You are on page 1of 76

Cell phone health concerns continue to spread

March 10, 2009 by Mi Kai Lee
Filed under Feature Stories, Health, Technology

7 Comments

Humans are not the only ones affected by cell towers. This tree in front of Kaslo's downtown tower is not taking
it very well. (Photo: Mi Kai Lee)

A court in France has ordered the dismantling of a cell phone mast based on the ‗precautionary principle‘
because there is insufficient proof that cell phones are harmless. The suit was initiated by residents in the
vicinity of the tower against cell phone company Bouygues Telecom. Following the judgements of the Nanterre
TGI (District Court) and the Versailles Appeal Court Bouygues Telecom began dismantling its phone mast in
the early morning of March 6, 2009.

The Columbia Valley can consider itself blessed that fibre is coming to town. High-speed fibre-optic Internet
connections can also be used for voice over IP phone services, such as Skype, and for video conferencing like
Webex. The existence of fibre in the valley will in many cases eliminate the need for wireless Internet and the
accompanying radio-frequency pollution.

Residents of the Slocan Valley in West Kootenay are not so fortunate. But local activists fought and won a
struggle to keep Telus from installing cell phone towers in the Slocan. They now keep a constant watch on the
CBC tower on Red Mountain for any future installation activity by Telus. The Valhalla Wilderness Society was
a major contributor to the Slocan‘s success. Many took up the cause after local politician Colleen McCrory died
of brain cancer, which the community attributed to her cell phone use.

On September 24, 2007 the chairperson of the Valhalla Committee for Environmental Health, Richard Caniell,
wrote this to Telus:

1
―At 12:00 noon this date on the CBC radio you were heard once again in
your tape-loop assertion that you couldn‘t understand why there was
any opposition in New Denver to the Telus cell phone transmitter
installation as cell phone towers were safe and many studies had
shown this. Be advised, this is false, and a knowing deception as you
have been repeatedly shown the existence of adverse scientific
reports which you find it advantageous to pooh-pooh.

―Take notice that this letter and the one copied below, the former
previously sent to Steve Jenkins, Brock Enderton, Health Canada and
others, sets forth the substantive factors connected to health
hazards and potential fatalities about which you can no longer deny
knowledge. Any further claims you make as aforesaid, which have been
repeated by you through the last weeks after your superiors were put
on notice as to the adverse reports, will make you a central figure
in ongoing misrepresentation.

―It does not behoove anyone in your position to continue being blind
and deaf to factors which may seriously impact the public health and
especially that of children. Telus does not escape potential
liability, or the public impact of refusing to implement
precautionary principles, because it relies on Health Canada. Telus
is indisputably apprised of the adverse science (as reflected in the
letter copied below, sent to Steve Jenkins and others). Your
continuance with your deceptive, self-serving statements to
promulgate your product in the face of this represents a wanton
disregard of the health hazards which may impact persons here; a fact
which may greatly contribute to your company‘s liability and that of
your own.‖

In 2007 Germany declared that cell phone usage is hazardous to humans.

The BioInitiative Report published in September 2007 by the University of Albany, New York brings together
extensive findings by medical doctors and research scientists from the US, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, China
and the UK.

Valhalla highlighted this from the report:

The report states, in connection with wireless devices (cell phones), ―there is enough evidence of increased risk
of brain tumors to warrant intervention with respect to their use . . . good public health policy requires
preventative action.‖ An important section in the Report sets forth substantive evidence that transmitter
radiation is particularly harmful to children and teenagers. The result especially noted by research in other
countries is childhood leukemia.

Research published by Professors Mild and Hardell of Orebro University, Sweden, in the journal Occupational
and Environmental Medicine, identified 1,429 people living in central Sweden identified with brain tumours in
a 2 and 1/2 year period. Those who live in a rural area and used cell phones had a 56% greater likelihood to
have been diagnosed with a brain tumour over city users. For those using cell phones for 5 years the rural user‘s
risk was four times greater. [from Valhalla]
2
Professor Mild, who is a biologist at Orebro University, states ―Mobile phones can use up to 1,000 times more
power when they are far away from a base station.‖ Those using cell phones in rural areas at a distance from the
transmitter ―absorb far more energy from the handset.‖

Valhalla criticizes Health Canada, who have taken the stand that cell phone radiation is harmless, despite strong
evidence of health risks.

The Precautionary Principle is increasingly recognized by law courts and governments world-wide. This
safeguard is a moral and political principle which states that ―if an action or policy might cause severe or
irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of
proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action‖. This principle was adopted by the European Union
and other nations.

The EU version states that ―preventative action should be taken and damage should, as a priority, be rectified at
the source and that the polluter should pay.‖ Telus does not escape responsibility for its actions simply because
they rely on Health Canada, as effective notice of extensive adverse science showing health hazard has been
given to them directly, and they are the active parties.

More information:

Collected by Eloise Charet

• BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic
Fields (ELF and RF)
• The Government and the phone masts: ―An unforeseen crisis‖ (photos)
• Protect your health from Electromagnetic Radiation (petition)
• You Don‘t Deserve Brain Cancer - You Deserve Facts!
• Children and Wireless Technology - Electro - Magnetic Radiation the Invisible Hazard
• Information on the Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
• The EMR Policy Institute
• RFcom.ca - Wireless Communications and Health
• Electrosmog – What Price Convenience?
• Analysis of Health and Environmental Effects of Proposed San Francisco Earthlink Wi-Fi Network
• Summary of a Public Hearing held in Jersey, Channel Islands
• Jersey Telephone Mast Review (Jersey, 2007)
• Cancer clusters at phone masts
• Telus cell phone coverage map - BC
• Telus cell phone coverage map - Alberta

CVNews related links:

• Mast-Victims.org
• Brain tumour link to teen cellphone use

3
2-Year Study Finds Possible Cell Phone Danger To Brain
By Victoria Fletcher
Consumer Correspondent
ThisIsLondon.com
6-20-2

Radiation from mobile phones causes changes in the brain which could pose risks to health, an
authoritative two-year study has concluded.

In ground-breaking research on the effects of radiation on the brain - which has for the first time
used human cells rather than rats - scientists found that even low-level emissions from handsets
affects cells.

They believe the changes could disable a safety barrier in the body which is meant to protect the
brain from harmful substances in the blood. The scientists are now calling for further research to
discover how important the effects on health might be.

The study, conducted by the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority in Finland, found that
exposing human cells to one hour of mobile phone radiation triggered a response which normally
only occurs when cells are being damaged.

This led the cells which make up blood vessel walls to shrink, allowing tiny molecules to pass
through into brain tissue.

The report's conclusion warns: "The possible RF-EMF (radiation-induced breakage of the blood-
brain barrier), if occurring repeatedly over a long period of time, might become a health hazard
because of the possible extra-capillary accumulation of molecules that might cause brain tissue
damage."

The study is a an important step forward in mobile phone research because it has proved
biochemical changes, which were found to occur in rats, also occur in human cells. Scientists now
need to discover how the human body reacts to such changes and whether it can cope, or if there
are serious health threats.

Professor Darius Leszczynski, who will present the research at a conference in Canada this month,
said he could confirm that radiation from mobile phones does affect the delicate make-up of human
cells. "We have shown there are biochemical changes in human cells," he told the Evening
Standard. "Other studies in animals have shown this can lead to a leakage in the blood brain barrier.

"So what I believe is that we will find these leaks occur in humans too. What we do not know is the
extent of these leaks and whether they have an effect on our health.

"Our bodies may be able to cope with it so there will be no risks. But it could be found that, over
time, the effects on health could be much more significant."
4
Two years ago, a government inquiry into mobile phones led by Sir William Stewart concluded
there was no evidence of a risk to health. But he advised that caution is taken over the use of
mobiles by children until more evidence on the impact on health is gathered.

Despite multi-million pound research across the world since then, the effects of long-term use still
remains unclear. But recently, a handful of studies have begun to raise questions over safety. A
survey of 11,000 people in Sweden and Norway found that many suffer from headaches and
tiredness after using the gadgets.

Another study, by Swedish cancer specialist Lennart Hardell, suggested that using the old analogue
mobiles, popular in the early Nineties, increased the risk of cancer.

His research is now at the centre of a lawsuit in the US. Judges are deciding whether it provides
enough proof of a link between cancer and mobile phones for claimants to take manufacturers to
court.

However, the growing body of research on mobiles and health is leading some countries to consider
action. China is debating whether to force phone companies to reduce the levels of radiation.
British experts said last night there was no need for panic. They insisted that more research was
needed.

© Associated Newspapers Ltd., 19 June 2002

5
Generation X-Ray
From the May 2008 Idaho Observer:

Child victims of
Technological abuse

Science from the ‘40s to present has demonstrated conclusively the harmful effects of microwave radiation—the
platform upon which the entire wireless universe—cell phones, text messaging, WiFi, WiMax and RFID—is
built. Yet the wireless network is expanding, with the approval of government "as fast as it can." With virtually
zero regulatory oversight, the nation and all the people, plants and animals in it, are bathing in microwave
radiation so we can talk, Internet surf, email, text message and play online games wherever and whenever we
want. The biophysical effects of enveloping our world in harmful radiation are becoming apparent. What
happened to us? How could our desire for wireless convenience so totally suspend our innate survival instincts
that we would ignore well-established science plus common sense and finance conditions on this planet that
portend our slow and painful deaths without dignity? More embarrassingly, what happened to us that we would
so readily allow our children to suffer wireless addiction, sealing their fates to short, sickly, neurologically-
impaired lives? The answer lies in the recurring theme in this month’s edition of The IO: Education. As a
culture, we are taught to accept a foundational matrix of LIES as "facts"—for generations—since birth. Within
this matrix, we grow up morally relativistic and believe that the only past and futures that matter are connected
to how we feel in the present. The dishonor this mindset does to our forebearers is shameful; the disservice we
are doing to future generations is unprecedented in the history of mankind.

6
Slide one (top left) shows a normal
healthy cell under magnification. This
cell is a bright energetic little orb with its
DNA and other genetic materials safely
inside the cell membrane. It represents
the cells of healthy, non-irradiated
children of generations past.

Slide two (top right) shows a living cell
exposed to 1600 chest X-rays. This cell
is shrunken and has lost its energetic
brightness. Trailing behind it are its
genetic guts, spilling through the cell
membrane as little particles that look like
a comet trail against the dark background.
These DNA fragments are called
micronuclei, typical mutations from
excessive X-rays, or from gamma waves
of nuclear detonation.

Slide three (bottom) shows a cell
exposed to 24 hours of cell phone
radiation. Its comet tail of micronuclei
splat is identical to that of ionizing X-ray
damage. The frequency used by REFLEX
scientists to micronucleate this cell was
1.8 gigahertz (1800 megahertz),
comparable to 1.9 gigahertz frequency
blasting from America‘s newer
multimedia cell phones, and from many
household cordless phones. The power
level used to micronucleate this cell
triggered a 1.3 W/k Specific Absorption
Rate (SAR). SAR is the calculated
amount of energy absorbed by the human
body from microwave phones. A SAR of
1.3 watts/kilogram is BELOW that of
many cell phone models cuddled and
worshipped by kids everywhere.

By Amy Worthington

The obsessive-compulsive effect of cell phones on teens and tweens clearly demonstrates that wireless devices
are both physically and emotionally enslaving. Capitalizing on the addictive nature of wireless technology, the
communications industry is "hooking" our kids on wireless devices at a fevered pitch.

The premier advertising image implanted in the American psyche is that of grinning kids holding cell phones.
Print and broadcast media are riddled with wireless promotions tailored for the very young. Kids are enticed
with colored handsets, mesmerizing touch screens and customized ring tones. Wireless music downloads, TV,
video streaming and games are irresistible.

By 2010 there will be 31 million young cell phone users, 10.5 million of them pre-teens.(1) "Parents have made
teens and their younger 8-12 year old siblings the fastest growing segment of the cell phone market," says
Yankee Group, a consulting firm which promotes all things wireless.(2) In 2007, a Harris Interactive survey

7
reported that American kids age 10-17 admit to using a cell phone an average of up to 3.75 hours per day.(3) A
teen boasting five or more hours per day is not uncommon.

As heavy users of wireless, these millions of idle, entertainment-starved kids are among the radiation industry‘s
most lucrative cash cows. But getting milked at an early age should garner hazard pay, according to thousands
of scientific studies compiled over decades. There is ample evidence that kids who continually irradiate
themselves with pulsing, ELF-embedded microwaves from wireless devices are being set up for general health
degradation, severe nerve damage, mental incapacitation and life threatening tumors.

Warnings from all over the world

"I would not want to be a heavy user of a mobile phone," says Professor Bruce Armstrong, researcher at the
University of Sydney School of Public Health. Heading the Australian component of the multi-nation
Interphone study project, Armstrong told the media in April, 2008, that evidence of a mobile phone connection
with harmful effects, including tumors, is accumulating.(4)

For kids, this is bad news. In 2005, the Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics confirmed that children
are especially sensitive to all electromagnetic fields because their developing nervous systems are fragile, their
brain tissues more conductive and their smaller skeletons more easily penetrated by the waves.(5)

Russian scientists responsible for public health have issued an urgent warning about wireless health damage,
recommending that children under 18 limit the use of cell phones to emergency calls only.(6) British and
Austrian health officials warn that kids may be especially susceptible to serious health problems from wireless
devices.(7) Canadian officials say that children should limit cell phone use until health science catches up with
technology.(8) The French health minister advised in January, 2008, that kids be allowed no more than 6
wireless minutes at any one time.(9) (Cleanup workers at Chernobyl were limited to a few minutes in nuclear
radiation areas).

Yet, not a single U.S. health agency is warning about the horrific risks to kids who stew themselves in
gigajuice. In America, it‘s "way cool" to be "hot." Adults are browbeat to "go tech" to talk to their kids, or text
message them--even from the next room—as if face-to-face is "so, like, yesterday." A kid wired from head to
8
foot with the latest Wi-gizmos is admired as a communications super whiz. But ironically, wireless radiation
guarantees major disruption in the chemical communication pathways between all the cells of his body.(10)

The dangerous disconnect between popular culture and the realities of medical science portends disaster.
Because the wireless industry controls the mainstream media with $billions in advertising, there is a
conspicuous media blackout of important radiation science coming from labs all over the world. While group-
think insists that cell phones help make kids safer, here is what American parents are not being told:

1. Microwave phones can make kids hearing-impaired. According to research presented in 2007 by the
American Academy of Otolaryngology, cell phone radiation incrementally damages the inner ear, causing high
frequency hearing loss. Those who talk an hour a day or more, sustain the most damage.(11) Youthful cell phone
habituates will suffer major and irreversible hearing damage by the time they reach young adulthood.

What is safe about making a kid incrementally deaf?

2. Microwave phones can make kids vision-impaired. Microwaves cause eye lens opacity similar to
cataracts. In the 1970s, researcher Milton Zaret demonstrated that weak microwave fields cause debilitating
subcapsular eye lesions, sometimes years after exposure.(12) Israeli researchers have confirmed that microwaves
at cell phone intensities cause macro and micro damage to the entire visual system, including tiny bubbles that
can form on the eye lens.(13) Dr. Om Gandhi at the University of Utah reported that the eye lens of a 10 year old
child will absorb five times more cell phone radiation than an adult eye.(14) Metal-rimmed eyeglasses can absorb
microwaves, then re-emit that radiation onto the eye surface.(15)

What is safe about micro-cooking a child‘s eyes?

3. Microwave phones can make kids brain-impaired. Brain scans show that microwave phone radiation
penetrates deeply into a child‘s brain.(16) Within minutes, cell phone microwaves can open the blood brain
barrier, allowing albumin and other chemicals from tiny blood vessels to leak into sensitive brain tissues. This
leakage causes irreversible oxidative stress and nerve tissue damage.(17) Brain hormones, including melatonin,
dopamine, norepinephrine and thyroid stimulating hormone are disrupted by phone microwaves.(18)

What is safe about fire-storming a child‘s neurological and hormonal systems?

4. Microwave phones highly elevate a child’s cancer risk. In late 2007, Israeli experts announced that talking
as little as 10 minutes on a cell phone triggers changes in brain tissues linked to abnormal cell division and
cancer.(19) Phone microwaves are implicated in both eye and salivary gland tumors.(20) In 2006, studies by three
European research groups reported an increased incidence of brain tumors in people who have used mobile
phones for ten years or more. After 2000 hours of microwave phone exposure, kids face a 240 percent increased
risk of developing brain malignancy.(21) If the 1.75 million 8 and 9 year olds who now use cell phones average
only half an hour a day, they will be at high risk for radiation cancer in their teen years. Cancer is the number
two cause of death for American children.

What is safe about giving kids wireless devices guaranteed to ignite the tumor process?

Got wireless? Just call it "X-ray"

No sane parent would submit his child to 1600 chest X-rays over a 24 hour period. Yet a mere 24 hours of
wireless phone radiation can inflict the same damage to a child‘s tissues as 1600 chest X-rays. This is the crux
of studies completed by 12 groups of researchers from seven European countries who collaborated in the
9
REFLEX study project to gauge the effects of wireless radiation on human health. REFLEX scientists have
released the comet assay slides (22) pictured above.

The U.S. government allowed wireless phones to be put on the market in the 1980s with absolutely no safety
testing. Today, REFLEX research demonstrates that Wi-phones blasting high-frequency microwaves are
basically personal X-ray devices. This shocking reality gives rise to the term "Generation X-ray." Consumers
aren‘t permitted to buy household X-ray machines. Yet comparably lethal wireless devices are handed out to
grade school kids for heavy and indiscriminate use, with virtually no hazard warnings and no medical
supervision.

Tissue damage from wireless microwave radiation is known to be as cumulative as that from ionizing X-
radiation. If we divide the tissue damage of 1600 chest X-rays by 24 cell phone hours, we could make the
following postulations about Generation X-ray:

• For each minute a child presses a microwave phone to his head, he may suffer radiation damage equivalent to
approximately 1.1 chest X-rays.

• For each hour a child uses a transmitting wireless phone or wireless laptop to communicate, watch videos/TV
or play games, he may be exposing his developing brain, eye and gut tissues to radiation damage equivalent to
66.6 chest X-rays.

Ionizing X-radiation, like that used for chest X-rays and other medical procedures, is on carcinogen "List One,"
compiled by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). IARC is an intergovernmental agency
forming part of the World Health Organization. IARC ranks X-radiation on par with gamma radiation,
plutonium, dioxin and benzene, all known to induce cancer in both animals and humans. There is no "safe" dose
determined for any substance or exposure on IARC‘s List One.

It‘s sobering that microwave radiation, blasting from an entire generation‘s wireless phones, inflicts the same
kind of DNA damage as ionizing radiation on IARC‘s carcinogen List One. What REFLEX studies prove is
how quickly that devastating damage takes place.

