Stewart report:
1“We conclude therefore that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach.”
2“We note that a precautionary approach, in itself, is not without cost but we consider it to be an essential approach at this early stage in our understanding of mobile phone technology and its potential to impact on biological systems and on human health.”

3“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 (paragraph 4.37), and a longer lifetime of exposure. In line with our precautionary approach, at this time, 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.”

In essence the Precautionary Approach/Principle is enacted to protect the health and wellbeing of those who may be at risk.

The new Orwellian definition of the Precautionary Approach/Principle is refined as:
1“The Precautionary Principle is not, by definition, the same thing as taking measures to reduce exposure. It can also include other actions.”
The Committee states, 2 “carrying out further research...together with
monitoring scientific developments and publishing its findings...are adequate steps in the current context of precautionary measures.”

So, in other words, as long as industry funded research is progressing-that is the Precautionary Principle in action and no need to take any further action. This allows the conclusion 3 “Furthermore the
Committee feels that there are no health based reasons for limiting the use of mobile phones by children.”

That’s Newspeak in action! Just one of the many tools used in cellphone risk management. Old George Orwell would be proud!

* ‘Non-thermal effects’: An Oldspeak term redefined in Newspeak to mean: hypothetical; unsubstantiated; nonexistent, or off with the fairies.
On childrens health risks, after a global search of references and science, Dr Maisch concludes his lengthy research paper in the Journal of Australasian College of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine - Vol. 22 No. 2; August 2003: page 3-8 available at:
http://www.emfacts.com/papers/children_mobiles.pdf
“In Conclusion
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 maximizing corporate profits at the possible expense of our children’s future wellbeing.
It is of concern that many national and regulatory committees, charged with the responsibility of protecting public health, take their advice on health issues from expert radiation advisers who in many cases are also in the employ of telecommunications corporations. This may be justified in some situations, as most radiation experts would of course work within the industry. However, it must be clearly acknowledged that such an arrangement places the risk of bias high on the agenda of these committees.
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 individuals will have been done.
Every parent who is tempted to allow unrestricted mobile phone use by their children, needs to ask themselves: “Is it worth the risk?” “
20 Dr George Carlo was Chief Scientist of the ‘World’s Largest Research Effort’ into wire-less cell-phone safety and he reports “an insider’s alarming discoveries about cancer and genetic damage”. It states this on the cover of his quite astounding story as told in “Cell Phones – Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age” pub Carroll & Graf, 2001, ISBN 0-7867 0818-2.
Dr. George Carlo, Ph.D, M.S., J.D, is a public health scientist, epidemiologist, lawyer, and the founder of the ‘Science and Public Policy Institute’. Dr. Carlo headed the $28.5 million research program funded by the cell phone industry from 1993 to 1999. Interviews and information can be found at: http://www.emf-health.com/dr-george-carlo.htm
Very rare for the boss to be the 'whistleblower', and very strange.
We have on loan his strangely unfindable book, now you can hear his story in interviews. Be prepared for an industry backlash which will attempt character assassination, scientific bowdlerizing, legal threats and a genuine hoo-hah to shut him up now he has taken to the airwaves. It’s a lengthy tale but riveting if you have an interest, a film is arriving soon and Dr Carlo will be in the UK in early spring.
Dr. George Carlo as an independent scientist was hired by the cell phone industry in 1993, under pressure because of Federal Government concern over health risks of this new technology, to administer studies of the safety of their product. The book promotion records how
“In 1999, his research funds were not renewed, and the industry sought to discredit him. His findings on the dangers posed by the microwave radiation from cell phone antennas--disrupting cardiac pacemakers, penetrating the developing skulls of children, compromising the blood-brain barrier, and most startlingly, inflicting genetic damage that is a known diagnostic marker for cancer--are given clear voice as Carlo brings his case to the public in this examination of the hard science and the shady politics of a reckless high tech industry now mired in personal injury and class-action litigation."
Need we say more, this is the mobile industry’s own chief scientist and safety expert. Now of course vilified, as is current industry practice, to foster doubt and deny with bluster. But his science stands, the studies are there.
If you ‘google’ dr george carlo cell phones there are 144,000 results.
Among them he responds to the recent widely reported Danish study:
Dr. George L. Carlo Science and Public Policy Institute, Safe Wireless Initiative, Washington, D.C. www.safewireless.org 202-756-7744
“After a number of prominent, peer-reviewed studies indicating that cell phone radiation can cause genetic damage, brain and blood cell dysfunction and a host of health problems including cancer, now comes a Danish study that appears to say there is no danger at all.
And, that is exactly what cell phone users want to hear – if it is true.
The problem is that the new Danish cohort study does not support the reassurances that have been ascribed to it. It is a ruse based upon a program initiated by the telecommunications industry more than a decade ago to control the global scientific research agenda concerning cell phones and health effects. The industry strategy has been to fund low-risk studies that will assure a positive result – and then use it to convince the news media and the public that it is proof that cell phones are safe. Even though the actual science proved nothing of the sort.
It is against this backdrop that the Danish study provides an illustrative case history.” Read all about it at;
http://www.mast-victims.org/index.php?content=news&action=view&type=newsitem&id=1273

