Dr Robert O Becker MD

Twice nominated for the Nobel prize

Dr Robert O Becker pioneer researcher

Repeatedly we are told our most useful service is providing the reassurance that electro-sensitive reactions are real and physical, and backed up by the serious work of many distinguished scientists, despite what often skewed media reports infer from complex research.

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, see above link on Health Risks From Electromagnetic Radiation, EMR.

Good quality research to answer why some become ill from the effects of electromagnetic fields and microwaves is our principal request, it is however we find 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, which 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."

Dr Robert O Becker, pioneer researcher, gave evidence warning of all the dangers we now have, down to individual illnesses and specific health effects, but was ignored, and IS ignored.

Becker’s involvement with high-voltage power lines and the U.S. Navy’s submarine communications system (Project Sanguine,later Project Seafarer and still later Project ELF) proved to be his undoing. He was forced into retirement at the too-young age of 56. As Becker wrote in the preface to "The Electric Wilderness", a history of these struggles by Andy Marino and Joel Ray:

“We faced a concerted and coordinated effort to suppress the truth which emanated from the military establishment and was simply aided and abetted by the greed of the utilities and the tarnished testimony of scientists for hire.”

But even in apparent defeat, Becker made his mark and changed the course of the EMF controversy. His and Marino’s fight over the 765kV power line planned by the New York Power Authority led to the NY Power Line Project which sponsored theresearch that repeated Nancy Wertheimer and Ed Leeper’s childhood leukemia study that forever changed the EMF landscape.

After his lab at the VA Hospital in Syracuse was closed, Becker wrote "The Body Electric" with Gary Selden. Published in 1985, the book became a classic and is still in print today.
Anyone trying to understand the forces at work in this highly politicized area of science should read his “Postscript: Political Science.” Here’s how it ends:

"I want the general public to know that science isn’t run the way they read about it in the newspapers and magazines. I want lay people to understand that they cannot automatically accept scientists’ pronouncements at face value, for too often they’re self-serving and misleading. I want our citizens, nonscientists as well as investigators, to work to change the way research is administered. The way it's currently funded and evaluated, we're learning more and more about less and less, and science is becoming our enemy instead of our friend".

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.”

From 'Cross Currents' Chapter 11,

THE NEW PLAGUES

"In the preceding chapters, the evidence for harmful biological effects from exposure to abnormal, man-made electromagnetic fields was discussed from the point of view of laboratory and epidemiological data. This chapter will present the medical evidence relating these fields to recently occurring significant changes in the spectrum of human disease.

We are currently facing diseases that were unknown just a few years ago. We are also seeing disturbing increases and alterations in certain diseases we believed we had conquered. While the AIDS epidemic commands the headlines, there are other illnesses of equal importance – such as Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, and developmental defects – that have not received the same amount of attention. The new scientific paradigm we have been considering may provide some clues to these new plagues, some informed speculation, and some indication of the directions we should take.

The global environmental alteration brought about by our use of electromagnetic energy has exposed all living organisms, from viruses to humans, to novel energetic fields that never before existed. We have seen how these fields interact with sensing systems designed to perceive the normal electromagnetic environment, producing abnormal bioeffects that result in changes in the incidence of diseases. This interaction appears also to have been the origin of some new disease states and of a number of unexpected changes in the characteristics of some preexisting disease states.

In theory, a disease that suddenly appears out of nowhere may be caused by a genetic change in a pre-existing microorganism (a bacterium or virus) that creates new pathological characteristics. Or, it may be caused by major declines in resistance to disease, making people susceptible to attack by microorganisms previously incapable of producing disease. In practice, things are nor quite so simple. Hippocrates was correct in believing that the clinical characteristics of a disease are the result of the combined actions of both the disease-producing agent and the patient’s body. When we’re facing a new disease, it’s often difficult to tell which is which.