The Indian study

The public health catastrophe being unleashed by indiscriminate use of wireless phones is further brought into
focus by a double-blind medical study completed in India in 2005 and published in the Indian Journal of Human
Genetics.(23)

The study analyzed micronucleated cell damage in blood and buccal (mouth) tissues of people who use their
cell phone one to 15 hours a day. The control group had never used cell phones at any time. DNA samples were
coded and scored blind in strict protocol.

The test results of the "Indian study" are as stunning as the REFLEX work. The non cell phone users had an
average of only four percent of their cells with DNA damage. The human body has a chance of meeting this
moderate cellular reconstruction challenge, although every DNA repair operation carries with it a chance of
error.

A whopping average of 39.75 percent of cells taken from mobile phone users showed DNA damage. The blood
of one 24-year-old male revealed 63 percent micronucleated cells. He had used a cell phone for 1-2 hours per
day for two years, the norm for millions of kids.
10
The Indian study confirms that the human body, overwhelmed with the continual and brutal assault of wireless
radiation, is unable to perform normal cellular repair. Other studies confirm that microwave radiation, which
causes a critical need for continual cellular repair, simultaneously shuts down cellular repair mechanisms.(24)
The body‘s exhausted immune and repair systems eventually become too decimated to do much more than
survive poorly.

Prognosis for Gen X-ray

So the latest studies reveal what no one wants to hear: Kids who endlessly cell-phone socialize, even sleep with
perpetually transmitting wireless devices (to keep intermittent conversations on line), are literally tearing to
shreds the cells and tissues upon which their lives depend.

Generation X-ray is actually DECONSTRUCTING—cell by micronucleated cell.

The consequences of continual bombardment with aggressive, DNA-shredding radiation will become obvious
only after a long latency period, similar to asbestos exposure and tobacco smoking. Radiation researcher Dr.
Milton Zaret told congressional investigators years ago that the dangers of non-ionizing radiation cannot be
overstated because "most non-ionizing radiational injuries occur covertly, usually do not become manifest until
after latent periods of years, and when they do become manifest, the effects are seldom recognized."(25)

Generation X-ray will ultimately be the most cancer-ridden generation in modern history. The hundreds of types
of human cancers have one thing in common—they all begin at the cellular level when genetic material in one
or more cells becomes damaged. This damage can be passed from parents, or caused by the effects of an
environmental carcinogen. "…Genetic mutations in one single cell are sufficient to lead to cancer," says Dr.
Henry Lai. Dr. Lai is a celebrated scientist at the University of Washington who has years of genetic and
bioenergetics research to his credit.(26)

The cancer victims of Gen X-ray will likely die more quickly than those of previous generations because
wireless microwaves not only initiate the seeds of cancer, but also stimulate abnormal nodes to become more
energetically cancerous.(27) An impressive body of work demonstrates that both extremely low frequency (ELF)
and microwaves cause human cells to produce stress proteins, a further indication that the body recognizes
wireless radiation as harmful.(28) Stress proteins can ultimately protect cancer cells and make them resistant to
medical treatment.(29)

Long before their epidemic cancers sprout, young X-rayers are destined to suffer the symptoms of neurasthenia,
or what the Soviets used to call "radiowave sickness." The symptoms include headache, fatigue, skin rashes,
weakness, tinnitus, dizziness, moodiness and sleeplessness. These warning signs are just the beginning of a
long, downward spiral of general deterioration, including circulatory ailments, immune dysfunction, allergies
and premature aging.

How physically sick are American kids?

A 2007 report from Harvard researchers warned about the poor health of American kids, confirming that the
incidence of chronic, life-altering illness is increasing exponentially.(30) Obesity, diabetes and severe allergies
now plague millions of our young.

Childhood Obesity. Thyroid hormones are critical to a child‘s proper brain development and metabolic
function. The human thyroid gland does not prosper in a high radiation field. A leading cause of thyroid cancer
is excessive ionizing radiation. The thyroid in the neck area is heavily zapped by cell and cordless phone
11
emissions during wireless conversation and it readily absorbs microwave radiation. Cell phone radiation also
depresses the brain‘s pituitary production of critical thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH).(31) Insufficient TSH
leaves a child deficient in thyroid metabolic hormones T3 and T4, hence obesity.

Childhood diabetes. Recent studies by Canadian environmental toxicologist Magda Havas indicate that ELF
and kilohertz electromagnetic frequencies may have a deleterious effect on some diabetics.(32) Dr. Havas‘ work
reveals that electromagnetic pollution, such as that from dirty electricity (The IO, June, 2007) can cause rapid
changes in blood sugar levels and may be a potent factor in blood sugar control. Dr. Havas calls for urgent
studies to determine if Type 3 Diabetes, an abnormal endocrine/blood condition, is instigated or exacerbated by
non-ionizing radiation, similar to the pulsing ELF and kilohertz frequencies inherent in wireless
communications.

Childhood Allergies. Swedish scientists confirm that wireless phone radiation can cause drastic inflammatory
and allergic reactions by activating mast cells, which underlie many tissues of the body. The inflammatory
response of mast cell activation in the skin includes rashes, swellings and itches, so common in both microwave
poisoning and asthma. Nearly one in 10 American kids now have asthma, a soaring epidemic that has medical
science stumped. Asthma is a severe allergy reaction, usually to something environmental. So it is of grave
concern that both ELF and radio frequency (RF) associated with wireless technologies have been shown in
animal and human studies to incite a broad range of allergy-related immune responses.(33)

Immune System Dysfunction. A child‘s body, kept in chronic allergic stress by wireless phone radiation, may
end up with an exhausted immune system which no longer responds effectively. European experts prognosticate
that many people heavily exposed to wireless radiation may eventually suffer the manifestations of electro-
hypersensitivity (EHS).(34) EHS is a devastating allergic, auto-immune-like condition in which over-irradiated
persons become severely sensitive to both chemical and electromagnetic pollution. Similar to fibromyalgia and
chronic fatigue, EHS symptoms can be so disabling that victims are often forced to isolate themselves from
even the smallest electromagnetic fields.

How mentally sick are American kids?

By 2005 experts declared that 1 in 5 American kids has a mental health disorder.(35) Millions of school kids,
diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) are on brain-altering Ritalin, a stimulant
reportedly more potent than cocaine, and among the most addictive prescription drugs in use.

Millions of other kids are medicated with one of the anti-depressants Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor or Celexa, even
though, in 2004, British researchers reported these drugs are unsafe and often ineffective.(36) In 2003, a U.S.
medical journal reported that 74 percent of children and adolescents have experienced an adverse event to these
drugs over the course of their treatment.(37)

Bipolar disorder—once called manic depression—is also epidemic among American children. In January, a
Frontline documentary revealed that over 6 million American kids, many with a bipolar diagnosis, are
prescribed drastic combinations of new psychiatric drugs. In discussing the frightening side-effects of these
experimental therapies, several experts admitted to Frontline that adequate studies on the safety and efficacy of
psychiatric drugs for kids have never been completed.(38)

Proper studies have never been done to ascertain the COMBINED EFFECTS to the brain of both psychiatric
drugs plus near-field wireless radiation.

So now we nuke them?
12
Surely what millions of mentally unstable and highly drugged kids need LEAST is the additional burden of
brain-altering radiation. Within two minutes of microwave phone exposure, the electrical activity of a child‘s
brain is abnormally altered for up to one hour.(39) British radiation expert Dr. Gerald Hyland reported that cell
phones which use repetitive, pulsing 2 Hz and 8.34 Hz frequencies can badly disrupt the delta and alpha
stabilization process in a child‘s developing brain.(40)

Dr. Hyland confirmed that cell phone energy can cause radical changes in human mood and behavior.(41) This is
the case because microwaves at cell phone levels can unleash a cornucopia of radical damage to all parts of the
brain, including the cortex, the hippocampus (memory center) and the basal ganglia. To wit:

• Scientists have demonstrated that cell phone radiation causes immediate blood flow changes in the brain, and
also deregulates calcium efflux from brain cells, causing cell membranes to weaken and leak.(42)

• Researchers in Finland have shown that one hour of cell phone radiation causes brain cells to shrink,
indicating permanent damage to cell structure as confirmed by REFLEX studies.(43)

• The Max Planck Institute in Germany reported that cell phones can blast heat spikes into the brain which may
flash burn cell membranes to the boiling point of water. (44)

• British researchers have shown that weak microwave radiation can change the shape of brain proteins into
formations resembling pathological fibrils associated with Parkinson‘s and Alzheimer‘s Disease. (45)

• Swedish scientists demonstrated that cell phone radiation makes holes (lesions) in rat brains and they predict a
wave of early-onset Alzheimer‘s in young cell phone users. (46)

Could the past two decades of mass brain damage from wireless radiation be among the roots of our nation‘s
mental health crisis? Unlimited microwave exposure is bound to increase the numbers of our haywire young.
The Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection says that we may expect kids who use
cell phones to suffer not only brain tumors and dementia, but also increased epileptic readiness and depressive
mental illness.(47)

And what about environmental transmitters?

Millions of American kids, struggling with physical disabilities and mental manias, are heavily irradiated not
only with Wi-toys, but also by ubiquitous environmental transmitters needed to feed those toys. Nearly 200,000
cell tower and roof top transmitters continuously saturate American cities, playgrounds and passing vehicles
with DNA-damaging waves equivalent to ionizing radiation. Living in transmitter-zapped neighborhoods where
microwaves pass easily into homes, millions of infants and small kids have no respite from daily, deadly
radiation assault.

Unregulated Wi-Fi systems, wireless local area network routers, security monitors, cordless phone systems and
other types of wireless transmitters X-ray the interiors of malls, airports, offices, schools, hospitals and millions
of homes 24/7. Many commercial and retail enterprises are switching to wireless inventory systems. These and
retail inter-personnel push-to-talk radio systems literally "cook" stores and malls where kids congregate.

Many public transport systems are being wired for Wi-Fi. Soon, commercial aircraft will offer Wi-Fi computer
services, compelling all passengers to absorb the toxic rays of mid-flight entertainment. Many vehicles are
wired with GPS navigation and/or tracking systems. These rolling hotspots zap not only passengers, but people
passing by.
13
The federal government has never developed adequate safety standards for long-term environmental exposure
to this barrage of wireless radiation. U.S. standards are antiquated and calculated for short term exposure only.
In 2002, the EPA‘s Radiation Protection Division confirmed that the FCC‘s current exposure guidelines are
thermally (burn) based and do not apply to chronic exposure of non-thermal wireless pollution which now
enshrouds the nation.(48)

In 2007, 14 world-class public health experts and radiation researchers announced in their BioInitiative Report
on Electromagnetic Radiation that current public microwave exposure standards are thousands of times TOO
LENIENT. Having compiled the weight of evidence from thousands of studies, these experts conclude that
current exposure standards must be drastically revised because they are absolutely NOT protective of the public
health.(49)

Criminal complicity of the schools

Given the latest science on the radical bio-effects of wireless radiation, the shocking rate of childhood illness
plus expert testimony that current RF exposure standards are dangerous, surely the least appropriate location for
microwave transmitters is near schools and daycares.

Yet, wireless phone providers are in a frenetic campaign to place microwave transmitters either directly on or
near schools and play fields across the nation. Because the radiation industry offers thousands of dollars
annually to school districts that provide siting for transmitters, education facilities have become "hot zones"
where torrents of pulsing radiation blast infants, children and young adults. Kids are blasted with radiation
while playing at many of the nation‘s parks and playgrounds.

That parents and educators are going along with this travesty is a grotesque example of circular thinking: Sicken
and prematurely kill kids in order to give them exercise and a "good" education.

Many Utah schools are cases in point. An ABC news affiliate in Salt Lake City reported last October that the
Jordan School District south of Salt Lake had 41 wireless antennas, either on or adjacent to its school buildings.
Jordan School District transmitters have been "cooking" kids in their classrooms for about 10 years.(50) Parents,
civic leaders and school officials cannot be THAT UNINFORMED! The latest radiation science is available to
anyone who chooses to research it.

• At least seven recent high quality epidemiological studies show that people living close to wireless
transmitters consistently develop a long list of neurological problems, including depression, sleep and memory
disturbances, with pronounced loss of ability to learn and concentrate.(51)

• As chief of the British Health Protection Agency, Sir William Stewart warned that the main beam from mobile
phone masts should never be allowed to hit school grounds.(52)

• In 2004 the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) passed a resolution opposing cell phone
transmitters on fire stations after a California study showed that a group of exposed personnel developed serious
neurological problems, including brain damage (encephalopathy). The IAFF position paper documents a large
body of scientific evidence indicating that siting transmitters on or near schools is pure insanity.(53)

Seduced by oodles of corporate money, many school officials, with an obligation to protect the health and
safety of the children in their charge, have simply chosen to disregard the science while exposing their facilities
and staffs to harmful and potentially lethal radiation.

14
Kids forced to sit directly under roof top antenna farms, generating hundreds of watts of invisible carcinogen,
are a new generation of downwinders. The carnage of this atrocity will one day be judged as abhorrent as open
air nuclear tests that sent previous generations to the grave with leukemia, thyroid cancer and a myriad of other
terminal illnesses. Compulsory school irradiation is a violation of the basic human right to a safe environment.
It is also the most disgusting example of greed-driven child abuse we can think of.

Meantime, Gen-X-ray dives to stupid

Microwave radiation from any source can drastically impair the ability of kids to concentrate, learn and retain
information according to Russian experts.(54) Studies show that wireless radiation can cause nerve conduction in
the human brain to slow down, diminishing every category of mental skill including memory, reading,
computation, reasoning and reaction time. (55)

The dangerous consequences of radiation-reduced motor response time was reported in 2005 by researchers at
the University of Utah. Their study found that young adults using cell phones while driving had the delayed
reaction time of elderly drivers. These cell-phone drivers were actually more mentally impaired than drunk
drivers with blood alcohol levels exceeding the legal limit. The study found that cell phone users in traffic are
over five times more likely to be in a car accident.(56) Could this explain the shocking 2006 report that 40
percent of U.S. teens get into a car accident within the first year of earning their drivers license?(57)

The cognitive consequences for millions of kids on the rays are seen in numerous education reports. High
dropout rates and poor test scores are being reported across the nation. Last year, Washington state legislators
had to "push back" math and science graduation requirements, allowing high school kids to focus their
laborious efforts on bringing their reading and writing skills up to par.(58) Generations ago, most American
students found reading and writing easy to master in early grade school.

The San Francisco Gate recently featured Mark Morford‘s column, "American Kids: Dumber than Dirt."
Morford discussed the "absolutely horrifying" decline in the intellectual ability of high school kids, declaring
that junk food and cell phones are "melting their brains."(59)

In 2006, the Associated Press reported that a national literacy study revealed that at least half of America‘s
youngsters in high school and college are incapable of acquiring and processing new information. The study
confirmed that over half of college students nearing a college diploma are close to illiterate and cannot handle
complex but common intellectual tasks, such as understanding the content of a newspaper editorial.(60)

These, the highly impaired of the wireless age, are probably unable to read and understand the potentially life-
saving information in this article. However, much to the profit of the radiation industry, dialing a seven digit
number or deciphering a three-word text message will always be manageable for America‘s ever-growing army
of functional illiterates.

The biggest lie you’ll ever hear

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the two
agencies which "regulate" cell phones and other wireless devices have two basic things to say about wireless
radiation hazards:

The big lie. "There are no known risks from exposure to RF emissions from wireless phones…."

The disclaimer. "There is no proof, however, that wireless phones are absolutely safe."(61)
15
This disingenuous and contradictive mantra has been adopted by both the FCC and the FDA even though the
telecom industry‘s own Wireless Technology Research (WTR) program of the ‗90s showed that cell phone
radiation—at levels well below "safety" guidelines—causes blood-brain barrier damage, animal tumors and a
300 percent increase in DNA damage to human blood.(62)

Dr. George Carlo, the epidemiologist who coordinated the WTR studies would later write, "Surely, you must be
thinking, this was the time that the FDA would perform its obligation to warn the public of the new findings and
the increase need to act with caution and protect ourselves as we communicate in the wireless age…The FDA
chose instead to strike a public posture that was virtually indistinguishable from the industry it was supposed to
be watching and regulating."(63)

Nothing has changed a decade later. The lucrative "no evidence" lie is still the party line for both regulatory
agencies at a time when thousands of published studies clearly show that ELF/microwave radiation has massive
and far-reaching ramifications for every facet of a child‘s physical and mental health.

Comatose U.S. health experts barely stirring

To their credit, in 1986, as the wireless revolution was just being unleashed, the EPA recommended that pulsed,
non-thermal RF/microwave radiation be designated as a Class C (probable) carcinogen. For obvious economic
and political reasons, the EPA was slapped down on this proposal.(64)

Again in 1990, citing decades of animal cancer studies, the EPA produced an internal report discussing the
probable carcinogenicity of electromagnetic fields generated by both extremely low (ELF) and ultra high radio
frequencies within the microwave spectrum. (65)

In 2000, EPA scientist Norbert Hankin warned about the growing use of wireless technology by children and
their schools: "Some research regarding rodents has shown adverse effects on short-term and long-term
memory. The concern is that if such effects may occur in young children, then even slight impairment of
learning ability over years of education may negatively affect the quality of life that could be achieved by these
individuals, when adults. The potential effect on learning of exposure from telecommunications devices used by
children should be considered for study by the Radiation Protection Project."(66) Hankin‘s important
recommendation has never been implemented.

Now that the wireless horses are loose and on the run with our hapless kids in tow, the U.S. National Research
Council (NRC) says that perhaps the barn should have had a door. The NRC recommends that future studies of
children and pregnant women be designed to determine whether there are wireless health risks to the very
young. Ignoring the mountain of radiation research already peer reviewed and published, the NRC admits that,
"although it is unknown whether children are more susceptible to RF exposure, they may be at increased risk
because of their developing organ and tissue systems."(67)

While U.S. regulators drag their feet in order to protect their corporate cronies and while U.S. health experts
shuffle their musty papers and sort their foggy thoughts as to how they might one day duplicate science already
long completed, total wireless minutes of use in the U.S. are increasing by 30 percent each year.

How this story will end

The sad reality, according to decades of science and supporting evidence in the field, is that legions of those
hooked on wireless technology have already begun a painful march to their graves. Like smokers who light up
during the final gasping stages of emphysema, it‘s a fair guess that a person who becomes a "chain dialer" in his
16
youth, won‘t lay down his cell phone until the undertaker pries it from his cold, dead fingers, long deformed by
the clutching reflex.

It took decades of study and years of consumer use to gather enough data to force the U.S. Surgeon General‘s
warning label on cigarette packs. The day will come when someone else‘s second-hand radiation will be even
more unwelcome than second hand tobacco smoke.

There are a number of radiation damage lawsuits against cell phone makers pending in many countries. It may
require only one major court victory to unleash an avalanche of lawsuits. (68) Given the sheer volume of data
demonstrating the lethality of microwave radiation, the radiation industry will inevitably meet the same fate as
the tobacco and asbestos industries. There always comes a time when the horrific casualties of predation and
prevarication can no longer be concealed.