21) Barrie Trower physicist, lecturer and former MoD army researcher in microwave weapons was commissioned to write a confidential report on TETRA system safety by the Police Federation. See it at http://www.electrosensitivity.org.uk/trower%20report.htm
Report is so scathing the Govt steps in, those who commissioned it are removed from office, commissioning is denied by HPA’s Michael Clark and Trower a respected west country academic is vilified. He will not be silenced and releases it himself.
Says bluntly “the health risks will be recognised when the pile of (policemens) bodies is high enough”.
"A UK ex-Government Military Scientist Barrie Trower, who trained spies in microwave warfare has given out the following statement:
"This Government, some of the Government Scientists and this Industry will be responsible for more deaths in peace time than any terrorist group in the world ever!"
Some statement, some quotation, we got it from Eileen O'Connor of the 'Radiation Research Trust', a very active campaigner for exposure of health risks since her own illness. See www.radiationresearch.org/

For details of TETRA, the police and emergency system health risks visit
22) Andy Davidson at http://www.tetrawatch.net/tetra/index.php
Who explains all the terminology and science along with health risks
Terms relating to non-ionising radiation
(ie radiation that won’t knock atoms into charged bits or ions)
EMF : electromagnetic field EMR : electromagnetic radiation
RF : radio frequency MW : (in our context) microwave
ELF : extremely low frequency (typically 1 to 300 Hz [Hertz or cycles per second])
Carrier frequency : the frequency of the microwaves that are shaped or modulated to carry information (eg 1200MHz = 1.2GHz is used by some GSM)
Pulse frequency : the frequency of data bursts from TDMA systems (eg 217Hz for GSM)
Frequency/wavelength
Hertz, or Hz = cycles per second, or the number of full wave forms arriving at a point per second, so represents frequency: ‘how often do waves arrive?’ (Wavelength? If more waves arrive at a higher frequency, the waves must be shorter, since they all travel at the same speed [speed of light]. So vice versa, as frequency decreases, wavelength increases.)
1 kHz = 1 kilo Hertz = 1,000 cycles per second
1 MHz = 1 mega Hertz = 1,000,000 cycles per second
1 GHz = 1 giga Hertz = 1,000,000,000 cycles per second
examples:
GSM transmits around 900 MHz = 900,000,000 cycles per second
UMTS transmits around 2.1 GHz = 2,100,000,000 cycles per second
therefore UMTS is a higher frequency and its wavelength is shorter.
Second rule of this: the lower the frequency the more penetrative the radiation is: TETRA at 400 MHz is more likely to go through you, UMTS at 1.2 GHz is more likely to be absorbed by you. And also perhaps easier to shield yourself from.
Mobile technology terms:
GSM : global system for mobility (2G or 2.5G phones, where G is for generation) a TDMA system
3G : also UMTS : universal mobile telephony standard, in the UK a WCDMA system
TETRA : TErrestrial TRunked RAdio, a TDMA system
WiFi : wireless computer connections
DECT : Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications. A GSM (TDMA) standard for domestic and office wireless phones.
TDMA : Time Division Multiple Access (giving users time slots in turn)
CDMA : Code Division Multiple Access (giving people’s data packets codes to identify them in transit)
FDMA : Frequency Division Multiple Access (giving people different carrier frequencies so they can talk at once)
WDMA : Wideband Division Multiple Access (having a carrier frequency band so wide lots of people and data can be squeezed in at once on slightly different frequencies) – and combinations, like TDCMA to get even more out of systems
Medical:
ES : Electrosensitivity EHS : Electro-hypersensitivity
MND : motor neurone disease
Increasingly callers complain of reacting to the new wire-less systems, here is a summary of that science by Andy Davidson of Hese-UK:
WiFi and Concerns over Risks to Health
■ In assessing the safety of electromagnetic environments, great care must be taken to observe relevant comparisons, to include scientific evidence, and to account for observed responses.
■ The technology is novel in human experience, the effects are most likely to be long-term, and the low levels are entirely comparative.
■ Environmental levels of electromagnetic fields should always be compared with the natural environment, not with other man-made sources.
Power and frequency
500 watts in a microwave oven at 2.4GHz will cook a potato in minutes. A 500 watt light bulb in a metal box will not. Equating the energy or the number of photons emitted by a light bulb with any microwave device, as if the sensitivity of the human retina to light had any bearing on the electromagnetic response of a living cell membrane to microwave frequencies, is quite erroneous. The light bulb is a very inefficient converter of electric energy to photons and the visible spectrum is far removed from the microwave. Photon sizes and energies are markedly different.
The comparison between WiFi transmissions and light bulbs is incorrect and irrelevant.
Latent bioresponse