ELECTROMAGNETIC HYPERSENSITIVITY SYNDROME

When I first acquired some public notoriety as a researcher in the biological effects of electromagnetic fields, I began receiving a trickle of letters from persons who insisted that they were highly “allergic” to such fields. Some said they had even moved to remote rural areas that are free of most electromagnetic fields. I must admit that for the first few years I was highly sceptical of such claims and thought that the conditions must be purely psychological in origin. But during the past five or six years, the trickle of letters has turned into a flood that I can no longer ignore, Fortunately, other medical scientists have become interested in this specific condition and involved in establishing its diagnosis. Dr William Rea, (see A href="http://www.ehcd.com/"target ="_blank">Dr Rea) a former surgeon from Texas, discovered his own sensitivity to electromagnetic fields while working in the modern operating room. As medicine became a technology, the operating room became a home to more and more electrical devices. Today, in my opinion, it could well be classified as a hazardous environment. By eliminating other sources, Dr Rea determined that his allergic and neurological symptoms were caused by the electromagnetic fields in the operating room. He subsequently discovered that he was not alone in his hypersensitivity, and that there was a growing population of patients with the same condition. These people are typically told by their physicians that their symptoms are “all in their minds” and that they should seek psychiatric care.

Rea became outraged about this situation, and he established a clinic to deal with this problem as a real entity. His Environmental Health Centre in Dallas, Texas, is probably the best-equipped clinic of its kind in the country. The patients are tested through exposure to a spectrum of electromagnetic fields in such a fashion that they are unaware it is being done. In most patients, a consistent sensitivity to certain specific frequencies can be found and quantified through objective measures of the activity of the autonomic nervous system. In this way, Rea had proved that the electromagnetic-hypersensitivity syndrome is a real clinical entity.

People with this syndrome have a number of characteristics and symptoms in common. The following case history is typical.

Mary M (not her real name) had worked for an international company for many years as a computer supervisor. She enjoyed her work and had had no medical problems of note until she was asked to try out a different make of computer that the company was considering using. The machine seemed perfect – it was easy to use as well as fast and powerful, and she enjoyed working with it the first day. She went home that night with a minor headache, which subsided with an aspirin. Returning to work the next day, she used the new machine for less than an hour, and the headache returned. She took another aspirin and wondered whether she was “coming down with something”. As she continued to work with the new computer, she become nauseated and dizzy, and the headache did not go away.

Mary then went to the dispensary, where she was told that she had a slight fever and was no doubt “coming down with the flu”. She took two days off, and she felt fine when she returned to work. But within minutes of turning on the computer, she experienced the return of the nausea, dizziness, and headache, A short time later she began to experience severe fatigue, an inability to concentrate, and difficulty with her vision. As she continued to work, the symptoms became worse, until finally she could not continue. She began to think that perhaps something was wrong with the machine, and she mentioned this to the dispensary staff before going home again. When she reached her home, she noticed that her face and the exposed portions of her neck and chest were noticeably reddened.
This time she took a full week of sick leave; on return to work; she went straight to the dispensary so that the doctor could see that she was quite well before she used the new machine. She was told that in her absence, the manufacturer had checked her machine and found that it was operating normally and not producing a harmful field.

As she opened the door to her area, she felt as though she “had walked into a blast furnace”. The whole room had been equipped with the new machines, and her staff was busily working with them. She stayed for only a few minutes, during which time she became extremely ill and had to leave. This time the doctor asked if she were having any emotional or personal problems of any kind, and he suggested that if so, she see a professional about them. Mary refused to return to work, and she left for home.

She then noticed that her TV and stereo produced the same symptoms in her if she was within a few feet of them. Over the next few weeks, her condition gradually worsened, until even using the telephone made her ill. She also developed what appeared to her to be “allergies” to sunlight and to the smells of such things as laundry bleach and perfumes, all of which made her feel nauseous and dizzy.

The skin rash reappeared, and Mary consulted a dermatologist, who told her that the electromagnetic radiation from the computer was the culprit and that he had seen similar cases. He recommended that she go away for a few weeks to some very rural area and see whether she recovered, His other patients had sometimes been able to return to work after such a respite from electromagnetic fields.

Mary took his advice, and she did get better. However, when she returned to the city, her symptoms returned. She never returned to her old job, and now lives in a very rural area of a foreign country, where she is fine.

One final note on this case is that the computers are no longer in use by the company, which refuses to discuss the situation."

Dr Becker continues

"Almost all of the patients who have consulted me for this condition (EHS) experienced a similar abrupt onset of symptoms. Computers were not always the common factor, but exposure to a novel electromagnetic field of some kind was always the inciting cause. These people experienced the same symptoms and became sensitive to many common devices that had never before produced any symptoms in them (for example, TVs, computers, stereos, fluorescent lights, telephones electric heaters, high-voltage power lines, and electronic security systems).