Leading phone manufacturers, including Nokia, Ericsson and Motorola, publicly deny cell phone health
hazards. But behind the scenes, these companies have filed patents for devices claimed to help shield phone
users from antenna radiation.(69) Unfortunately, such devices are not presently available for consumer phones
because they provide inconvenient evidence that non-shielded phones are as dangerous as cancer-ridden
plaintiffs testify they are.

Help save a kid from radiation abuse

We are on our own. We have lots of work to do in raising public consciousness on wireless health issues. The
wireless industry and its legislative pawns—led by Senator and 2008 presidential candidate John McCain (R-
AZ)-- have written current telecommunications laws to exclude consideration of human health in antenna siting.
Government regulatory agencies commissioned to protect public health and safety are allowing an entire
industry to profitably peddle an array of wireless devices that are slowly killing us.

The best way to stop wireless genocide is for conscientious consumers to SIMPLY STOP BUYING
RADIATION as a matter of principle.

Until future enlightenment delivers our society from the unconscionable barbarisms of the wireless revolution,
let us resolve to spare as many kids as possible from the suffering of an over-irradiated childhood. Through
education and example, let‘s prepare our young to withstand the relentless commercial dunning and peer
pressure of the wireless age.

We must model a different set of priorities to our kids. Let‘s ask our kids if the instant gratification of wireless
talking, messaging and gaming today is worth a decimated body tomorrow. Should we not practice self restraint
by eliminating frivolous wireless communication, stop playing wireless games and use wired phones instead to
safeguard a healthy future?

We must remove dangerous wireless devices from our homes. Above all, let‘s get the cordless microwave
phones and wireless routers out of our homes. Any household phone which emits megahertz or gigahertz
radiation should be replaced with the older style corded landline phones. Digital Enhanced Cordless Telephone
(DECT) chargers are so powerful they can pass pulsing microwaves through walls and even irradiate the
neighbors. DECT bases continuously irradiate children at home. A DECT house is child-abusive.

We must educate our officials. Let‘s pressure schools and other public institutions plus commercial outlets to
TURN OFF the WiFi and other microwave-intensive systems until it is proven that this radiation is completely
safe for our kids (That way, the X-rays will be off for a very long time). Let public outcry forbid the leasing of
17
school property for wireless transmitter sites. If radiation from mobile phones immediately affects a child‘s
cognitive processing, as Finnish researchers have demonstrated,(70) so does the same omni-directional radiation
blasting from school transmitters.

We must demand accountability and mitigate the damage

The 2007 BioInitiative Report recommends that cell phones be reconfigured to work only with wired headsets
or on speaker mode, so that eye and brain irradiation can be prevented.(71)At the very least, consumers should
demand that these safety features be incorporated into their wireless devices.

For the protection of our kids, let‘s avail ourselves of technology, such as audio and digital radiation meters,
which empower us to quickly identify microwave-intensive environments. Let‘s educate legislators and demand
that unbiased radiation research by impartial researchers be funded with a gains tax on telecom industry profits.
Let‘s demand that the industry be forced to properly label its carcinogenic devices with adequate health
warnings. The industry must be made liable for wireless health damage.

The state of Washington just passed the strictest safe toy law in the nation. But this law does not address the
wireless handsets kids are using for wireless entertainment services available through the Advanced Wireless
Services (AWS) spectrum. The FDA recently announced that popular impotence drugs must now be labeled
with a warning that they may lead to sudden, severe and potentially permanent hearing loss. Why has FDA not
demanded a hearing loss warning for cell and cordless phones?

Dr. Vini Khurana, an award-winning Australian neurosurgeon and brain cancer specialist, believes that the link
between mobile phones and brain cancer will definitely be proven within the coming decade.(72) A child
protected today from wireless abuse will thank an astute parent tomorrow when that terrible, unassailable
"proof" becomes obvious to even the most fanatical of wireless advocates.

Generation X’d Out

Wireless radiation is not only neurotoxic and carcinogenic, but also grossly teratogenic (causes the abnormal
development of the embryo). Scientists across the globe are warning about the potential of wireless microwaves
to cause horrific damage to sperm, ova and fetuses.

As the clueless, trusting kids of Generation X-ray are encouraged by corporations to violate the basic laws of
nature with wireless toys, they systematically damage the genes they will pass to their offspring. Their
genetically damaged children and grandchildren will be even more radiation-impaired than themselves.

This generally suppressed information will be the subject of part two of this series.

Amy Worthington has received international acclaim for her articles on vaccines, chemtrails, depleted
uranium and the hazards of the wireless age.

NOTES

1. "Growing Concern over Safety of Cell Phones for Children," D.Carvajal, 3/7/2008, www.emfacts.com; Yankee Group
predicts 10.5 million preteen cell phone users by 2010, see www.microwavenews.com, March 2007.

2. "Family Logistics Should Determine Whether Your Child is Ready for a Cell Phone," L. Flam, Associated Press, 2-5-08.

3. "Teen and Tween Cell Phone Calls Rise During the Summer," Fox 51, 8-6-2007.
18
4. Armstrong quoted by Microwave News, March/April 2008. The Interphone project is coordinated by the International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Teams of researchers across the globe have gathered health data since 2000 on long
term mobile phone users and their various types of tumors. The data is being analyzed at IARC’s headquarters in France.

5. Pediatrics, Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Vol. 116, No. 2 August 2005, pp. 303-313.

6. "Children and Mobil Phones: The Health of the Following Generations is In Danger," Russian National Committee on Non-
Ionizing Radiation Protection, Moscow, Russia, 4-14-2008.

7. "Cell Phones ‘Should Not be Given to Children,’ " W. Knight, London, NewScientist.com news service, 1-11-2005; "Why
Cell Phones Will Hurt Your Children," mercola.com, 2-07-2008: The Vienna Medical Association says "Children under the
age of 16 should never use a mobile phone."

8. "Canadian Health Official Warns Consumers to ‘Limit Cell Phone Use’ Especially by Children," The Toronto Star, July 12,
2005.

9. "Growing Concern over Safety of Cell Phones for Children," D.Carvajal, (France) 3/7/2008, www.emfacts.com.

10. "The Biological Effects of Weak Electromagnetic Fields," Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy, 4-13-2007. Dr Goldsworthy is a
researcher and honorary lecturer with the Department of Biological Sciences, Imperial College of Science, Technology and
Medicine, UK.

11. "Cell Phone Use Causes High Frequency Hearing Loss," Newswire, Source: American Academy of Otolaryngology Head
and Neck Surgery, 09-12-2007.

12. For information on Dr. Zaret’s ground-breaking microwave research see: The Microwave Debate, Nicholas H. Steneck,
1984, p.162.; also The Zapping of America, Paul Brodeur, 1977, pp. 61-64.

13. "Israeli Research: Cell Phone Radiation May Cause Visual Damage," 07-29-2005, www.isracast.com.

14. Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards In the Wireless Age, Dr. George Carlo and Martin Schram, 2002, p. 216.

15. Confidential Report On Tetra Strictly for the Police Federation of England and Wales, Barrie Trower, September 2001, p. 7.
This report by a renown British physicist is an outstanding archive of microwave health issues.

16. "What Cell Phones Can Do To a Child’s Brain In Two Minutes," Sunday Mirror, UK ,12-26-01.

17. Salford, Brun, Eberhardt, Malmgren and Persson, 2003, "Nerve Cell Damage in Mammalian Brain After Exposure to
Microwaves from GSM Phones." Environmental Health Perspectives 111:881-883; also "Swedes find GSM Radiation Causes
Nerve Damage at Very Low Doses," Microwave News, Jan/Feb 2003.

18. Koyu, et al., "Effects of 900 MHz electromagnetic Field on TSH and Thyroid Hormones in Rats," 06-10-2005; also
"Aspects of Hypothalamic Neuronal Systems in VMH lesion-induced Obese Rats", Takahasi et al, Journal of Autonomic
Nervous System, August 1994; 48 (3): 213-9.

19. "Only Ten Minutes on a Mobile Could Trigger Cancer, Scientists Believe," D. Derbyshire, Daily Mail, UK, 08-30-2007.
This research was done at Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel and published in the Biochemical Journal, August 1, 2007,
9405 (Pt3) 559-568.

20. "Scientists Link Eye Cancer to Mobile Phones," J. Leake, The Sunday Times, UK, 01-14-2001, Electromagnetic Hazard and
Therapy 2001, Volume 11, Numbers 2 to 4; also "Cell Phone Linked to Salivary Gland Tumors," United Press International,
02-14-2008 (Tel Aviv University).

21. "Cell Phone Risks Cited in Studies: Three Groups Find Danger, Tumors," South Florida Sun Sentinel, 02-01-2006; "Long-
Term Mobile Phone Use Raises Brain Tumor Risk: Study," Reuters, March 31, 2006.

19
22. An in-depth report on the REFLEX project can be found in the on-line brochure Health and Electromagnetic Fields: EU-
funded research into the Impacts of Electromagnetic Fields and Mobile Phones on Health published by the European
Commission., 02-29-2008.

23. Ghandi, G. "Genetic Damage in Mobile Phone Users: Some Preliminary Findings," Indian J Hum Genetics, 2005, 11:99-
104.

24. "EMF and the Role of Increased Charge in Promoting Disease and Impairing Tissue Repair," Gerald Goldberg, MD. Find
this excellent article at: http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/emf_and_charge_promotion.pdf

25. Dr. Zaret quoted in The Zapping of America, Paul Brodeur, 1977, p.74.

26. "Evidence for Genotoxic Effects (RFR and ELF Genotoxicity)" Dr. Henry Lai, Department of Bioengineering, University
of Washington,. Prepared for the BioInitiative Working Group, July 2007, see BioInitiative Report..

27. "Mobile Phones Linked to Cancer," BBC news, 11-09-1998, "Mr. Philips told the court…"It has been repeatedly shown
that a few minutes exposure to cell phone type radiation can transform a 5% active cancer into a 95% active cancer for the
duration of the exposure and for a short time afterwards."

28. "Health Risk of Electromagnetic Fields: Research on the Stress Response," Martin Blank, PhD., Department of Physiology
and Cellular Biophysics, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, Prepared for the BioInitiative Working
Group, July 2007, see BioInitiative Report..

29. "Proteins Hold Clues to Cancer and Brain Diseases," C. Deriso, Medical College of Georgia, Medical News, February 2006.

30. "Researchers Sound Alarm on Kids’ Health," Newsweek, 06-26-2007.

31. Koyu, et al., "Effects of 900 MHz electromagnetic Field on TSH and Thyroid Hormones in Rats," 06-10-2005.

32. "Dirty Electricity and Electrical Hypersensitivity: Five Case Studies," Magda Havas and David Stetzer, a paper presented
to World Health Organization Workshop on Electrical Hypersensitivity, October 24-25, 2004.

33."Evidence for Effects on the Immune System," Olle Johansson, PhD, The Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of
Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm Sweden, Prepared for the BioInitiative Working Group, July 2007. See the
BioInitiative Report.

34. "Will We All Become Electrosensitive?" Orjan Hallberg and Gerd Oberfeld, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine,
25:189-191, 2006. Worldwide, the number of reported cases of extreme electrosensitivity has been steadily increasing since the
condition was first documented in 1991.

35. "Teen Mental Health Declining in the United States," Oxford University Press, 06-29-05, www.truthout.org.

36. "Four Anti-Depressants Shown Unsafe for Kids," The Washington Post, 04-22-04.

37. "A Systematic Chart Review of the Nature of Psychiatric Adverse Events in Children and Adolescents Treated with
Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors," T.Wilens, MD. et al., Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, Volume
13, Number 2, pp.143-152.

38. PBS Frontline: The Medicated Child, January 8, 2008.

39. "What Cell Phones Can Do To a Child’s Brain In Just Two Minutes," Sunday Mirror, UK, 12-26-2001.

40. From statement by Dr. Hyland reporting to STOA Committee of the EU regarding children and cell phones. Dr. Hyland is
with the University of Warwick, Coventry, England and also the International Institute of Biophysics, Neuss-Holzheim,
Germany.

20
41. "Cell Phones Hurt Children Even Worse than Adults," William Thomas, 2005, www.willlthomas.net. See also EMF Health
Report March/April 1995.

42. "The Biological Effects of Weak Electromagnetic Fields," Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy, 4-13-2007.

43. "New Study Shows Cell Phones Cause Brain Changes," Reuters, 06-20-2002. This study was done by Finland’s Radiation
and Nuclear Safety Authority.

44. "Germans Worried about the Health Effects of Mobiles," Expatica, July 15, 2007, www.expatica.com.

45. "Changes in Protein Folding: A Nonthermal RF Mechanism," Microwave News, May/June 2003. This is an excellent
summary of Dr. David de Pomerai’s work how on weak microwaves can change the shape of cellular proteins, causing them to
clump together and form protein fibrils similar to those associated with neurological diseases like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s
and Creutzfeldt-Jakob. Dr. dePomerai is with University of Nottingham, UK.

46. Leif Salford et al., "Nerve Cell Damage in Mammalian Brain after Exposure to Microwaves from GSM Mobile Phones,"
Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 111, Number 7 June 2003.

47. "Children and Mobil Phones: The Health of the Following Generations is In Danger," Russian National Committee on
Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Moscow Russia, 4-14-2008.

48. Quoted from letter by Norbert Hankin, chief environmental scientist with EPA’s Radiation Protection Division. This letter
was received by EMR Network 7-16-02 and can be found at www.emrnetwork.org.

49. BioInitiative: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Radiation, see "Summary for the
Public and Conclusions," Cindy Sage, MA, August 2007.

50. ABC News Channel 4, Salt Lake City: Proposed Cell tower on Sandy Middle School Raises Questions, 10-22-07. Watch the
news segment here: http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/4686361/

51. These studies are discussed here: "The Radiation Poisoning of America," A. Worthington, Idaho Observer, September
2007. Find this article online at Idaho-Observer.com.

52. Stewart Report 2000, UK: Research conducted by then British Health Protection Agency chief William Stewart advised that
the main beam of a mobile phone mast should never be allowed to fall on any part of a school’s grounds.

53. Position On the Health Effects from Radio Frequency/Microwave Radiation in Fire Department Facilities From Base Stations
for Antennas and Towers for the Conduction of Cell Phone Transmissions, International Association of Fire Fighters, Division
of Occupational Health, Safety and Medicine. A resolution calling for a moratorium on new cell towers on fire stations was
adopted by IAFF membership August 2004.

54. "Children and Mobil Phones: The Health of the Following Generations is In Danger," Russian National Committee on
Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Moscow Russia, 4-14-2008.

55. "Cell Phone Radiation Slows Down Brain Speed," James Protsman, Omega News, 08-18-2004; also "Slowed Brain Activity
in Frequent Mobile Phone Users," www.brainclinics.com, 11-09-2007: Quote: "…the brain activity from frequent mobile
phone users shows more slow activity (increased Delta and Theta) and a slowing of the Alpha Peak Frequency….In
Alzheimer’s dementia you also find a severely slowing of brain activity."

56. "Study: Cell Phone Use Ages Young Drivers," Associated Press, 02-20-05.

57. "Crash-Proof Your Teen," Family Circle, June 2006.

58. "Time to Burn," Spokesman Review, 03-11-2008.

21
59. "American Kids, Dumber than Dirt" M. Morford, SF Gate Columnist, 10-24-2007.

60. "College Students’ Literacy in Doubt," B. Feller, Associated Press, 01-19-06. Info from American Institutes of Research.
See also the National Civic Literacy Board report, The Coming Crisis in Citizenship: Higher Education’s Failure to Teach
America’s History and Institutions, 2006.

61. These two statements can be found verbatim in: FDA’s Cell Phone Facts:,Consumer Information on Wireless Phones, see
pp.5-8; This FDA statement on page 11 is a FELONY: "The scientific evidence does not show a danger to users of wireless
phones, including children and teenagers." Also see FCC’s Radio Frequency Safety brochure, p. 8 "There is no scientific
evidence to date that proves that wireless phone usage can lead to cancer or a variety of other health effects, including
headaches, dizziness or memory loss." These two agencies—appendages of Corporate America—willfully remain in the
scientific Dark Ages and have make no effort whatever to keep the public informed on 21 st Century advances.

62. Information on the WTR studies funded by the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) is found in Cell
Phones: Invisible Hazards In the Wireless Age, Ibid.

63. Ibid., pp. 229-30.

64. In the March 1986 version of the OHEA report, EPA staff recommended that RF/microwave radiation be designated as a
possible, or Class C carcinogen, but this recommendation was deleted from the final draft of that report. Microwave News,
May/June 1990.

65. Evaluation of the Potential Carcinogenicity of Electromagnetic Fields, June 1990, Review Draft.

66. Hankin quote in Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards In the Wireless Age, Ibid. pp. 218-19.

67. ABC News January 18,2008: NRC, Committee on Identification of Research Needs Relating to Potential Biological or Adverse
Health Effects of Wireless Communications Devices (Free report).

68. "Cell Phone Industry Fails to Halt Suits," CPR News, 11-01-2005; also "Mobile Headache," M. King, Ecologist, 01-03-
2007. This article says there were 7 major lawsuits pending against the cell phone industry in USA as of 2007.

69. "Cell Phone Companies Patent Cancer Shields," N. Fleming and I. Cobain, The Times, London, 06-11-2001.

70. "Mobile Phone Effects on Children’s Event-related Oscillatory EEG During an Auditory Memory Task," International
Journal of Radiation Biology, June 2006; 82 (6) 443-50.

71. BioInitiative: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Radiation, "Summary for the
Public and Conclusions," Cindy Sage, MA, August 2007.

72. "Mobile Phones More Dangerous Than Smoking," Geoffrey Lean, Independent, UK, 03-30-2008. Find Dr. Khurana’s 69-
page report on brain tumors and mobile phones at: http://www.brain-surgery.us/medstudent.html.

22
Why Your Cell Phones Are Dangerous

Linked below is an old advertisement for a ―shoe-fitting
fluoroscope‖ -- essentially, an X-ray machine used to look at
the bones of your foot in order to judge your shoe size.

As little as 60 years ago, these devices were pervasive and
thought to be harmless. But by the early 1950s, a number of
professional organizations had issued warnings about the
continued use of shoe-fitting fluoroscopes -- some thirty years
after they were invented and routinely used. Today we know
how risky and carcinogenic X-rays can be. One shoe model
received such a serious radiation burn from a shoe-fitting
fluoroscope that her leg had to be amputated.

Sources:

Oak Ridge Associated Universities Health Physics
Historical Instrumentation Museum Collection July
25, 2007

Western Journal of Medicine January, 1950; 72(1):
26–30 (The shoe-fitting fluoroscope as a radiation
hazard)

Dr. Mercola's Comments:
I hope that it will take us less than thirty years to recognize the major danger resulting from exposure to the explosion of
information carrying radio waves around us -- especially from cell phones, but also from WiFi, WiMax, BlueTooth, and other
wireless devices. But I am not hopeful as the telecommunications industry is even more powerful than the drug industry, and
they simply do not want this information widely known.