Mammalian retinal cells respond chemically to visible spectra, which have been part of the natural environment within which the mammalian eye evolved: this was an evolutionary advantage under circumstances where latent biological response of cells to light already existed. Microwave background radiation at 2.4GHz is not part of that evolutionary environment. This does not mean that other cells have no response. Had this radiation been present, the facility to use it may well have developed. Sharks, for example have exquisite sensitivity to electric fields via electroreceptors (ampullae of Lorenzini). The latent responsiveness of certain cells made this evolutionary development as likely as retinal response, thereby creating what we term the ‘visible’ spectra.
The assertion that because the human body has no attuned receptor to microwave frequencies there can be no effect, is a non sequitur.
Scientific knowledge
What we do know very clearly from very substantial research, is that body tissues do respond to electromagnetic fields at very low levels indeed. We know that the response appears to be windowed by frequency and power (ie the response is non-linear, and specific ranges of frequency and power elicit greater response that those above and below these ranges). We know that the effect is cumulative rather than purely instantaneous, and that cascade effects, from gene expression to protein modification, to cellular ion transport are all affected. We also know that pulse-characterised signals such as employed in the WiFi (IEEE 802.11) standard elicit a stronger response than pure carrier frequencies.
The assertion that there is no scientific evidence for microwave fields affecting living organisms at the levels experienced in highly modified modern electromagnetic environments is plainly untrue.
Human experience
People burnt their hands on fire long before the mechanisms of oxidation and combustion were understood. Many people, although they form a minority of the population, exhibit hypersensitive responses to many stimulants. For some the problem is nuts, for others specific chemicals or mixtures, whilst others are triggered by electric or electromagnetic fields. Observation in real life, where fields are highly complex, suggest that frequency combinations matter more than radical exposure in predicting how electrosensitive people will respond.
The assertion that because simplified provocation trials under laboratory conditions appear not to reveal a linear predictable response among people claiming to be sensitive, does not disprove their real-world experience. It simply indicates that complex electromagnetic environments where other common factors may co-relate are not easily replicated in the laboratory.
Response and regulation
The most linear dosimetric bioresponse to electromagnetic fields is in the area of acute exposure where energy deposition results in thermal damage to tissue. Acute shock or rapid local heating will cause predictable damage. There is no dosimetric assessment for low level exposure, despite exposure effects on whole living organisms (systems, not tissues) being well established. The assessment and categorisation of any environmental circumstance should be with the natural condition, not with other sources. We do not compare dioxins from chimneys with dioxins from other sources, but with an extremely low natural base. We do not compare high tar and low tar cigarettes any more, but tar in general with the natural lung environment. We should not compare WiFi with proximity to a mobile phone. WiFi exposure levels in a classroom, for example, from a number of PCs and servers (not just the input power to a base unit or router) must be compared with natural environmental conditions at these frequencies.
There are no regulatory guidelines for chronic low level exposure to microwave fields around 2.4GHz, or any other non-ionising spectra.
Response and harm
It is often said that a biological response does not imply a risk to health. We are not harmed by the eye’s response to visible spectra providing this is not too intense. The shark is not harmed by ambient electric fields, though it may be repelled by a strong field. With microwave spectra there is no attuned organ or receptor, but we do know there is molecular and cellular response. We also know that molecular and cellular cascade effects exist that, for example, help to explain the wide range of symptoms that characterise electrosensitivity.
The assertion that there is no scientific evidence for harm, though there is evidence of biological response, is disproved by the cascade effects of those known effects, which tend rather to explain the variety of felt experiences.
Conclusion and recommendations
■ WiFi and wireless networking is regarded popularly as innocuous because it is relatively new, readily available, cheap and convenient.
■ Refutation of potential harm is based almost entirely on erroneous and irrelevant comparisons.
■ Biological responses by living systems are well attested, anecdotal evidence of adverse reactions are very well established, and analysis of researched biological response suggest there can be long-term risk from exposure.
■ Where wireless networks involve daily exposure by children, or by workers, in enclosed environments (particularly where there are microwave-reflective structures such as reinforced concrete, metal joists, steel furniture etc.) there is more indication of potential harm than clear reassurance of there being no effect on anyone.
■ Continuous exposure to WiFi, even at these low levels, is not to be recommended.