Within the last year, automobiles have joined the list of devices that can produce the initial sensitizing field exposure. These are always the new, computerized models, and the patients find that they are quite able to drive the identical make and model if it is not computerized.

As with any medical condition, there is a range of severity. With repeated exposure some patients develop severe neurological responses, with such symptoms as confusion, depression, decreased memory, sleep disturbances, and even convulsions or grossly abnormal behaviour. Others never progress beyond mild symptoms when exposed to the original novel field. In general, there is little that can be done for any of these patients, beyond advising them to move to a location where the fields do not produce symptoms in them.

At present, the mechanisms causing a hypersensitivity to novel electromagnetic fields are unknown. However, it would appear that there is a direct effect upon the nervous system and that the immune system is very likely also involved.

The incidence of this syndrome is increasing. Whether this increase is due to the rising number of new devices emitting novel fields, to overall increase in field intensity from all sources or to a change in the sensitivity of the human population is as yet undetermined.

CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME

Fatigue may be produced by a variety of conditions, ranging from physical exertion, to relatively minor virus infections, to serious infectious diseases and cancer. In 1982, a new syndrome was reported that was at first thought to be chronic mononucleosis or chronic Epstein-Barr virus infection. It was characterized by severe fatigue, sore throat, tender lymph nodes, mild fever, an inability to concentrate, depression, and mental confusion.

Since then, professional interest has increased, along with reports of a rapidly increasing number of cases. Some investigators believe that this condition is not a new disease but is simply a “fad” produces by publicity. Attempts to track down the causative agent have revealed only that it is not mononucleosis or Epstein-Barr virus. In its most severe form, this condition is prolonged, often lasting for several years, and severely debilitating. In some patients the major symptoms are neurological, with severe disturbances verging on psychotic. Recently, the Centres for Disease Control declared the condition to be a real clinical entity and proposed formal criteria for its diagnosis.

However, no treatment, including the antiviral drug acyclovir, had been found to be effective. I one acyclovir study, done at the National Institute of Health, matched groups of cases were given either acyclovir or a placebo. The results were identical.
However the investigators (headed by Dr Steven E Strauss of the Medical Virology Section) found an interesting association between the results of psychological tests and the changes in a patient’s symptoms. “Significant improvement (was seen) in levels if anger, depression, and other mood states correlated with overall clinical improvement.” In other words, if the patients believed they were getting better, they actually became clinically better.

The hypersensitivity syndrome and the chronic-fatigue syndrome share a number of common characteristics. Both are newly described conditions, both begin rather abruptly with a flu like condition, and many of the symptoms – particularly those associated with the central nervous system - are identical. The major difference is in the reported sensitivity to electromagnetic fields. However, some patients who were diagnosed as having primarily chronic-fatigue syndrome have consulted me because they definitely felt worse when exposed to TVs and other devices, even though they did not consider this to be a major aspect of their illness. Some patients with chronic-fatigue syndrome feel improved when they are in rural areas, away from sources of electromagnetic fields.

Finally, the chronic-fatigue syndrome has been found to be widespread in the electronics industry, particularly in Silicon Valley in northern California. According to Dr James Cone, chief of Occupational Medicine at San Francisco General Hospital,“These are not people with typical allergies, but people who appear to have some kind of neurological or immune-system problem.”More than 100 Silicon Valley employees have filed lawsuits against their companies for the condition.

While by no means proven, the possibility remains that both conditions share the same basic causative factor – exposure to abnormal electromagnetic fields. The difference in the syndromes are that in one type there is overt hypersensitivity to the fields, while in the other this factor is either lacking or is much less evident. Both, however, share the general characteristics of involvement of the central nervous system and the immune system. If the present trend continues and the percentage of the population developing either of these conditions increases, it could become a public-health problem of some magnitude."

End of quotations from Dr Becker

The present state of clinical evidence from Dr Carlo, see News Update page at top, shows it is MEMBRANE SENSITIVITY SYNDROME, MSS, where the immune system becomes involved. Information carrying radiowaves impinge on the delicate molecular structure of cell membranes causing a shutdown in activity which accumulates. This prevents the ability of cells to communicate with one another and the immune system is compromised. A cascade of ill health symptoms results, often interpreted by doctors as different illnesses.

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) 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.”

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

Drs Lai and Henshaw can be found at