Unless you live in some unbelievably remote location, the odds are you‘re being bombarded with radio waves that can
devastate your body.

The shoe fluoroscopes emitted ionizing radiation but exposure to them was relatively infrequent; only a few times a year. This
is quite unlike your exposure to information carrying radio waves where you are likely receiving exposure 24-7.

Let me be VERY clear. The danger from most land-based portable phones, cell phones and WiFi routers is not from the
magnetic radiation or the microwave carrier wave from which typical SAR ratings are given on phones. Unless you have
massive exposures like you might expect in a microwave oven, these thermal effects are insignificant.

Nearly all the biological damage comes from the modulated signals that are carried ON the carrier microwave. These
modulated information carrying radio waves resonate in biological frequencies of a few to a few hundred cycles per second,
and can stimulate your cellular receptors causing a whole cascade of pathological consequences that can culminate in fatigue,
anxiety and ultimately cancers.

This is a MAJOR problem because in the last few years we have had an exponential increase in exposure to these waves. It
took from 1984 to 2004 to reach the first billion cell phones, the second billion took just 18 months, the third billion took only
23
nine months and the fourth billion just six months.

And this does not at all factor in your major exposure to WiFi routers (wireless internet), which are now pervasive. Since there
is a lag time of five to 20 years before many of these effects become clinically apparent, now is the time to act before you or
your family suffer the damage.

History is Repeating Itself Right in Front of Your Eyes

Depending on your age, you might even remember getting your shoes fitted with one of these fluoroscopes. For many, it‘s a
vivid childhood memory, as these high-tech shoe-fitters had infiltrated small-town America even before 1930. Yet, it wasn‘t
until about 1949 that people began asking questions about the radiation doses it was delivering.

The fact that these machines were in wide-spread use throughout the United States before any attention was given to the
potential health hazards from its x-ray radiation says a lot about the enduring wish for new technologies to be harmless. How
come no one seemed to care about safety testing before unleashing them on the public? Especially since there were warnings
about hazards from x-rays within the medical practice?

Today, thanks to declassified government documents, we know quite a bit about how powerful segments of the U.S.
Government were – and most likely still are – actively engaged in suppressing information that might cause you to worry about
radiation hazards of all kinds. Back then, they suppressed information about radiation fallout from bomb testing and from the
work done by certain defense industries, and the radiation exposure from living near these facilities, for example.

The danger of industrial fluoride waste from the bomb- and aluminum industries is another giant cover-up that resulted in the
U.S. government-backed water fluoridation policy.

Based on Dr. George Carlo‘s accounts of his failed attempts to issue public warnings about the real dangers of cell phone
radiation, things have not changed much. And clearly, the wireless industry has no interest in shedding so much as a glimmer of
light on the subject.

Are You Already Suffering the Effects and Don’t Even Realize it?

Numerous studies claim there is no biological impact of RF radiation within the cell phone range. Still, researchers in different
countries, in different laboratories, are finding disturbing results that point to far greater health implications than anyone is
ready for.

Unfortunately, most people fail to correlate common symptoms and health problems to their exposure to cell phones and other
radio frequencies, perhaps because these conditions can so easily be attributed to other causes (including so-called ―unknown‖
causes) as well.

Take a look at these common illnesses and ailments, which have all been scientifically linked to cell phone information
carrying radio waves:

Alzheimer‘s, senility and dementia
Parkinson‘s
Autism
Fatigue
Headaches
Sleep disruptions
Altered memory function, poor concentration and spatial awareness

Although cancer and brain tumors are most often cited as the potential health risks from cell phone radiation, as you can see,
cancer is not the only, or most common danger that you and your cell-phone toting children face.

Be Careful -- Most Headsets Actually Increases Your Health Risk

24
For some time, the standard recommendation to reduce your radiation exposure was to use a headset. It was thought that since
radiation decreases exponentially over the distance between you and the phone, this would solve the problem.

But, newer investigations, and the emergence of wireless earpieces (like Bluetooth) turns this idea upside-down. These headsets
may actually intensify your exposure to harmful radiation because the headset itself acts as an antenna, which is now inserted
directly into the ear canal. And ―wired‖ headsets are usually little better, since the wire itself can act like an antenna and
transmit dangerous radiation to your head. In fact, testing has indicated that your cell phone headset may actually raise the
amount of radiation emitted by more than 300 percent!

It's vital that you know the pros and cons of cell phone headsets—especially now that laws requiring "hands-free" cell phone
headsets while driving are going in effect all over the U.S.

The British Independent Group on Mobile Phones suggested that headsets are an ideal solution only if they were used with
filters to stop the headset wire from acting as an effective antenna. One solution is an air tube headset. These conduct sound,
but prevent any radiation from traveling up the wire to your brain.

More Safety Tips to Limit Your Exposure

To date, there are few alternatives to ensure complete safety, but there are some common sense recommendations:

Limit the amount of time you spend on the phone.
Limit your exposure to WiFi routers. Find out where they are located in your work environment and stay away from
them.
If you have any land based (non-cellular) portable phones, do NOT use anything other than the 900 MHz phones as
the Gigahertz phones stay on continuously, blasting you with information carrying radio waves 24/7.
Use the speakerphone instead of putting the phone to your ear; this is probably one of the single most important steps
you can take other than not using your cell phone.
Use a wired headset to limit your exposure to the cell phone—ideally, an air tube headset which conducts sound but
prevents any radiation from traveling up the wire to your brain. Also make sure the wire is SHIELDED which prevents
the wire from acting as an antenna which could attract more information carrying radio waves directly to your brain.
Limit calls inside buildings.
Use the phone in open spaces as often as possible.
Limit use by children and preadolescents.

For more info on the dangers of radiation go to http://www.CellphoneLies.com

25
11 Cell Phone Safety Tips to Minimize Radiation Exposure

"The voluntary exposure of the brain to microwaves from hand-held mobile phones...
[is] the largest human biological experiment ever."
~ Professor Leif Salford, Head of Research at Lund University, Sweden

The BIG Question! Are we on the verge of a health crisis of epidemic proportions due to
lack of cell phone protection?

Scientists and Doctors agree that this emerging time of wireless technology is wreaking
havoc on our health as a nation and a world. An estimated 30-50,000 cases annually
worldwide, of brain and eye cancer are being attributed to cell phone use. WiFi is now
also under scrutiny. Dr. George Carlo, former chief scientist of the cell phone industry's
$28 million safety research project, predicts 500,000 new cases of brain and eye cancer
each year by 2010 attributable to cell phone use.

What are the risks involved with wireless technologies?
You, your family, children and pets are all at significant risk. Children are of particularly
high risk due to their thin and still forming skulls and nervous systems.

"Brain Tumors Now Cause More Deaths Among Children than Any Other Forms of
Cancer." According to a Sydney TV News Report. You can also watch a special video
report, "The Invisible Dangers of EMF Radiation".

Recent studies reveal that cell phone use and WiFi technology are linked to health
problems. Invisible radiation from cell phones, microwaves, computers, cordless
phones, electrical wiring in homes and office buildings and more are all contributors to
health problems such as: neck and shoulder pain, headaches, brain tumors, high blood
pressure, cancer, brain and eye tumors, Alzheimer's, and more.

It can take years for many of these dis-eases to occur due to the latency period,
however the effects are cumulative. It is better to be safe than sorry. This biological
experiment has gone too far and it's up to you and me to take responsibility for our
own health and the wellbeing of our family members.

11 Cell Phone Protection Tips to Minimize Radiation Exposure:

1. Minimize cell phone use by keeping calls short and only using for essential calls. Just
2 minutes on a cell phone call has been shown to alter the natural electrical activity of
the brain for up to an hour.

26
2. Use a speaker on your cell phone if possible. Keeping the phone away from the body
and head helps minimize exposure to radiation.

3. Limit use of cell phones by children to emergency only. Due to their thin skull and
developing body's, radiation can penetrate much more deeply.

4. Avoid wired headsets. Regular wired headsets have been shown to act as an
antenna, attracting additional EMFs (Electro-Magnetic Fields) or radiation and
concentrating it in the ear canal.

5. Keep your cell phone out of your pocket and off your belt when on or in use. Body
tissue in the lower body area absorbs radiation more quickly than the head. One study
shows that men who wear cell phones near their groin are at risk of reduced sperm
count by up to 30 percent.

6. Avoid using the cell phone in enclosed metal spaces. Vehicles and elevators may
require the device to work harder in establishing a connection. The metal also acts as a
Faraday cage, trapping the radiation and reflecting it back upon the occupants.

7. Wait for the call to connect before placing phone next to the ear. More radiation is
present during the connection time.

8. Avoid using the phone if the signal strength is down to one bar or less. This means
the phone must work harder to establish a connection.

9. When purchasing a cell phone, choose one with low SAR (Specific Absorption Rate).
The SAR level is listed in most phone instruction manuals. SAR is a way of measuring
the quantity of radiofrequency (RF) energy absorbed by the body. A lower number
equals less absorption. However, studies reveal that RF hundreds of times lower than
current SAR limits still show biological effects.

10. Take antioxidant nutritional supplements. Free radicals in the body have been
shown to create accelerated wear and tear, aging and degeneration. Cell phone and
microwave radiation have been shown to decrease levels of these antioxidants in the
body. Antioxidants such as Coenzyme Q10, Super Oxide Dismutase (SOD), vitamin C,
Picnoginal, Melatonin and others are protective agents against internal and external
environmental stressors.

11. Utilize the Cell Phone Protection of a Scientifically Validated EMF Guard Device. Cell
phone and microwave radiation and electromagnetic frequencies (EMFs) deplete your
bioenergy field and immune system. Since most people can not imagine living without a
27
cell phone, the best option is to utilize an advanced technology now available, which
significantly strengthens your bioenergy field and guards the body from the cumulative
effects of repeated EMF exposure. EMFs weaken the body's ability to repair itself. Since
radiation and EMFs are extremely prevailent, even when not using a cell phone,
additional protection devices have been made for people, pets and home or office
wiring. Some industry experts predict that we are on the verge of a health crisis that
could cripple our current health care infrastructure. Now is the time to protect yourself
and family.

The damaging effects of EMFs, cell phone radiation and wireless radiation pose an
extreme public health risk. Don't wait for the cumulative effects of this highly
detrimental force to become fully realized in your life. Take action and protect yourself
and your family. Some industry experts predict that we are on the verge of a health
crisis that could cripple our current health care infrastructure.

* We now experience 100 million times more EMF exposure than our grandparents
* 40% increase in brain tumors in last 20 years in Australia
* Autism in children increased 30-fold
* 21% increase in brain tumors in children
* 25% increase in brain cancer worldwide

Note: This article is shared for educational purposes only and does not constitute
medical advice. If you believe that you have a health problem, see your doctor or
health professional immediately.
About the Author

For over 24 years Kalon Prensky has been a writer, educator and health advocate. He
specializes in teaching about cell phone protection, Cold Lasers cold laser therapy and
healing technologies. Copyright 2007

28
Cell Phones - Convenience Or 21st Century Plague?
Compiled by Dr. Nick Begich and James Roderick
Copyright Begich & Roderick July 2000
7-26-00

"...not only are many hands-free devices useless in protecting wireless phone users from radiation
that might cause tumors, these products may actually raise the amount of radiation being directed
into the head by three times."

Earthpulse Press has been following the development of new technologies over the last ten years.
Our research efforts and publications have been focused on the impacts of new technology on both
human health and the planet's operating systems. The idea that both could be impacted in profound
ways through the introduction of new energetic factors may well prove to be the environmental
story of the 21st century. One of the leading new factors is cell phone technology that is predicted
to have over 1.3 billion worldwide users by the year 2005. Cell phones have been one of the fastest
growing industries in modern history. The uses of electronic communications for average people
began with the introduction of personal paging systems in the 1970's - expanding into remote
telephones and cell phones by the end of the century. Most people today have either portable
phones in the home, cell phones for away-from-home use or both. These devices are connecting
people in convenient ways as their cost continues to decline with expanded use. The cost of cell
phones will continue to drop as the market increases in size and technologies become more capable
and increasingly cheaper to operate. Soon Internet and other connections will be added to the
remote world of the ethereal office space making us more productive, more connected and perhaps
more unhealthy. In the following article we attempt to bring together much of the research and
reporting over the last ten years in the area of cell phone and home portable phones. Often in the
debate the portable home phone is not mentioned; however, it should be kept in mind that many of
these phones are no different in their potential impacts on our health.

The Health Effects Mount

The idea of health effects from cell phones or other devices is quickly becoming the focus of much
research. The findings are confirming for many researchers the observations made over the years of
the effects of very small energy sources on living things. It has been discovered that small amounts
of energy when delivered in the right way can have the same effects as a massive dose of
chemicals. The complexity of living creatures is being found to be influenced by the most delicate
fields of electromagnetic energy. It has long been known that the subtle effects of light and color
when interpreted by the human eye results in sight or when a sound wave, which is just another
form of energy, is transformed by the ear and brain into sound we can understand. Other forms of
energy are not well understood because their current form is a new addition to our environment by
mankind. The effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) continue to be reported worldwide. Tests
were conducted in China at the Microwave Institute of Zhejiang Medical University which
demonstrated the effects of exposure to environmental electromagnetic fields (EMFs) in 1170
29
subjects. Visual reaction time was prolonged and the scores of short-term memory tests were lower
in some high-intensity exposure groups. They also found that these energy fields could affect the
central nervous and immune systems in man. Their data indicated that chronic exposure to EMFs
are associated with significant changes in some physiological parameters.1 In an American
laboratory similar results have been reported. The impact on Calcium ions, which are important in
maintaining normal health functions in brain tissues, was found in experiments. This may affect
nervous system function. Test "results confirm that amplitude-modulated radiofrequency radiation
can induce responses in cells of nervous tissue origin from widely different animal species,
including humans."2 This small effect has significant health ramifications for people. Another area
of concern is in prenatal development in mammals. "Pregnant women have been warned to be wary
of using mobile phones after it was found radiation produced by the devices caused defects in
chicken embryos...US scientists tested mobile phone-style radiation on more than 10,000 chicken
embryos and as a result some researchers are urging pregnant women not to use the phones until
the risks can be properly assessed. British mobile phone specialist Roger Coghill said the findings
were 'enormously worrying.'"3 "The possible effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation on prenatal
development has been investigated in mice. This study consisted of RF level measurements and in
vivo experiments at several places around an 'antenna park.' At these locations RF power densities
between 168 nW/cm2 and 1053 nW/cm2 were measured. A progressive decrease in the number of
newborns per dam was observed, which ended in irreversible infertility."4 "Australian research has
found one of the strongest links between cell phones and cancer. Over periods of 9 to 18 months,
exposed mice had twice the tumor rate as unexposed mice. The mice were exposed to cell phone
radiation. As reports linking cell phone use to adverse health conditions have been published,
attempts 'have been made by industry to hose down the findings with what is called 'The Hockett
Defense' (named after the chief Tobacco Institute scientist) who advise his executives to repeat
endlessly, 'men aren't rodents'. As one of the scientists commented to me; 'but DNA is DNA'. At
the level of normal cell growth processes, human and animal cells act very similar."6 The body has
to be seen in the context in which it operates. The body is not a closed system but, rather, an open
one which exchanges energy with all of the forces around it. The human body seeks equilibrium or
its own balance. Energy interaction requires a corresponding action from the body. On an energetic
level this results in chemical changes, system stress and other interactions which can be either
healthy or not so healthy. The "new techniques using low-frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields
(e.g. digital telecommunication) have raised the question of interferences with the biological system
of man. EEG-data of man sampled under the influence of these electromagnetic fields are altered
extremely in the range of alpha-activity during as well as after exposure for some hours. This
biological effect is induced by field intensities lower than the given international limiting values.
Regarding these results there is the very important question of possible influences, injurious to
health for people exposed to pulsating electromagnetic fields, especially by operating the new type
of digital telecommunication networks (GSM-standard)."7 In each of these kinds of observation a
very limited area is researched involving a few wave forms, frequencies and carrier modulations in
a sea of possibilities. Each of these tests represents a look at the beach - a grain of sand at a time.
Some energy fields are healthy and are being used to create solutions to many health issues while
others are life threatening. The disconnect between technological fields of research will dissipate
over time as communication increases between research areas. There has been a great deal of
laboratory research into the biological effects of EMFs in recent years. It has been shown that even
30
fairly low levels of electromagnetic radiation can change the human body's sleep rhythms, affect
the body's cancer-fighting capacity by harming the immune system, and change the nature of the
electrical and chemical signals communicating between cells.8 The research has also shown that
this energy may contribute to Alzheimer's disease. "These results are consistent with previous
findings regarding the hypothesis that electromagnetic field exposure is etiologically associated
with the occurrence of Alzheimer's disease."9 Reports continue to amplify the same results which
are being replicated now around the world. At the same time the industry is shifting the standards,
changing cell phone designs and altering other factors which make evaluation of the effects even
more difficult. "Existing data indicate that RFR of relatively low intensity (SAR < 2 W/kg) can
affect the nervous system. Changes in blood-brain-barrier, morphology, electrophysiology,
neurotransmitter functions, cellular metabolism, and calcium efflux, and genetic effects have been
reported in the brain of animals after exposure to RFR. These changes can lead to functional
changes in the nervous system. Behavioral changes in animals after exposure to RFR have been
reported."10, 11 New research indicates that exposure to cell phones' radiation causes red blood
cells to leak hemoglobin, the build up of which can cause heart disease and kidney stones.
Scientists exposed samples of blood to microwave radiation and found that even at lower levels
than those emitted by cell phones, the blood cells leaked hemoglobin. "Last month, scientists at
Sweden Lund University found that two minutes of exposure to emissions from mobile phones can
disable a safety barrier in the blood causing proteins and toxins to leak into the brain. This can
cause the chances of developing diseases such as Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's.
Symptoms reported by mobile phone users include fatigue, dizzy spells and memory loss."12
British scientists are demanding that mobile telephones carry a health warning. "Amid an explosive
growth of mobile communications, concerns are mounting about cellular telephones' potential links
to health problems ranging from headaches to brain tumors... Mobile telephones are arguably the
most radiative appliance we have ever invented apart from the microwave oven and people are
putting them by their heads - arguably the most sensitive part of the body," bio-electromagnetics
scientist Roger Coghill said. Cell phones emanate microwave radiation, and human brains may
absorb up to 60 percent of that energy." One engineer said he has suffered severe loss of short-term
memory. He began suffering from twitching eyes and numbness of the head within months after
using a digital mobile phone for up to six hours per day in 1995. The National Radiological
Protection Board (NRPB) sets the standards for exposure in Britain. "Recommended radiation
limits are measured in 'specific absorption rates' - the amount of radiation averaged over one gram
of tissue." The NRPB recommends a limit of 10 milliwatts per gram, though proposed European
guidelines are five times more restrictive.13 How much evidence on the risks of mobile phones
must be shown before the industry admits to the risks? "Scientist Clas Tegenfeld who is writing a
book on biological effects of electromagnetic fields is pessimistic: 'Already there are at least 15,000
scientific reports on the subject. I am afraid the truth is that we don't want to know.'"14 Children
may be more sensitive to microwaves than adults says an Australian report indicating they absorb
microwaves at 3.3 times the rate of adults. "For amplitude- or pulse-modulated RF fields, there is
the implication that some form of envelope demodulation occurs in tissue recognition of ELF
modulation components, but the tissue remains essentially transparent to the same signal as an
unmodulated carrier."15 Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) signals have been reported to stimulate
physiological responses in many experiments where in certain exposures there was an effect but in
others not manipulated in the same way there was no effect at all. It could be compared to the
31
dialing of a radio signal - if slightly off the signal is not clear. Someday it will be as well
understood as radio science when dialing up the health of a person. Research is showing that the
body can be both monitored and influenced by measuring signals from the body and conditioning
signals entering the body. This area of science will also advance. There have been reports of
headaches caused by cell and portable phone use.16 Evidence from the 1960s and 70s supports the
conclusion that cell phones cause headaches among some users. Cell phone "transmitting
frequencies fall in the most sensitive band for the microwave hearing effect. The transmitting
frequencies are also in the band that has maximal penetration into the head. Further, when the head
is shielded from the microwave energy, the area of the head that needs to be exposed to the
microwaves in order for people to perceive the effect is in proximity to the antenna of present day
cellular telephones," Frey wrote. The most important point that came out of his microwave research
in the 1960s was that his human subjects were reporting headaches. 30 years ago he encountered
and reported headaches from microwave energy exposure at approximately the same frequencies,
modulations and incident energies that present day cellular telephones emit.17 Dr. Frey was
involved in several research areas related to the concept of microwave hearing or the act of creating
audible signals inside the head without a physical connection to a device. Perhaps this will one day
lead to the development of new concepts of wireless communications. These types of
communications have been researched and will likely emerge into the mix of new technologies in
the coming decades. Researchers have shown that low intensity microwave exposure opens up the
blood/brain barrier, a biological effect which can allow the release of dangerous chemicals into the
brain. The U.S. Department of Defense stopped open funding of blood/brain barrier experiments
that used low intensity microwave energy, which is cause for concern. Recognition of low-intensity
effects would greatly limit military exposures. Limiting the exposure of military personnel would
have an impact on many of the national defense systems. The problem is the "head in the sand
mentality." This approach to "don't know - don't tell" has proven dangerous in the past to both
civilians and military personnel. "New Swedish research shows that the radiation from mobile
phones might make it easier for poison to penetrate into the brain. The findings could explain the
diseases that American soldiers who have participated in high-tech warfare are suffering from. The
unexplained symptoms of American soldiers of the Kuwait war are suspected to link to the
medication they took against nerve gas. The microwaves surrounding soldiers in high-tech warfare
could have opened the blood/brain-barrier, and the medication penetrated into the brain. The
possibility is now being investigated by the US Air Force in co-operation with the Lund
scientists."18 "Data in the literature now indicates that the dopamine/opiate system may be
involved in headaches and suggest that headaches may be due to cellular emissions...the energy
used was approximately the same in frequencies, modulations, and incident energies as those
emitted by present day cellular telephones. These current reports of headaches may be the canary in
the coal mine, warning of biologically significant effects."19 The early research by Dr. Frey was
most revealing in that it was conducted before the advent of the cell phone. As a result, the research
was done with limited, if any, economic impact on industry and the results were unchallenged.
"German investigators report that exposure to electromagnetic fields during mobile phone use may
increase resting blood pressure. Exposure of the right hemisphere to a radio-frequency
electromagnetic field for 35 minutes causes an increase in sympathetic efferent activity with
increases in resting blood pressure between 5 and 10 mm Hg, most likely due to more pronounced
vasoconstriction."20 "Mobile phones can cause sudden confusion and short-term memory loss,
32
according to worrying research by British military scientists. Signals from the phones disrupt part
of the brain which controls memory and learning, researchers at the Defense Establishment
Research Agency have discovered." Project director Dr. Rick Hold said, "This is the first real
evidence that these sort of radio waves do have an effect on the brain." The researchers found that
the "signals made no difference in their measurements for a short time, but then readings plunged
off the graph. In a live rat, the effect would have caused sudden memory loss and confusion."21
"Scientists from Colorado University have shown that frequent mobile users had significantly
depressed melatonin - a vital cancer-preventing hormone. An Australian study has linked the
phones to a higher rate of brain cancer while a Swedish survey suggested that using a mobile phone
for more than 15 minutes could lead to headaches and fatigue."22 The most difficult area of
research is the complexity of interactions that are possible. Nevertheless a great deal can be gained
by looking at the very specific sources of EMFs in determining both their effects and ways to limit
human exposure. "It is difficult to deny that RFR at low intensity can affect the nervous system.
However, data available suggest a complex reaction of the nervous system to RFR. Exposure to
RFR does produce various effects on the central nervous system. The response is not likely to be
linear with respect to the intensity of the radiation. Other parameters of RFR exposure, such as
frequency, duration, waveform, frequency- and amplitude-modulation, etc, are important
determinants of biological responses and affect the shape of the dose (intensity)-response
relationship. In order to understand the possible health effects of exposure to RFR from mobile
telephones, one needs first to understand the effects of these different parameters and how they
interact with each other."23 As we have increased our exposure to both chemicals and EMFs in the
last three decades we have seen certain brain cancers increase in all age groups by 1% a year. Since
1980 those 65 and older have increased 2.5% a year. Among those over 85 the increase has been as
much as 500% since 1973.24