Andy Davidson h.e.s.e.-UK
http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/niemr/

23) Professor Andrew Marino, author of 'Electromagnetism and Life' is at Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center or at http://www.ortho.lsuhsc.edu/Faculty/Marino/Comments/RepacholiTestimony.html#52306 He powerfully criticises the World Health Organisation’s head of this electrosensitivity issue, on the grounds of fraudulent science.
We cannot exaggerate the damage this twisting of the meaning and place of science has done, and is doing. I will quote Marino at a little length in his calculated (libellous?) words, not ours.
Dr Marino says scathingly, and this agrees with what many ES sufferers have often suspected, and some expressed:
"At the bottom of the barrel is the EMF scientist who functions as a brainwasher to deceive the public, innocent young and old alike, into giving themselves cancer and other diseases. There is no purer example of such a man than Michael Repacholi. He is at the end of a historical line of change that must be recognized before science can once again resume its task of finding the best truth possible.”

24 John Rogers address supplied to us, is a retired biophysicist and electronics engineer of over 40 years experience in Government and MOD employ. Unpublished because of the Official Secrets Act and the secret nature of his work, he tells us he no longer considers himself bound by secrecy because of the unadmitted risks to public health and individuals. He suffers himself from ES ill-health effects. He knows some individuals in government and the Health Protection Agency with whom he has professionally overlapped in the past also know about these, but they deny it publicly.
His concerns focus on the following scientifically neglected areas:
1) Dangers from deliberate production of high energy hotspots for wire-less access, creating these was formerly avoided! These sicken the electro-sensitive like him.
2) City wide plans for this access, ‘Cloud’ and other companies’ plans, especially the combination with the extra radiation we know will arrive from predicted sunspots.
3) Hospitals supplying sites for transmission masts and bedside devices operating on ‘bluetooth’ frequencies around 2.5 GHz which encourage bacteria, MRSA and so on to proliferate more rapidly. He worked on this in Govt labs and watched it happen.
4) Deleterious effects on the immune system, including his own, and the impossibility now of escape, or respite, from low-level microwave radiation.
5) Bioeffects of microwaves on critical gut enzymes and so digestion; anti-oxidant effects and more.
6) TETRA emergency systems which threaten the health of police and firefighters as regular users, as detailed by Barrie Trower in his report. 3G likewise.
7) John Rogers believes our present western medical approach limits understanding and recommends the work of Dr Motoyama below,