Remote Home Portable Phones

Cell phones are not the only phones to cause concern about health problems. "Today's high-
frequency cordless phones may emit a level of electromagnetic radiation similar to cellphones. F
reasons of health and privacy, a growing number of scientists and other experts are dead set against
cellphones. They say a cancer risk is associated with signals that have a strong wattage and high
frequency (short wavelength). First generation cordless phones operate at about 60 megahertz and
the next ones ran at 900 megahertz - higher than 835MHz cellphones. The new 2.4 GHz is higher
still and can transmit for several kilometers without fading."25

Brain Tumors?

"Two new studies have shown links between mobile phone usage and brain tumors. The studies are
not absolutely conclusive but the American and Swedish authors have urged users to ration use of
mobile phones until more is known. Dr. [Lennart] Hardel's study, as yet unpublished, looked at
brain tumor sufferers. It found a correlation between phone use and cancer. His study showed that
mobile phone use, regardless which side of the head it was held against, increased the risk of a
brain tumor by almost two and a half times."26 Some of the leading researchers were contracted by
33
Motorola to carry out some experiments. Two of the world's leading radiation experts reported to
The Express that multinational companies tried to influence the results of their research. "Professor
Ross Adey, a biologist, had his funding withdrawn by Motorola before completing research which
showed that mobiles affected the number of brain tumors in animals. Dr. Henry Lai, who has been
studying the biological effects of electromagnetic fields for 20 years, was asked three times to
change findings on how they caused DNA breaks in rats."27 Both of these scientists have been
involved in academic, military and other research projects throughout their lives. In fact many of
their observations on the health effects of EMFs have been used in increasing the military's
understanding of these potential weapons applications as reported in our earlier work.28 "Jerry
Phillips, who has a doctorate in biochemistry, worked with U.C. Riverside's [Ross] Adey on
Motorola-funded research beginning in 1991." He describes a pleasant relationship with them until
studies linked exposure to changes in the incidence of brain tumors in rats. "Motorola was adamant
that Adey never mention DNA damage and RF radiation in the same breath," Phillips said.
"Motorola has been manipulative of research that we and others have reported to them," said Adey.
"Essentially they cut us off because we were too inquisitive." Adey found that some frequencies of
RFR lessened the incidence of tumors in rats. Motorola was unwilling to recognize this test, not
wanting to admit any biological effects of RFR whatsoever. "Phillips, Adey, and others said they
see a strong parallel between what's happening now and the decades of denial by the tobacco
industry..." Though 40% of the energy radiated from cell phones is absorbed by the head, the
amount is not significant enough to cause heating. Evidence points to DNA damage as a source of
the health problems associated with cell phone use. It is suggested that RFR may hinder the ability
of DNA to repair itself.29 "'For the first time in history, we are holding a high-powered transmitter
against the head,' said Ross Adey, a professor of biochemistry at the University of California,
Riverside. When you talk on your mobile phone, your voice is transmitted from the antenna as
radio frequency radiation (RFR) between 800MHz and 1,990MHz at a range that's right in the
middle of microwave territory. Not surprisingly, it now appears that exposure to this microwave
RFR may have serious health consequences."30 The research continues with another major study
being conducted in Europe. "The biggest study to date into suspected links between mobile phones
and cancer will begin this year. Nearly 9,000 cancer sufferers in 14 countries will be interviewed by
scientists in a study funded by the European Commission. "Researchers want to establish once and
for all if there is a link between mobile phones and brain tumors and other cancers." Results of the
study should be available by 2004.31 "Microwaves similar to those emitted by cell phones may
effect long-term memory, according to a new study by a University of Washington researcher.
Henry Lai, a research professor in the UW's bioengineering department, has linked diminished
long-term memory and navigating skills in rats with exposure to microwaves like those from
cellular telephones."32 "Public exposure to electromagnetic radiation (radiofrequency and
microwave) is growing exponentially worldwide with the introduction and use of cordless phones,
cellular phones, pagers and antennas in communities designed to transmit their RF signals. The
virtual revolution in science taking place now is based on a growing recognition that non-thermal
or low intensity RF exposure can be detected in living tissues and result in well defined bioeffects.
Bioeffects that are reported to result from RF exposure include changes in cell membrane function,
metabolism, cellular signal communication, activation of proto-oncogenes, and cell death.
Resulting effects which are reported in the scientific literature include DNA breaks and
chromosome aberrations, increased free radical production, cell stress and premature aging,
34
changes in cell membrane function including memory loss, learning impairment, headaches and
fatigue, sleep disorders, neurodegenerative conditions, reductions in melatonin secretion, and
cancer. The United States has a de facto policy of 'post-sales surveillance' with respect to cell
phones. That means cell phones can be sold to the public, and only after years of use will there be
studies to characterize what health consequences, if any, have arisen as a result."33 Some scientists
are even warning that constant cell phone use causes premature aging. "Low level radiation from
the phone 'heats up' body cells, damaging skin and making the user look lined and haggard. The
study by Nottingham University's School of Biological Sciences is the latest research to raise
concerns about the effect of mobile phones on health. Dr. David De Pomerai, who is in charge of
the research team, said: 'Gradually, cells don't work properly, so the life process becomes less
efficient.' Dr. De Pomerai said that heavy mobile phone users were just like heavy smokers who
constantly inhaled cell-damaging toxins without allowing the body time to repair the harm."34

The Effect on Children

While some manufacturers target children for cell phone sales, experts point out that "cell phone
radiation penetrates the skulls and brains of kids more deeply than adults, and that this radiation
might cause tumors or otherwise affect a developing brain. Several brands of cell phones exceed
the radiation limits specified in FCC guidelines, ABC News show 20/20 reported. Dr. Ross Adey, a
widely published RF researcher stated that 'Children categorically should not, be encouraged or
allowed to use' cell phones. " 35 "Overall, the available data on EMF and cancer (especially
leukemia, brain and breast cancer) are too inconsistent to establish a cause-and-effect relationship,
but there is enough evidence of association to raise concern. As a matter of fact, epidemiology has
seen a large number of examples where health hazards were initially described with unconvincing
and sometimes inadequate experiments which demonstrated a weak association with a given
environmental influence. Such associations were found between cholera and drinking water
containing fecal contaminants, between smoking and lung cancer or between exposure to vinyl
chloride and certain forms of liver cancer. All these associations were highly questioned in the past
and are now well recognized."36

Current Research on Cell Phones Confirms Earlier Studies of Risk

Though 85 million Americans now use cell phones, Europeans began widespread use of them much
earlier with many now reporting side effects from their use. Monica Sandstrom, of the Swedish
National Institute for Working Life, unveiled data from her agency's survey of cell phone users -
5,000 in Norway and 12,000 in Sweden. "One quarter of the Norwegian users, she noted, feel
warmth on or behind the ear when they use their phones...20 percent also linked frequent headaches
and recurring fatigue to cell-phone use. At least one of the symptoms noted, which include
dizziness, concentration difficulties, memory loss, and a burning sensation, showed up in 47
percent of people who reported using these wireless devices an hour or more daily." 37 "On March
9, the China Consumers Association (CCA) issued a 'worrisome' warning about Chinese cell
phones' electromagnetic radiation and how this might affect phone users, the March 10 Yangcheng
Wanbao reported. According to the CCA, tests have found that some cell phones' radiation was as
high as 10,000 microwatts per square centimeter (1,550 mw per square inch)." The newspaper
35
noted a study by China's Northern Communications University which said that half of cell phone's
radiation is absorbed by the human body and another quarter by the brain.38 "Experts studying
mobile phones are waiting to investigate new research from Poland which reportedly establishes a
link between the devices and cancer. The Sunday Mirror newspaper said the 20-year study of
servicemen had established 'the strongest link yet', showing a high cancer death rate among soldiers
exposed to microwave radiation, 'the same as that emitted by the phones.'"39 "Using a mobile
phone could drastically reduce your sex drive, new research shows...Researchers tested rats and
mice using microwave radiation at lower levels similar to those emitted by mobile phones.
Scientists discovered that exposed rats had far less testosterone in their blood stream than those
which remained unexposed. The higher the dose of radiation, the less testosterone was released by
the body's glands, resulting in diminished sexual activity." The test results are being studied in
Britain, where scientists are conducting similar research.40 "Current safety guidelines for cell
phones assume no harmful effects, as long as the microwave radiation they emit does not cause
heating of body tissue. Exposure limits are intended to protect us only from excessive temperatures
caused by absorption of energy, a known danger linked to the intensity of radiofrequency
microwaves." But living cells respond in non-thermal ways to the fields produced by cell phones,
and at intensities below the established safety threshold.41 "Ionizing radiation is a well-established
risk factor for brain tumors. During recent years, microwave exposure from the use of cellular
telephones has been discussed as a risk factor." A case-control study was undertaken, with
exposure assessed by questionnaires. It was determined that "Exposure to ionizing radiation, work
in laboratories, and work in the chemical industry increased the risk of brain tumors. Use of a
cellular telephone was associated with an increased risk in the anatomic area with highest
exposure."42 "In addition to extremely-low-frequency (ELF) electric power fields, many millions
of mobile phone users worldwide are now also exposed daily to radiofrequency fields under near-
field conditions. We may expect that these newly evolved behavioral patterns will be lifelong, with
intermittent exposures at the phone user's head making yet one more contribution to an already
complex daily EMF exposure arising in an aggregate of multiple and disparate sources."43 The cell
phone industry continues to down-play the risk and defer to more research. We understand the
stringent proofs required to change the foundations of the life sciences. This will occur when the
impact of low intensity energy is understood. In the mean time waiting for the proof in after-the-
fact studies does nor reassure the public. The precautionary principle is a good one for an age in
which technology is doubling every few months and the impact of that technology may not be
known for years after. We need to open the doors in this area and in the mean time, find ways to
reduce risk and exposures for EMFs - particularly those created by home remote and cell phones.

Independent Research Funded by Industry Dr. Carlo

"Dr. George Carlo is Chairman of the Carlo Institute. He is a Fellow of the American College of
Epidemiology, and is a specialist in assessing and managing risks to public health. His work has
included studies addressing risks from the environment and consumer products, as well as the
safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Dr. Carlo serves on the faculty of The
George Washington University School of Medicine. Dr. Carlo has served in diverse scientific
advisory capacities, including membership on the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment
Agent Orange Advisory Panel, the chairmanship of Wireless Technology Research, LLC, and
36
director of the Breast Implant Public Health Project, LLC."44 This would be the person behind one
of the most important cell phone studies of the last century and the precursor to the storm. The
industry has been involved in attempting to influence the research and has been required to pay for
independent research. The companies involved have attempted to control the data flow to the public
as information has become available. As far back as 1996 the issues began to surface with the
following report. "Motorola Inc. planned two years ago how to collaborate with the Cellular
Telecommunications Industry Association and Wireless Technology Research L.L.C. to downplay
potentially damaging scientific findings on possible health risks from portable telephones,
according to a Dec. 1994 internal Motorola memo."45 The company the industry sought to
collaborate with was the firm which eventually used over $27,000,000 industry dollars to research
the risks of cell phones. In the body of that research several issues emerged creating additional
studies. The industry has continued to place a premium on information and continues to monitor
what is developing in public debate with an eye to framing the debate. "The U.S. wireless industry,
responding to the global proliferation of media coverage of mobile phone health concerns and to
Internet-savvy activists, is leading an effort to create a worldwide information-sharing network to
counter negative publicity. The Wireless Industry Global Information Network, or WIN, held its
first meeting Dec. 10 [1998] in London."46 This organization was set up interestingly enough in
advance of the initial report of findings. The public relations plans began to unfold through a
coordinated industry effort. The story began to break. The head of the industry sponsored research
issued his report of findings. Dr. Carlo took a conservative approach in his findings but his
concerns were clear - precaution might be required. There may be a correlation between cell phone
use and cancer, according to the director of the program. "The data, while 'important' only suggest
that more research is necessary,' said George Carlo, chairman of the industry-funded Wireless
Technology Research group. 'We're now in a gray area that we've never been in before with this.
When we're in a gray area, the best thing to do is let the public know about the findings so that they
can make their own judgment," he said. WTR was formed by industry in 1993 and funded with $25
million to conduct independent studies. The studies put animal cells through 46 tests for cancer-
inducing genetic damage. The research was conducted at Stanford University and Integrated
Laboratory Systems in Research Triangle Park.47 "The close of the six-year, $27 million Wireless
Technology Research L.L.C. program has re-energized a public debate about whether mobile
telephones cause cancer or pose other health problems to the nation's 70 million wireless
subscribers. Indeed, WTR Chairman George Carlo claims new studies suggest a possible mobile
phone-cancer link. While saying the results do not rise to the level of a public-health problem,
Carlo insists the findings demand serious attention of the federal government and wireless
industry."48 "The cellular phone industry probably didn't pay researchers US$27 million dollars
hoping they'd produce bad news about the health effects of cell phones. Nonetheless, an industry-
funded study has done just that. While the findings are far from conclusive, they are the first from
an organization like the industry-supported Wireless Technology Research. 'You would come to the
[possible] conclusion that RF [radio frequencies] causes genetic damage,' [Chairman George] Carlo
said. 'that is a huge surprise.' 'The findings represent a need for coordinated public health action
while there is more investigation into the hazards,' he added. 'When you have 200 million people
who are being exposed to cell phones, you can't wait around for the slow scientific process to
work.'"49 Dr. Carlo's initial reports were framed in the standard conservative approach at finding
the facts which science demonstrates. His research indicated serious concerns based on the
37
evidence but was not conclusive. He felt that industry should pay attention and pursue the research.
"In an astonishing attack on the industry for which he once acted as a spokesman, he accused firms
of not taking safety seriously. 'The companies are now spending millions trying to discredit me
because, basically, they didn't like what I told them', he revealed to The Express last night. 'I feel
angry and let down.' After presenting its results to the phone companies in February, he claims they
failed to take 'the appropriate steps to protect consumers'. Dr. Carlo, a leading public health
scientist based in Washington, said: 'They have shown total disregard for mobile phone users.'"50
The project director did get the information to the right people in the hope that the public could be
protected by the application of precaution for the consumer. "Dr. George Carlo, in his capacity as
director of Wireless Technology Research wrote a letter to the CEO of AT&T which has serious
legal implications for mobile phone manufacturers who have claimed that there is no evidence for
adverse health effects from mobile phone use. With the letter widely circulated in the industry,
making that claim now could possibly expose them to litigation in much the same way as what
happened to the tobacco industry, where it was shown that industry assurances of no evidence of
hazards from smoking was a complete fabrication."51 Quoting from "Dr. George Carlo's letter to
Mr. C. Michael Armstrong, Chairman of AT&T Corporation the potential risks were presented:

'* The rate of death from brain cancer among handheld phone users was higher than the rate of
brain cancer death among those who used non-handheld phones that were away from their head; *
The risk of acoustic neuroma, a benign tumor of the auditory nerve that is well in the range of the
radiation coming from a phone's antenna, was fifty percent higher in people who reported using cell
phones for six years or more, moreover, that relationship between the amount of cell phone use and
this tumor appeared to follow a dose-response curve; * The risk of rare neuro epithelial tumors on
the outside of the brain was more than doubled, a statistically significant risk increase, in cell phone
users as compared to people who did not use cell phones; * There appeared to be some correlation
between brain tumors occurring on the right side of the head and the use of the phone on the right
side of the head; * Laboratory studies looking at the ability of radiation from a phone's antenna to
cause functional genetic damage were definitely positive, and were following a dose-response
relationship.

I also indicated that while our overall study of brain cancer occurrence did not show a correlation
with cell phone use, the vast majority of the tumors that were studied, were well out of range of the
radiation that one would expect from a cell phone's antenna. Because of that distance, the finding of
no effect was questionable. Today I sit here extremely frustrated and concerned that appropriate
steps have not been taken by the wireless industry to protect consumers during this time of
uncertainty about safety. I am concerned that the wireless industry is missing a valuable
opportunity by dealing with these public health concerns through politics, creating illusions that
more research over the next several years helps consumers today, and false claims that regulatory
compliance means safety. The better choice by the wireless industry would be to implement
measured steps aimed at true consumer protection. The most important measures of consumer
protection are missing: complete and honest factual information to allow informed judgment by
consumers about assumption of risk; the direct tracking and monitoring of what happens to
consumers who use wireless phones; and, the monitoring of changes in the technology that could
impact health."52 On the program ABC 20/20 Dr. Carlo continued expressing his concern and
38
dismay in the way he was handled by the industry. "You can not guarantee that cell phones are
safe. That's absolutely true, but that has always been true. [Brian] Ross: ...The cell phone transmits
a microwave signal from an antenna to a base station or tower, often miles away. The farther from
the tower, or if the phone is inside a building or a car, the more power this phone is told by the
tower to send out to make or keep the connection. Depending on how close the cell phone antenna
is, as much as 60 percent of the microwave radiation is absorbed by and actually penetrates the area
around the head, some reaching an inch to an and a half into the brain."53 On the same day Dr.
Carlo was quoted by ABC News as saying, "'The industry had come out and said that there were
thousands of studies that proved that wireless phones are safe, and the fact was that there were no
studies that were directly relevant, says Dr. George Carlo. 'We've moved into an area where we
now have some direct evidence of possible harm from cellular phones.' The $200-billion-a-year cell
phone industry maintains the devices are safe."54 The FDA as a result of this research and others
finally announced a study of their own. "Federal safety regulators are investigating whether
microwave radiation from cell phones causes cancer or other diseases. The investigation was
triggered by two industry-sponsored studies that the Food and Drug Administration said require
additional research. The question of cell phone safety recently led Metrocall of Alexandria, Va., the
nation's third-largest pager company and a major seller of AT&T cellular phones to warn its sales
staff that parents buying for a child or young adult should consider a pager instead of a cell phone
'due to potential health risks. '"55

Liability and Possible Claims

In the initial days of the controversy regarding cell phones the industry developed a huge public
relations effort in the face of lawsuits and adverse press reports impacting the industry. Paul
Staiano, President of Motorola General Systems stated, "Forty years of research and more than ten
thousand studies have proved that cellular phones are safe."56 This quote, from the industry, was
an incredible exaggeration of the research as it related to cell phone risks. "Since then, however, the
industry has largely put forth studies that looked at the effects of radio waves outside the cellular
frequency, or at exposure levels that are different from those experienced by cellular phone users."
"'The industry hasn't told the public the full story about how there has been very little research on
biological effects at low level exposures, similar to those of handheld phones,' says Louis Slesin,
editor of Microwave News, a New York newsletter and a frequent critic of the industry's handling
of the safety issue."57 Very limited information has been available to the public about the risks of
cell phones or various electromagnetic fields outside of some obscure research and academic
circles. The fact is that increasing evidence has been mounting and the true risks of these energy
fields are becoming well known. The possibility of another tobacco-type of health scandal was
perhaps in the offing when a closed Congressional hearing was held to develop regulations and
recommend further studies of electromagnetic field (EMF) health effects. They suggested
moderation in phone use until more is known while an FDA paper, dated Feb. 4, 1992, suggested:
"those who spend long periods of time on their hand-held cellular phones could consider holding
lengthy conversations on conventional phones and reserving the hand-held cellular models for
shorter conversations..."58 Many studies have been sponsored by industry, academic institutions,
government laboratories and by military research organizations into the effects of low levels of
electromagnetic radiation. The constant problem in the debate of risks is the limited knowledge
39
about the fact that very specific fields interacting with our bodies can in fact have significant effects
on our health. These effects vary throughout populations with some effected to a greater degree
than others. This is related to our physical and biochemical differences. The research which is
being conducted by the industry is ignoring much of what has already appeared in the literature
regarding risk factors. The FDA concluded in a February 8, 2000 report that; "There is currently
insufficient scientific basis for concluding that wireless communication technologies are safe or
that they pose a risk to millions of users. A significant research effort, including well-planned
animal experiments, is needed to provide the basis to assess the risk to human health of wireless
communications devices."59 The FDA has begun a three to five year study to look at some of these
effects. This comes at the conclusion of the industry sponsored Carlo study which, together with
other recent studies, show increasing risk to human health related to cell phone emissions. Congress
passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, P.L. 101-104, 110 Stat. 56(1996). "Section 704 of the
act amends the Communications Act by providing federal preemption of state and local regulation
of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of RF environmental effects."60 In other words
states and local communities may not adopt more stringent protections if the federal regulatory
authorities fail to protect the public. This limitation on the rights of states or local governments
essentially leaves any risk assessment and solution to the federal level regulatory authorities. The
FDA approach and the reluctance of the United States government to move on this issue is directly
related to lobby efforts, public relations gimmicks and the manipulation of the facts behind what is
a major concern to many. At present the evidence is causing some to follow the "precautionary
principle "in dealing with the potential adverse health consequences of cell phones and other
sources of radio frequency radiation. Other governments were taking a different approach. "The
[Australian] Senate late yesterday agreed to a Senate inquiry into electromagnetic emissions
(EME), particularly from mobile phones. Senator Allison said the inquiry is necessary because of
the Federal Government's ongoing failure to ensure that public health issues are properly
considered in standard setting for mobile phone emissions. The Minister for Communications and
the industry refuse to acknowledge what most Australians know intuitively; that it is not just the
heat from mobile phones that is a potential health risk."61 Studies to determine if there is a cancer-
cell phone radio frequency (RF) EMF link are ongoing and others are planned. "A study funded by
McCaw Cellular Communications will determine the amount of RF EMF given off by cellular
phones and its pattern of absorption in the human head and brain."62 This study was eventually
completed leading to an additional study totaling about $27,000,000. The Carlo study, as an
industry sponsored research effort, indicated serious concerns for the industry. The risks associated
with cell phones are being considered too risky even by the biggest risk takers in the insurance
industry. "Concern about the safety of mobile phones has prompted a leading Lloyd's underwriter
to refuse to insure phone manufacturers against the risk of damage to users' health...fears that
mobile phones will be linked to illnesses such as cancer and Alzheimer's have prompted John Fenn,
of underwriting group Stirling, to refuse to cover manufacturers against the risk of being sued if
mobiles turn out to cause long-term damage."63 Risk management and the kinds of legal concerns
arising out of the tobacco lawsuit has turned insurers of product liability claims on their heads.
Insurance underwriters investigate risk through the review of information available to them. The
level of evidence they need to move in the direction of safety is less perhaps than is needed for a
scientist to say "aha, this is a scientific fact." But who is right and when is the public's risk placed
ahead of insurance risks? "Should it become clear that the digital pulsed modulation signal does
40
have adverse effects - which may act as triggers to adverse health conditions, - then manufacturers
could face massive legal claims for failing to provide any or adequate health warnings to mobile
phone users. Lloyds of London has I understand refused to issue product liability cover for
manufacturers and sellers on mobiles..."64 Employers may also be liable according to legal
opinions. "Employers are usually required to provide a safe system of work. A number of
employers expect their employees to carry out their duties and responsibilities using mobile phones
for hours at a time. It could well turn out to be a non-safe system of work for which substantial
damages may be awarded as a result of adverse health conditions. A number of cases have already
been settled out of Court but again subject to confidentiality clauses."65 Companies recognizing
potential third party litigation have also been attempting to reduce their risk. Reasonable
technological advances which could decrease risk are being put forward by employers who require
cell phone use in the course of employee work. The risk of future litigation increases if the
precaution is not taken to provide a safe workplace. "Europe's third-largest manufacturer of
electrical appliances, Merloni Elettrodomestici SpA, has decided to supply its employees with dual-
band cell phones capable of operating with a microphone and headphones for safety reasons. The
decision follows a major press campaign in Italy on the dangers of electromagnetic waves. [CEO
Francesco] Caio is very sensitive to the problems of health and the environment and some of our
employees had begun to express doubts and worries."66 The other concern is that perhaps other
risks are created in the solutions. As is described in the research the removal of the cell phone from
the head is helpful to reducing exposure to the head but it can still expose the body to the effects of
its radiation. Safety issues are an increasing concern but information has become fragmented and
often quickly obsolete. The issues of safety precautions are discussed in more detail later. Base-
stations or cell phone towers may also pose risks. "The installation of base stations for mobile
telephone systems has been delayed or has met opposition from the public because of concerns that
the RF emissions from these base stations might cause cancer in children. In the United States, for
example, 85% of the total number of base stations needed have yet to be constructed.67 The
significant increase in these systems and their interactions with other energy fields in our homes,
cars and work places may in fact be significantly increasing health risks. International organizations
are also looking at the risks because of increasing public concern, scientific evidence and industry
concerns. "In May 1996, in response to growing public health concerns in many member states
over possible health effects from exposure to an ever-increasing number and diversity of EMF
sources, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched an international project to assess health
and environmental effects of exposure to electric and magnetic fields, which became known as the
International EMF Project."68 Other studies are already producing the evidence of biological
effects. "Finally there was recently a study funded by the Bavarian State Government in Germany
following reported adverse health effects in dairy cattle only after a Telecoms Mast had been
erected. It was discovered after a period of time that the cause of the significant drop in the yield of
that herd of cattle and Extraordinary Behavior Disorders in some of the cows related to the
microwave transmissions from that mast. When the cattle were moved away from its vicinity after a
period the milk yield and the behavior of that herd was restored to normal."69 The research
continues and the health effects mount. With over 1.3 billion people projected to be using these
devices in the year 2005 the risks must be understood and addressed. Perhaps we will see the
litigation of the 21st century overtake the incredible tobacco settlements as the record holder for
"damage by industry when its' head's in the sand."
41
Choosing on the Side of Safety

"On October 31st, 1996, the US National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council
(NAS/NRC) issued a review of the EMF literature: Possible Health Effects of Exposure to
Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields. The conclusions of this report are that 'there is no
conclusive and consistent evidence showing that exposure to residential electric and magnetic fields
produces cancer, adverse neurobehavioral effects, or reproductive and developmental defects'. Of
significant importance are the words, 'conclusive and consistent'. Like the more familiar phrase in
law, 'beyond reasonable doubt', 'conclusive and consistent' implies a certain standard of evidence
that warrants more serious action. Using that type of reasoning, the NRC Committee concluded that
research results do not show that EMF exposure at a residential environmental level causes adverse
health effects."70 "The FDA advises persons concerned about exposure to cell phone radiation to
take some simple steps to avoid exposure. Those persons who spend long periods of time on their
hand-held mobile phones could consider holding lengthy conversations on conventional phones and
reserving the hand-held models for shorter conversations. People who must conduct extended
conversations in their cars every day could switch to a type of mobile phone that places more
distance between their bodies and the source of RF, since the exposure level drops off dramatically
with distance."71 How cell phones might effect our health is compelling people to take heed of the
warnings and find ways to reduce exposure without giving up the device. Some have resorted to
earpieces and belt level phones. This may in fact prove to be even worse than head exposure
because of the way in which the phone then operates. More power is required and exposure to
softer tissue allows more energy to transfer into the body. A European report reads as follows: "The
'precautionary principle' is recognized by European Governments in the Maastricht Treaty and
forms the basis of both EU and UK regulation in this area. Under a strict application, it would not
be possible to balance the risks of harm with the benefits of technological advances, since even a
small degree of uncertainty or a suspicion of possible harm, no matter how ill-judged, would be
enough to prohibit the introduction of a new technology. This interpretation is not, however,
sustainable; it would preclude the application of almost any significant development as almost all
innovations may have hidden or unknown risks. In practice, therefore, applying the precautionary
principle means measures must be taken to minimize known risks and alertness to the emergence of
unknown risks must be maintained." 72 The report continues in discussing the use of cell phone use
in vehicles. "Cars and other vehicles screen the microwave emissions from the mobile phone when
in use and so act as a Faraday cage. GSM phones compensate for this by increasing the power
output resulting in greater microwave absorption in the user." 73

Hands-free kits.

Hands-free kits are also discussed, revealing the hidden risks. "Currently, the cellular industry are
encouraging the use of hands-free kits, but cite their only advantage as being to offer greater
freedom of use to the user, nothing else. The fact is they know the real reason users are buying
them is because they think these kits protect them from radiation exposure. Recent tests have
shown that whilst exposure to the head is reduced by around 70 percent, all that is happening is the
radiation is being transferred to another part of the body which is potentially more vulnerable
42
because it does not have the thickness of the skull to protect itself eg the waist or chest areas."74
"Commenting on the news in the British consumer magazine Which?, "theoretical physicist Dr. Zvi
Weinberg said it's probable that earpieces serve as antennae that direct more electromagnetic
radiation into the ears. However, he said, phone models may differ in the degree to which their
internal wires conduct electricity, and said he planned to calculate the various mechanisms involved
during the next two weeks."75 "It turns out that 'hands-free' cell phones may not save you from the
Grim Reaper after all. Alarming claims surfaced last week in a research publication in the U.K. that
not only are many hands-free devices useless in protecting wireless phone users from radiation that
might cause tumors, these products may actually raise the amount of radiation being directed into
the head by three times." The report, by Antonia Chitty, appeared in Which? magazine, a 700,000-
subscriber consumer report which does not accept advertising. The test results of the study,
according to Which?, showed that the earplugs in the hands-free kit acted as aerials and channeled
more radiation into the ear model than standard cell phones did. The earphones channel three times
the dose of radiation into the ear that a regular cellular phone does.76 Using a mobile phone clipped
to your waist results in a hotspot of radiation being pumped into the liver and kidneys. "There is
concern that they may intensify radiation exposure to the ear canal. Using a hands-free kit and
making a call with a mobile phone clipped to your belt also means the phone will generally be
working at a higher power level. That's because it is generally harder to transmit from waist-height
than head height. But there's a lot of body tissue in that area which has good conductivity and
absorbs radiation more quickly than the head." People think hands-free kits are safer, so tend to
spend more time on the phone. The phone works harder to pick up a signal if it is down by the
waist, where more radiation is absorbed than by the head."77

Non-thermal verses thermal effects.