25) Dr Hiroshi Motoyama, has PhD degrees from Tokyo University in Philosophy and Physiological Psychology, and Eastern and Western mysticism, he is founder and director of the ‘California Institute of Human Science.’
http://www.cihs.edu/index.asp
At CIHS, a Graduate College and research centre, they say:
“Medical practice, based on the ki-energy that supports the life activity of living organisms, regards the living body not as formed matter, but as a comprehensive whole of vital energy or life-energy. This is differentiated from the medical practice/science which regards the living body as organic, comprised of a system of organs, and which further breaks it down into DNA consisting of various particles. The medicine of ki-energy is accepted by many people who are engaged in the practice of alternative medicines. This is because people are aware of the limitation of medicine based on mere matter, and because they experience on their own the effectiveness of subtle-energy (ki-energy) treatment.”
“Medical science has as its research object the human body, while psychology and psychiatry have as their research object the human mind. The phrase "human science" used in the name of CIHS, has the whole of the body, mind, and soul as its research object.”
“In regards to the body, it conducts research in Eastern medicine as represented by India, China and Japan, which takes the body as a system of bio-energy. At the same time, it conducts research in Western medicine that regards the body as an organic system in terms of cell structure and molecules (e.g., DNA). Moreover, it pursues an integration of Eastern and Western medicines.”
The pity is we cannot get Prince Charles and his ‘Foundation for Integrated Health’ interested in this environmental and health issue, we write, and they just politely send us yet more unwanted shiny brochures.
There are many other aspects to this issue, it seemed at one time that English Nature might begin to get to grips with it but it is perhaps too much for them to swallow on top of all the other environmental issues of urgent concern.
26) Dr Alfonso Balmori has been wildlife researching and says
The various opinions and evidence from around the world
indicates that EMF is dangerous. Animals know there is something wrong but can’t tell us.
Examine the evidence and make your own conclusion.

I am writing to you in order to send you my hypothesis about the decline of a couple of birds species, House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) and Starling (Sturnus vulgaris), in lots of British cities.

The hypothesis has its origin in my tracking of birds in a park in Valladolid (Spain) from 1996, 1997, 1998 and 2002. Even though this study is not finished yet, it seems the preliminary results show what led to the decline of several species as has happened in England.

For more see http://www.starweave.com/balmori/

27) Alasdair Philips BSc(Eng), DAgE, MIAgE, MInstPhys.
Among many expert papers to be found from this UK independent scientist and consultant, especially atPowerwatch.org we select this slightly romantic missive to conclude our trip into the known ES science, to supply context. It is old, from a letter of the 21st Nov 1998 “Our cheap transistor radios can pick up and separate out hundreds of radio signals at levels of a few hundreds of microvolts/metre. More sophisticated communications receivers can work down to levels of about 10 microvolts/metre. Radio-astronomers work on informational signals from stars at less than 1 microvolt/metre - this is a power level of about 0.000 000 000 001 microwatt/cm2 (1 attowatt/cm2 !!).
We can now detect and create pictures from signals from spacecraft at our outer planets using transmit powers similar to those used by mobile phones of a few watts!
Honeybees have been shown to be sensitive to magnetic flux differences of 1 nanotesla (10 microGauss)
[4][Theoretically humans could also be sensitive down to less than this level (pineal thermal noise c. 0.24 nanotesla - Smith, 1985). Various sea creatures can detect voltage gradients of a few 10's of microvolts/metre.
Biological stochastic resonance from regular pulsing EMFs can effectively amplify coherent signals (like power EMFs) by vast amounts.
What arrogant nonsense to suggest that living systems need to be "cooked" before they realize they are being bombarded by signals and that microwaves of 100 volts/metre are harmless to us.
On your butterfly question...many years ago (c.1969) I went to a Friday evening London 'Royal Institution' lecture by Professor Eric Laithwhaite of Imperial College London - the guy who developed the principle of the linear electric motor which is now widely used - whose hobby was/is butterflies and moths. At the time everyone was talking about pheromones, and undoubtedly these are used in the mating attraction process, however...he discovered that if the female (I think) was enclosed in a sealed plastic box the mates still appeared from long distances away, but if she was enclosed in a (electromagnetically screened) Faraday cage full of air holes only butterflies who were very close were still attracted. He repeated these experiments on many occasions and came to the conclusion that the patterns on the butterflies wings were actually tuned circuits in the very high microwave region (far-far-infra red) and each variety had its own unique RF/microwave signature enabling mates of the same variety to home in using their antennae and own wing resonators as tuning selectors. The
main energy probably came from the sunlight possibly modulated by wing flapping.