Non-thermal verses thermal effects are also being considered by the Europeans in trying to
establish increased margins of safety. "The NRPB and industry's position that mobiles are safe, is
based on the facts that all handsets comply with current recommended limits, which are based on
thermal considerations only. As you had already probably already been made aware, the literature
is full of published papers showing damage and biological effects at power levels which were set
deliberately well below thermal thresholds and therefore by definition could not have been caused
by thermal damage. Even if we assume the thermal only argument to be correct, there are
circumstances which the group should be aware of, where exposure exceeds even the thermal
limits. Mobile users who wear metal rimmed glasses are intensifying the exposure to their eyes by
20 per cent and into the head by 6.3 per cent. Using a mobile in a vehicle can accelerate radiation
levels by up to 10-fold due to resonance effect."78 These risks associated with remote telephone
use can not be ignored. The maintenance of the official position that we are waiting "for the
scientific proof" can not continue without corresponding increases in safety considerations rather
than the current direction of increasing exposures and a lack of protection. "Intelligence documents
show that Western governments have know about Soviet experiments using mobile phone-type
radiation to cause brain damage for more than 20 years. 'The uncensored documents reveal that
Soviet military scientists had successfully used microwaves of the type used by mobile phones to
weaken the blood brain barrier. According to Dr. Louis Slesin...US Army scientists had succeeded
in duplicating the Soviet experiments by 1977 - eight years before mobile phones became generally
43
available in Britain.'"79 This work was done as a result of microwave bombardments of the United
States Embassy in Moscow as well as reports about research by the Soviets. There was also the fact
that at this particular time the safety standards for exposure to radio frequency radiation in the
Soviet Union was significantly more stringent than United States standards by almost 1000 times.
Russian and other East European countries' exposure standards for radio frequency and microwave
radiation are much stricter that in the U.S or Western Europe. "An attempt was made to resolve
these differences at the 2nd International Conference on Problems of Electromagnetic Safety of the
Human Being, held in Moscow in late 1999. Despite extensive discussions during this conference,
the attempt to 'harmonize' RF/MW standards was unsuccessful with little chance of compromise in
the near future. Western standard setting organizations have emphasized protection from RF/MW
thermal effects...while Russia's more restrictive standard also reflects a concern over non thermal
effects and subjective symptoms."80 "Biological studies of enzymes and human cells exposed in
vitro to radiofrequency/microwave fields have shown a number of effects which cannot be
explained simply by the heating effects of radiation on which our current standards are based.
These include changes in cell membrane permeability to potassium, sodium and calcium; changes
in the composition or behavior of blood-forming and immunological cells; alteration of calcium ion
exchange in nerve tissue; changes in the firing patterns of neurons; and changes in levels of cancer
related enzymes. A study in Belgium determined that 'very close range exposure to microwaves
from a cellular phone base station increased the effect of a chemical mutagen on human blood cells,
leading to increased chromosomal aberrations.'"81 "High-frequency radiation such as that emitted
by ultra-violet and x-rays can break molecular bonds and damage DNA. These are called ionizing
radiation. Microwave radiation such as that emitted by cell phones doesn't ionize, but can heat
objects in its path."82 The heat generated causes the body to begin to expend energy to cool the
area and otherwise return to its state of equilibrium before it was irradiated by the device.
Europeans have again moved forward in this area ahead of the United States, where the greatest
increase in usage is now taking place. "There is now some preliminary scientific evidence that
exposures to radiofrequency (RF) radiation may cause subtle effects on biological functions,
including those of the brain. This does not necessarily mean that health is affected but it is not
possible to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally
without potential adverse health effects. The Expert Group has recommended that a precautionary
approach to the use of mobile phone technologies be adopted until more detailed and scientifically
robust information becomes available."83 The standards for exposure are being developed along
the lines of the precautionary approach which include the following sections:

"Standards. 1.27 We recommend that, as a precautionary approach, the ICNIRP guidelines for
public exposure be adopted for use in the UK rather than the NRPB guidelines. 1.29 It would be
sensible, in line with the precautionary approach, to set in place a long-term follow-up of workers
who are occupationally exposed to RF radiation at relatively high levels. We recommend that a
register of occupationally exposed workers be established and that cancer risks and mortality be
examined to determine whether there are any harmful effects." "Advice To Industry. 1.53 If there
are currently unrecognized adverse health effects from the use of mobile phones, children may be
more vulnerable because of their developing nervous system, the greater absorption of energy in
the tissues of the head, and a longer lifetime of exposure. In line with our precautionary approach,
at this time, we believe that the widespread use of mobile phones by children for non-essential calls
44
should be discouraged. We also recommend that the mobile phone industry should refrain from
promoting the use of mobile phones by children."84

The FDA is investigating whether mobile phones can cause cancer, based on two unpublished
studies which show a link between cell phone use and cancer. "One study, by the American Health
Foundation, in New York, found that mobile phone users had double the risk of developing a
certain type of brain tumor than people who did not use them. The second study...found that DNA
in human blood cells broke down when exposed to large doses of mobile-phone radiation, possibly
laying the genetic groundwork for cancer. 'We are not sure what this means,' said Dr. George Carlo,
an epidemiologist who headed the research project from 1993 until last year. 'This could be a
colossal coincidence or the tip of the iceberg.'"85 The World Health Organization has identified
research needs associated with exposure to RF radiation and makes some interesting observations,
again with a great deal of care in implicating risks beyond those already acknowledged by industry:

"Most studies have examined the results of short-term, whole body exposure to RF fields at levels
far higher than those normally associated with wireless communications. With the advent of such
devices as walkie-talkies and mobile phones, it has become apparent that few studies address the
consequences of localized exposures to RF fields to the head.

Cancer: Current scientific evidence indicates that exposure to RF fields, such as those emitted by
mobile phones and their base stations, is unlikely to induce or promote cancers.

Other health risks: Scientists have reported other effects of using mobile phones including changes
in brain activity, reaction times, and sleep patterns.

Electromagnetic interference: When mobile phones are used close to some medical devices
(including pacemakers, implantable defibrillators, and certain hearing aids) there is a possibility of
causing interference. There is also the potential of interference between mobile phones and aircraft
electronics."86

It is interesting to note that interference with electronic circuits is acknowledged but discussion of
the effects on the more sensitive instrument - the human body - is fought vigorously by many.

Reducing the Risk

"'As the EMF/EMR health effects issue becomes more widely known, especially in relation to
mobile phone use, there is a corresponding increasing number of so called EMF protective devices
being advertised in health and alternative magazines as 'cure-alls' which apparently claim to
provide complete protection from exposure to all forms of man made electromagnetic fields
(EMF).' There is a wide range of devices being offered that make all kinds of unsubstantiated
claims."87 Earthpulse researched the devices being offered and other solutions to the problems
related to cell and home portable phone use. It is not realistic to assume that use can be or should be
eliminated as these devices have revolutionized communication and will continue to contribute to
change. However, reducing power and radio frequency emissions can also be achieved. Significant
effort should be made to determine which emissions are harmful and which can be used to perhaps
45
promote health. There may be carriers and better ways to move the mountains of communications
and information now creating much of our trade and commerce. Some suggestions are as follows:

1. Reducing use is universally regarded as the best step. Use by children should be eliminated.
Indoor use increases exposure significantly because the signal strength require to create a
connection from inside a car or building is much greater. Home portable phones should be replaced
with the old style hard wired phones and cell phone use significantly reduced.

2. If still using a cell phone or portable home phone keep the phone away from the body when in
standby mode. When in use hold the phone as far away from the head as possible. Even three or
four inches can significantly reduce the exposure because the energy density drops very rapidly
with distance from the body. Keep the antenna away from the head and pointing away from the
body.88 "Radiation from all sources obeys the inverse square law. That is, the further you are from
the source the less intense your exposure to the radiation. In fact, it drops off with the square of
your distance from the source. If you are twice as far from a fire you feel one-quarter of the radiant
heat, but if you move four times as far away you only feel one-sixteenth of the heat."89

3. Most of the devices on the market do not have any science behind them. None of the devices
claiming to eliminate all emissions had any science behind them. We were able to find two systems
which are supported by science and United States Patents. One of these devices is being marketed
under Cell/Wave Guard. We found that up to 61% of radio frequency emissions could be prevented
from entering the body. While this represents a significant reduction it is not known if it is enough
to guard against all potential effects. However, it is the best technology easily available today.

Cell/Wave Guard are available from Earthpulse Press Incorporated in cooperation with the
Earthpulse Research Institute,

Earthpulse Press Incorporated
P. O. Box 201393
Anchorage, Alaska, USA, 99520
Phone: 1-907-249-9111 or 1-888-690-1277
Fax: 1-907-696-1277
www.earthpulse.com
Footnotes

1. Chiang et al. "Health Effects Of Environmental Electromagnetic Fields."
Journal of Bioelectricity. 8(1), 127-131 (1989). EPI2064
2. Dutta et al. "Radiofrequency Radiation-Induced Calcium Ion Efflux
Enhancement From Human and Other Neuroblastoma Cells in Culture."
Bioelectromagnetics, 10: 197-202 (1989). EPI1864
3. AAP General News. "FED: Pregnant Women Warned To Be Wary Of Using Mobile
Phones." May 1, 1999. EPI1880
4. Dutta et al. "Radiofrequency Radiation-Induced Calcium Ion Efflux
Enhancement From Human and Other Neuroblastoma Cells in Culture."

46
Bioelectromagnetics, 10: 197-202 (1989). EPI1864
5. Veyret et al. "Antibody Responses of Mice Exposed to Low-Power
Microwaves Under Combined, Pulse-and-Amplitude Modulation."
Bioelectromagnetics, 12:47-56 (1991). EPI1855
6. Fist, Stewart. "Cell Phones And Cancer." The Australian Newspaper, May
5, 1997. EPI1884
7. Klitzing, L. von. "Low-Frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields influence
EEG of man." Physica medica, April 28, 1995. EPI1863
8. ARRL Handbook for Radio Amateurs. "RF Radiation and Electromagnetic
Field Safety." 1996. EPI1980
9. Sobel et al. "Electromagnetic Field Exposure and Alzheimer's Disease."
Neurology, Dec. 1996. EPI1800
10. Lai, Henry. "Neurological Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic
Radiation Relating to Wireless Communication Technology."
Bioelectromagnetics Research Laboratory, Department of Engineering,
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Paper presented at the
IBC-UK Conference: Mobile Phones - Is there a Health Risk? Sept. 16-17,
1997 in Brussels, Belgium. EPI1815
11. Phillips et al. "DNA damage in Molt-4 T-lymphoblastoid cells exposed to
cellular telephone radiofrequency fields in vitro." Bioelectrochemistry and
Bioenergetics, Jan. 9, 1998. EPI1854
12. Harris, Sarah. "Now Mobiles Give You Kidney Damage." Daily Mail, Dec.
13, 1999. EPI1812
13. Ridley, Kirstin. "British Scientists Demand Cell Phone Warnings."
Reuters, Jan. 1, 1998. EPI1788
14. Frey, Allan H. "Headaches from Cellular Telephones: Are They Real and
What Are the Implications?" Environmental Health Perspectives, March 1998.
EPI1803
15. Adey, Dr. W. Ross. "Cell And Molecular Biology Associated With
Radiation Fields Of Mobile Telephones." Dept. of Biochemistry, University
of California, Riverside. EPI1857
16. Frey, Allan H. "Headaches From Cell Phones: Are They Real?" E-mail
published on microwavenews.com. EPI1856
17. Frey, Allan H. "Headaches from Cellular Telephones: Are They Real and
What Are the Implications?" Environmental Health Perspectives, March 1998.
EPI1803
18. Svenska Dagbladet. "Microwaves open up the Blood Brain Barrier." Sept.
15, 1999. EPI1829
19. Frey, Allan H. "Headaches from Cellular Telephones: Are They Real and
What Are the Implications?" Environmental Health Perspectives, March 1998.
EPI1803
20. Lancet. "Mobile Phone Electromagnetic Fields Increase Resting Blood
Pressure." June 20, 1998. EPI1823
21. Pryer, Nick. "Mobile Phones Can Affect Memory." Associated Newspapers
47
Ltd., July 16, 1998. EPI1882
22. Coghill, Roger. "Why I believe That All These Items Should Carry A
Health Warning." Daily Mail, July 17, 1998. EPI1890
23. "Neurological Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation."
Bioelectromagnetics Research Laboratory, Dept. of Bioengineering, School of
Medicine and College of Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle,
Washington. Paper presented to the Workshop on possible biological and
health effects of RF electromagnetic fields. Mobile Phones and Health,
Symposium, Oct. 25-28, 1998, University of Vienna, Austria. EPI1794
24. Burcum, Jill. "A Medical Enigma - A Rise in Brain Tumors Sets Off
Search For A Reason." Minneapolis Star Tribune, Jan. 6, 1999. EPI1889
25. Ebden, Theresa. "Do convenient, Little phones Pose Risk?" Toronto Star,
Jan. 28, 1999. EPI1877
26. Uhlig, Robert. "New studies link brain tumors to mobile phones."
Electronic Telegraph, May 24, 1999. EPI1824
27. Fleming et al. "Cover-up claims over mobile phone danger." Express
Newspapers, May 24, 1999. EPI1825
28. Earth Rising - The Revolution: Toward a Thousand Years of Peace. by Dr.
Nick Begich and James Roderick, January 2000, Earthpulse Press
Incorporated, ISBN 1-890693-43-X.
29. Bass, Gordon. "Is Your Cell Phone Killing You?" zdnet.com, Dec. 1999.
EPI1792
30. Bass, Gordon. "Is your cell phone killing you.?" PC Computing Magazine,
Nov. 30, 1999. EPI1813
31. Sunday Mirror. "World's Biggest Probe into Mobile Phones And Cancer."
Oct. 24. 1999. EPI2061
32. University of Washington. "Rats exposed to cell phone microwaves suffer
long-term memory loss, according to new study by a University of Washington
researcher. "Press Release, Nov. 30, 1999. EPI1795
33. Sage, Cindy. Sage Associates, Santa Barbara, CA. Letter to the Clerk of
the Transport and the Environment Committee, The Scottish Parliament.
EPI1837
34. Daily Mail. "Using a mobile phone makes you age faster." Oct. 18, 1999.
EPI1814
35. Whittelsey, Frances. "Cell Phones and Kids: A Bad Call?" vote.com,
1999. EPI1791
36. Verschaeve, L. "Can non ionizing radiation induce cancer?" The Cancer
Journal, Vol. 8, No. 5. EPI1797
37. Raloff, J. "Researchers Probe Cell-Phone Effects." Science News, Feb.
12, 2000. EPI1872
38. Consumidor. "Consumer Group Says China Cell Radiation Levels Unsafe."
March 16, 2000. EPI1873
39. Reuters. "Mobile Phones Report Claims 'Strongest Link Yet' To Cancer."
March 27, 2000. EPI1870
48
40. Sunday Mirror. "Beware - Using A Mobile Can Ruin Your Sex Life." April
16, 2000. EPI1871
41. MacArthur, John. "The Cell Phone Chronicles." brain.com, April 25,
2000. EPI1845
42. Hardell et al. "Case-Control Study on Radiology Work, Medical X-ray
Investigations, and Use of Cellular Telephones as Risk factors for Brain
Tumors."medscape.com, May 4, 2000. EPI1893
43. Adey, Dr. W. Ross. "Cell And Molecular Biology Associated With
Radiation Fields Of Mobile Telephones." Department of Biochemistry,
University of California. EPI1799
44. electric-words.com. "Dr. George L Carlo et al. and the fiasco called
Wireless Technology Research." EPI1858
45. Silva, Jeffrey. "Motorola Memo Raises Questions About WTR Research."
RCR, March 3, 1997. EPI1820
46. Silva, Jeffrey. "Industry launches global effort to counter cancer
claims." RCR News, Jan. 25, 1999. EPI1822
47. Schwartz, John. "Cell Phones May Have Cancer Link." Washington Post,
May 22, 1999. EPI1785
48. Silva, Jeffrey. "Controversy follows WTR to the end." June 4, 1999.
EPI1821
49. Oakes, Chris. "Cell Study: Hazards Are Real." Wired Magazine, June 21,
1999. EPI1805
50. Gallagher, Ian et al. "Mobile Phones Cover-Up." The Express (UK), Oct.
16, 1999. EPI1808
51. Maisch, Don. "A Letter Bomb For The Mobile Phone Industry?" EMFacts
Consultancy, Oct. 19, 1999. EPI1806
52. Carlo, George L. Letter to Mr. C. Michael Armstrong, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, AT & T Corporation. EPI1807
53. 20/20 ABC TV. "Worried About Your Wireless?" Oct. 20, 1999. Unedited
transcript. EPI1828
54. Ross, Brian. "Wireless Worries?" abcnews.com, Oct. 20, 1999. EPI1790
55. Rosenberg et al. "Cell-phone health risks need to be studied, FDA
says." Seattle Post-Intelligencer. April 1, 2000. EPI1827
56. Goldberg, Robert B. "The Cellular Phone Controversy: Real or
Contrived?" EMF Health Report, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1993. EPI1793
57. Keller, John J. "Are They Safe?" Wall Street Journal, Feb. 11, 1994.
EPI1878
58. Goldberg, Robert B. "The Cellular Phone Controversy: Real or
Contrived?" EMF Health Report, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1993. EPI1793
59. "Nominations from FDA's Center from Device and Radiological Health:
Radio Frequency Radiation Emissions of Wireless Communication Devices
(CDRH). Feb. 8, 2000. EPI1874
60. Federal Communications Commission. "Radiofrequency FAQs Page." Office
of Engineering and Technology. June 1, 1998. EPI2062
49
61. Allison, Senator Lyn. "Democrats Deliver Senate Inquiry On Mobile
Phones." Australian Democrats Spokeperson on Telecommunications, Dec. 9,
1999. EPI1885
62. Goldberg, Robert B. "The Cellular Phone Controversy: Real or
Contrived?" EMF Health Report, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1993. EPI1793
63. Ryle, Sarah. "Insurers balk at risks of phones." The London Observer,
April 11, 1999. EPI1796
64. Meyer, Alan. Senior partner: Halsey Meyer Higgins, Solicitors, London.
"Mobile Phones and Mobile Networks: Potential Litigation Or Law Suits."
EPI1850
65. Meyer, Alan. Senior partner: Halsey Meyer Higgins, Solicitors, London.
"Mobile Phones and Mobile Networks: Potential Litigation Or Law Suits."
EPI1850
66. Willan, Philip. "Cell-phone safety at issue in Italy." IDG News
Service, May 20, 1999. EPI1798
67. World Health Organization. "Electromagnetic Fields And Public Health."
Fact Sheet N181. May 1998. EPI1787
68. World Health Organization. "Electromagnetic Fields And Public Health."
Fact Sheet N181. May 1998. EPI1787
69. Halsey Meyer Higgins, Solicitors, London. "Mobile Phones - Mobile
Networks - Safety." Sept. 10, 1995. EPI1849
70. Maisch et al. "Powerline Frequency Electromagnetic Fields and Human
Health - Is it the time to end further research?" March 1998. EPI1819
71. FDA. "Consumer Update on Mobile Phones." Center for Devices and
Radiological Health." Oct. 20, 1999. EPI1801
72. House of Commons, Great Britain. Third Report, The Science and
Technology Committee. "Scientific Advisory System: Mobile Phones And
Health. " Sept. 22, 1999. EPI1895
73. House of Commons, Great Britain. Third Report, The Science and
Technology Committee. "Scientific Advisory System: Mobile Phones And
Health. " Sept. 22, 1999. EPI1895
74. House of Commons, Great Britain. Third Report, The Science and
Technology Committee. "Scientific Advisory System: Mobile Phones And
Health. " Sept. 22, 1999. EPI1895
75. Jerusalem Post. "Experts Debate Safety Of Earpieces For Cell Phone."
April 6, 2000. EPI1868
76. McGinity, Meg. "Yacking Yourself To Death?" zdnet.com, April 10, 2000.
EPI1867
77. The Sunday Mirror. "Cell Phone On Your Belt Brings Radiation To Liver
And Kidneys." July 10, 1999. EPI1786
78. House of Commons, Great Britain. Third Report, The Science and
Technology Committee. "Scientific Advisory System: Mobile Phones And
Health. " Sept. 22, 1999. EPI1895
79. Moran, Kathy. "Soviet Proof That Mobile Phones Do Cause Brain Damage."
50
Daily Express, Nov. 10, 1999.
80. Maisch, Don. "Setting radio frequency/Microwave (RF/MW) exposure
guidelines to protect workers and the public: Russia and the West in major
conflict." Jan. 18, 2000. EPI1817
81. Democrats in Parliament. Australian Senate Hansard for Feb. 12, 1997.
Mobile Phones. EPI1894
82. Wilson, Robert. "What's Cooking?" The Australian, March 23, 1999. EPI1883
83. Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones. "Report on Mobile Phones and
Health." May 11, 2000. EPI1892
84. Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones. "Report on Mobile Phones and
Health." May 11, 2000. EPI1892
85. Smith, Karen. "New Evidence Links Mobiles To Cancer." Wired, March 30,
2000. EPI1879
86. World Health Organization. "Electromagnetic Fields And Public Health."
Fact Sheet No. 193, revised June 2000. EPI2090
87. Maisch, Don. "Discussion Paper concerning the validity of the science,
promotion and sales of EMR "Protective Devices." Emfacts Consultancy. Nov.
21, 1999. EPI1802
88. Helin, Jan. "How Dangerous Is Your Mobile Phone?" Aftonbladet, Feb. 8,
1997. EPI1881
89. Wilson, Robert. "What's Cooking?" The Australian, March 23, 1999. EPI1883

Dr. Nick Begich
P. O. Box 201393
Anchorage, Alaska 99520
Voice Mail: 907-249-9111
Earthpulse Press
DrNick@alaska.net

51
French government bans advertising of mobiles to children
New limits will be placed on radiation levels amid fears of increased risk of cancer from phone use

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor / Sunday, 11 January 2009

New laws cracking down on children's use of mobile phones are to be introduced in France amid growing fears
that they may cause cancer and other diseases.