Our mainstream, crude, gross, simplification of life into simple electro-chemical building blocks completely misses the mysteries of what "life" is and how sensitive it can be if we open ourselves up to the amazing, wonderful, cosmic universe in which we live. I do not know how we will achieve the paradigm shift in thinking needed but I sense that it is slowly starting to happen. I hope so, anyway. Matthew Fox (USA) and his Creation Spirituality movement is part of the change, along with the deep ecology movement.
... and I am meant to be a down-to-earth nuts-and-bolts engineer!”

See http://members.aol.com/gotemf/emf/animals.htm
Wi-fi and w-Lan health risks are topical concerns, especially risks to children in schools. Assessments and papers are available, or will be available shortly, on the websites of Hese-UK at http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/main/index.php
Or at Powerwatch at http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/
28 David Dowson MB., ChB.,For ‘FAQs on ES’ from a practising medical doctor at Doctor’s Guidance www.electrosensitivity.org.uk if the website is still there, or www.es-uk.info.org.uk
29 Dr Magda Havas researches at Trent University, Ontario, Canada and has recently (July’08) published in ‘Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine’, 27:135-146,2008 ‘Dirty Electricity Elevates Blood Sugar among Electrically Sensitive Diabetics and may explain Brittle Diabetes’.
Their work is based on ordinary mains type electricity frequencies in the kilohertz range, they conclude:
In addition to lifestyle and genetics, the environment appears to be another factor contributing to high levels of blood sugar. This concept presents a possible paradigm shift in the way we think about diabetes and the consequences may be far-reaching. As a result we have labelled environmental diabetes as Type 3 diabetes.
www.stop-emf.ca/stopinfo/HavasPresentationTaskForce.pdf
Date: October 10, 2005
For: Courtesy Public Hearing for Z-01-05
Exhibit for Mt. Ulla, North Carolina Hearing, October 13, 2005
Expert Testimony prepared by Magda Havas, B.Sc., Ph.D.
Health Effects Associated with Radio Frequency Radiation
Summary
“Biological effects of radio frequency radiation have been documented and range from cancers to cognitive disorders and sleeping dysfunction among humans and abnormal behavior, reduced milk yield, miscarriages and premature death among farm animals.
People who live near broadcast antennas and cell phone antennas have a higher risk of developing leukemia. An increasing number of individuals are also becoming sensitive to this form of radiation and exhibit signs of electrohypersensitivity (EHS), which has been recognized as a disability in Sweden. This illness appears to be increasing and may already affect approximately 35% of the population according to one estimate in the
United Kingdom.”

“Currently we are conducting a human experiment on a massive scale by exposing a large population worldwide to radio frequency radiation without understanding the long-term biological and health consequences.”

Summary of Scientific Sources Rod Read ES-Support. Well, I guess no-one is turning to this page for a barrel of laughs. I said that at the beginning, how many of you ploughed through determinedly to the end?

"Whaddoyareckonnow?" No evidence of health risks?

Those suspecting they have health reactions to EMR may find some grim satisfaction however that they are not deluded loons.
Repeatedly we are told our most useful service is providing the reassurance that sensitive reactions are real and physical, and backed up by the serious work of many distinguished scientists, despite what skewed media reports infer from complex research.

To repeat:

“Currently we are conducting a human experiment on a massive scale by exposing a large population worldwide to radio frequency and other low level radiation without understanding the long-term biological and health consequences.”

Expressions of Concern from Scientists,
Physicians, Health Policy Experts & Others

William Rea, MD

Martin Blank, PhD

Olle Johansson, Ph.D.

David Carpenter, MD

Magda Havas, PhD

Whitney North Seymour, Jr., Esq.

B. Blake Levitt

Eric Braverman, MD

Abraham R. Liboff, PhD

Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD

Samuel Milham MD, MPH

Libby Kelley, MA

James S. Turner, Esq.

Camilla Rees, MBA

L. Lloyd Morgan, BS Electronic Engineering

Janet Newton

Prof. Livio Giuliani, PhD

Professor Jacqueline McGlade

Paul J. Rosch, MD

Expressions of Concern from Scientists,Physicians, Health Policy Experts & Others