All advertising of the devices to children under 12 is to be prohibited under the legislation – announced by the
Environment Minister, Jean-Louis Borloo, last week – and he will also take powers to ban the sale of any phone
designed to be used by those under six.

The French government will also introduce new limits for radiation from the phones and make it compulsory
for handsets to be sold with earphones, so that users can avoid irradiating their heads and brains. And one of the
country's largest cities last month started an advertising campaign to discourage the use of the phones by
children.

The clampdown represents the most comprehensive action yet taken by any government worldwide. It contrasts
sharply with the stance of British ministers, who have largely ignored the recommendations of an official report
nine years ago that people aged under 16 should be discouraged from using mobiles, and that the industry
should be stopped from promoting them to children. Since then their use by the young has almost doubled, so
that nine out of 10 of the country's 16-year-olds own a handset.

Swedish research indicates that children and teenagers are five times more likely to get brain cancer if they use
the phones, causing some experts to predict an "epidemic" of the disease among today's young people in later
life. But consideration of the threat to them has been specifically excluded from Britain's official £3.1m
investigation into the risk of cancer from mobiles.

The French ministry warned that "mobile phone use is increasing at a rapid pace among youths", and warns that
the young may be "more sensitive because their bodies are still developing". Children's heads are smaller and
their skulls thinner.

Lyon, France's second city, launched an advertising campaign before Christmas aimed at dissuading people
from buying mobiles for children as presents, with the slogan "Let's keep them healthy, away from mobile
phones!"

A year ago France's official Agency for Environmental and Occupational Health Safety said that parents should
not give small children mobiles. And France's Health Ministry urged using them in moderation.

The French legislation is the latest evidence of growing official alarm at the hazards of the radiation caused by
mobile phone use. In September, the European Parliament voted 522 to 16 to urge ministers across Europe to
bring in stricter radiation limits, and the European Environment Agency has also issued a warning.

Toronto's Department of Public Health has advised that children under eight should only use mobiles in
emergencies and teenagers should limit calls to less than 10 minutes. The Russian Ministry of Health says that
young people under 18 should not use the devices, and Israel's Health Ministry has also advised caution.

52
60 Minutes Story on Cell Phones and Brain Cancer
Reporter: Liam Bartlett

Producer: Nick Greenaway

If you own a mobile phone, you must see this.

For years, the experts have been arguing over them.

Some say they're perfectly safe, others claim they fry your brains.

Well, an international team of doctors, including two of Australia's finest surgeons, have just released their latest, comprehensive
research.

And, as the father of young children, it really made Liam Bartlett sit up and take notice.

They say prolonged use of mobile phones could double the risk of malignant brain tumours.

The deadliest of all cancers, the kind that leaves no survivors.

With an entire generation now growing up hooked on their mobiles, that could be absolutely devastating.

Story contacts:

Cure for Life Foundation, founded by Dr Charlie Teo, funds advancements in the treatment of brain cancers. For more
information head to:
www.cureforlife.org.au

Full transcript:

STORY - LIAM BARTLETT: The Namoi Valley in northern New South Wales is a beautiful place. The favourite view of John and
Margaret Bryant.

JOHN BRYANT: It's just nice to know that I can sit here and look over there for a while.

MARGARET BRYANT: It's beautiful. A little piece of heaven on earth, isn't it?

LIAM BARTLETT: But John is terrified he won't be looking down upon it for much longer, he has terminal brain cancer.

MARGARET BRYANT: You've got to hang on, you've been so positive all throughout. So you've just got to keep on going.

JOHN BRYANT: Yeah.

MARGARET BRYANT: While there's life there's hope.

JOHN BRYANT: I know.

LIAM BARTLETT: Ironically, after a life of physical toil on the land, this rough-and-tumble farmer blames modern technology
for killing him - his mobile phone.

JOHN BRYANT: Mate, there's no doubt about mine. I know what killed me.

LIAM BARTLETT: John, you're saying what killed you as if you're already dead.

JOHN BRYANT: Well, I am dead, aren't I? I'm a dead man walking, really, aren't I, when you think about it.

LIAM BARTLETT: Last November, John was working in his shearing shed when he lost control of the left side of his body.
Doctors found a malignant tumour just behind his right ear.

JOHN BRYANT: I told Dr Hughes, he's a very good doctor, I said, "I don't want any crap, tell me the truth," you know. And he
said, "I'll tell you the truth." This is the truth - he said with this disease there are no survivors, every one dies. So that was a
good introduction to the Tamworth Hospital.

53
LIAM BARTLETT: This is a large and loving family. The Bryants have carved a full life here through farming and the family
trucking business. John's mobile phone has been an essential tool of the trade for the past 25 years. And he's in no doubt
those countless hours with it glued to his ear gave him the brain tumour. I can't begin to imagine what you're going through.

JOHN BRYANT: No, no-one can begin to imagine because people come up to me just, you know, they're trying to be nice and
they say, "I can imagine how you feel." And I think, "No, you can't imagine how I feel," you know. And I reckon it's caused
definitely by those bloody mobile phones.

LIAM BARTLETT: Doctor Teo, John insists his brain tumour has been caused by his mobile phone. Do you agree with his
diagnosis?

DR CHARLIE TEO: Insist is a strong word, and there are always two sides to every story. But if the question is do I believe
that mobile phones can cause brain cancer, the answer is yes, I do. The fact that you've deteriorated so much in the last three
days means you probably won't survive for three more weeks with this. It's that bad.

JOHN BRYANT: Yeah, I know it's bad.

LIAM BARTLETT: Dr Charlie Teo is John's neurosurgeon, his last hope to beat the tumour. He's also the co-author of a
frightening new study that's predicting a dramatic increase in brain tumours caused by the long-term use of mobile phones.

DR CHARLIE TEO: That's a huge fear. I mean, what if what if we're right? Then if we're right we're going to see a huge
increase in brain tumours and brain cancer in the next decade or so. It's going to be frightening. And guess what, Liam, we're
already frightened by what were seeing.

LIAM BARTLETT: Most of us are pretty wary of these things and with good reason. Microwave ovens use electromagnetic
radiation to cook your food. Now, it's exactly the same energy, on exactly the same wave length, as the stuff that's being
pumped out of your mobile phone. Admittedly these are a lot more powerful, but you wouldn't consider for a moment holding
your ear up to one of these for hours at a time, day after day. Yet, that's precisely what most of us are doing with our mobiles.

DR VINI KHURANA: Long-term use of mobile phones is associated with a doubling of the risk of being diagnosed with certain
brain tumours.

LIAM BARTLETT: You're saying if you use a mobile phone over an extended period...

DR VINI KHURANA: Right, over 10 years.

LIAM BARTLETT: ..you double your risk of a brain tumour.

DR VINI KHURANA: That's what the data that we have analysed, that's what it shows.

LIAM BARTLETT: Canberra neurosurgeon Dr Vini Khurana worked with Charlie Teo and three other leading scientists to
produce this latest report. and he believes mobile phones could be the biggest public health issue since tobacco. Were you
surprised at the size of the result?

DR VINI KHURANA: I actually think it may be a conservative estimate.

LIAM BARTLETT: You think doubling the risk is conservative?

DR VINI KHURANA: Yes. I would be very happy to be wrong about this because the public health implications of being right
about this are enormous. At the moment there are just over four billion users of mobile phones. There are people as young as
three using them.

LIAM BARTLETT: And that's where the biggest threat lies - with our kids. Today, being presented with your first mobile is an
essential passport to life. Our kids inhabit a wireless world. And it's nothing for them to spend hours each day chatting on the
phone.

TEENAGER 1: On the average I use it about four hours a day. I normally have long conversations at night with people, I use
my phone a lot.

TEENAGER 2: I've got to probably say about four hours, as well.

TEENAGER 3: This is the way we've been brought up to communicate, with our mobile phones. And it's just the easiest,
because they're portable, we can take them anywhere. So it's just the easiest way to communicate with our friends.

54
DR CHARLIE TEO: I'm incredibly worried, concerned, depressed at the number of kids I'm seeing coming in with brain
tumours. Malignant brain tumours. Just in the last three or four weeks I've seen nearly half a dozen kids with tumours which
really should have been benign and they've all been nasty, malignant brain tumours. We are doing something terribly wrong.

LIAM BARTLETT: With the warning signs already there for the mobile generation, long-term users like John Bryant may be
just the first wave in a looming disaster. So, as long as you can remember your dad had a mobile phone?

BRYANT Absolutely, I think he was one of the first. My friends thought it was pretty cool because no-one had them.

JOHN BRYANT: You want to tell her, now it's not so cool.

BRYANT Well, absolutely, have a look at your head.

LIAM BARTLETT: With time running out, John is setting out for Sydney for emergency surgery. He hopes Doctor Teo can buy
him precious extra months with his family by removing his tumour. Good luck, I'm sure you won't need it.

JOHN BRYANT: Yeah, but, you know.... Yeah, but I'm still strong so, you know... I've got a lot of trust in Teo, too, you know. I'll
be alright, I'm still strong darling I'm still strong I can fight this one, easy.

MARGARET BRYANT: I'll see you in a few hours.

JOHN BRYANT: I love you.

LIAM BARTLETT: It's a 3-hour operation requiring pinpoint accuracy and very steady hands. So if you go 1mm or 2mm the
wrong way, he'll be paralysed?

DR CHARLIE TEO: Oh, absolutely. See, see that brain right there? If I damage that brain right there he'd be paralysed. Like
chopping off his leg or chopping off his arm. Oh, that's horrible.

LIAM BARTLETT: Is that all tumour, Charlie?

DR CHARLIE TEO: Yeah.

LIAM BARTLETT: It's not pretty but take a good look. In the future, hundreds possibly thousands, of Australian mobile users
could contract brain tumours every year.

DR CHARLIE TEO: Until we get our heads out of the sand and realise that something needs to be done then more and more
young people are going to die from this terrible disease.

LIAM BARTLETT: Well, we're seeing more and more mobiles in use aren't we? So if you're right we're in a bit of trouble.

DR CHARLIE TEO: We're in a lot of trouble. A lot of trouble.

LIAM BARTLETT: But not everyone agrees. Do you think there's any link between mobile phones and brain tumours?

PROFESSOR RODNEY CROFT: Not at all. OK, we are going to connect this in here, up nice and tight much like a phone would
be when you are using it.

LIAM BARTLETT: Professor Rodney Croft disputes the latest mobile phone findings. He's heading a national research project
into the effects of electromagnetic radiation on our brains. He admits the radiation does get in. So, electromagnetic radiation
is passing over the top and into my head now?

PROFESSOR RODNEY CROFT: Exactly, so the electromagnetic radiation from the phone is penetrating into your head. Not a
lot of it, of course, but there certainly is some absorption by the brain and by the tissues around the head.

LIAM BARTLETT: But, critically, Croft assures me the radiation is so low I'm perfectly safe. And most of the scientific
community agrees. So the mobile phone does make the brain heat up slightly?

PROFESSOR RODNEY CROFT: It does, about 0.1 of a degree centigrade. That's absolutely right. But that kind of level is not
the kind of level which is normally needed in order to cause some sort of damage. People usually think so long as the brain
doesn't increase by more than, say, one degree, we've got nothing to worry about.

LIAM BARTLETT: So, they've got it wrong? Vini Khurana's got it wrong? Charlie Teo's got it wrong?

PROFESSOR RODNEY CROFT: That's right. That's my opinion, yes.

LIAM BARTLETT: You think they've got it wrong?
55
PROFESSOR RODNEY CROFT: Yes.

LIAM BARTLETT: Try telling that to Brett Kelly, another of Charlie Teo's patients.

BRETT KELLY: I think this is what has killed me, or will kill me.

LIAM BARTLETT: Brett, do you honestly believe that these things have given you a tumour?

BRETT KELLY: Without doubt, 100%.

LIAM BARTLETT: Brett used to run a successful earth moving business in Western Sydney. And, just like John Bryant, his
mobile was in constant use. So would it be safe to say three hours a day?

BRETT KELLY: Oh yeah, yeah.

LIAM BARTLETT: Two operations haven't been able to get rid of the tumour, but right now it's stable. Sadly, Brett knows it's
only a matter of time before it starts spreading through his brain. How long do you think you've got?

BRETT KELLY: I think maybe six, seven years at my very, very best.

LIAM BARTLETT: Once brain tumours were a relatively rare cancer but not any more. And Charlie Teo's biggest worry is that
their dramatic increase has coincided with a boom in mobile ownership.

DR CHARLIE TEO: There is now a true exponential rise in the incidence of brain cancer. And so we have got to be responsible
about all the potential causes of that and at least make the public aware of those potential causes.

LIAM BARTLETT: That's my whole point, if you and your colleagues are right there's going to be literally thousands of people
who will be affected at some point down the track.

DR CHARLIE TEO: Yes, absolutely. Now, again, not everyone who's used mobile phones because, again, not everyone who
smokes gets lung cancer. But we believe that a lot of people are going to be affected.

LIAM BARTLETT: Do you own a mobile phone?

DR CHARLIE TEO: Yeah, I own a mobile phone and I actually, my children also own mobile phones but I insist that they limit
their exposure. And the way they do that is I always, I almost always put it on speaker or hands-free. Hey, John, it's Charlie
here, surgery's gone very well, good boy. Margaret things have gone very well.

MARGARET BRYANT: Good, that's wonderful. How'd you go?

DR CHARLIE TEO: Good, he's moving already and doesn't appear to be paralysed.

MARGARET BRYANT: That's wonderful.

LIAM BARTLETT: A few days later and John Bryant is up and about. For now, the surgery has worked. It hasn't saved his life,
the cancer will inevitably return, but it has brought him precious time.

JOHN BRYANT: It's hard to believe that in a few days your body can just respond.

LIAM BARTLETT: It is hard to believe.

JOHN BRYANT: And you do, you just respond, and you feel totally different.

LIAM BARTLETT: Well, it's a good result for you mate. You can go home and give those grandkids a big hug, eh?

JOHN BRYANT: I will. I'll see you another day.

LIAM BARTLETT: Well done.

JOHN BRYANT: Thanks Liam, thank you.

56
June 3, 2008

WELL

Experts Revive Debate Over Cellphones and Cancer
By TARA PARKER-POPE

What do brain surgeons know about cellphone safety that the rest of us don’t?

Last week, three prominent neurosurgeons told the CNN interviewer Larry King that
they did not hold cellphones next to their ears. “I think the safe practice,” said Dr. Keith
Black, a surgeon at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, “is to use an earpiece
so you keep the microwave antenna away from your brain.”
Dr. Vini Khurana, an associate professor of neurosurgery at the Australian National
University who is an outspoken critic of cellphones, said: “I use it on the speaker-phone
mode. I do not hold it to my ear.” And CNN’s chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay
Gupta, a neurosurgeon at Emory University Hospital, said that like Dr. Black he used
an earpiece.
Along with Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s recent diagnosis of a glioma, a type of tumor
that critics have long associated with cellphone use, the doctors’ remarks have helped
reignite a long-simmering debate about cellphones and cancer.
That supposed link has been largely dismissed by many experts, including the
American Cancer Society. The theory that cellphones cause brain tumors “defies
credulity,” said Dr. Eugene Flamm, chairman of neurosurgery at Montefiore Medical
Center.
According to the Food and Drug Administration, three large epidemiology studies since
2000 have shown no harmful effects. CTIA — the Wireless Association, the leading
industry trade group, said in a statement, “The overwhelming majority of studies that
have been published in scientific journals around the globe show that wireless phones
do not pose a health risk.”
The F.D.A. notes, however, that the average period of phone use in the studies it cites
was about three years, so the research doesn’t answer questions about long-term
exposures. Critics say many studies are flawed for that reason, and also because they do
not distinguish between casual and heavy use.
Cellphones emit non-ionizing radiation, waves of energy that are too weak to break
chemical bonds or to set off the DNA damage known to cause cancer. There is no

57
known biological mechanism to explain how non-ionizing radiation might lead to
cancer.
But researchers who have raised concerns say that just because science can’t explain
the mechanism doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist. Concerns have focused on the heat
generated by cellphones and the fact that the radio frequencies are absorbed mostly by
the head and neck. In recent studies that suggest a risk, the tumors tend to occur on the
same side of the head where the patient typically holds the phone.
Like most research on the subject, the studies are observational, showing only an
association between cellphone use and cancer, not a causal relationship. The most
important of these studies is called Interphone, a vast research effort in 13 countries,
including Canada, Israel and several in Europe.
Some of the research suggests a link between cellphone use and three types of tumors:
glioma; cancer of the parotid, a salivary gland near the ear; and acoustic neuroma, a
tumor that essentially occurs where the ear meets the brain. All these cancers are rare,
so even if cellphone use does increase risk, the risk is still very low.
Last year, The American Journal of Epidemiology published data from Israel finding a
58 percent higher risk of parotid gland tumors among heavy cellphone users. Also last
year, a Swedish analysis of 16 studies in the journal Occupational and Environmental
Medicine showed a doubling of risk for acoustic neuroma and glioma after 10 years of
heavy cellphone use.
“What we’re seeing is suggestions in epidemiological studies that have looked at people
using phones for 10 or more years,” says Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News, an
industry publication that tracks the research. “There are some very disconcerting
findings that suggest a problem, although it’s much too early to reach a conclusive
view.”
Some doctors say the real concern is not older cellphone users, who began using
phones as adults, but children who are beginning to use phones today and face a
lifetime of exposure.
“More and more kids are using cellphones,” said Dr. Paul J. Rosch, clinical professor of
medicine and psychiatry at New York Medical College. “They may be much more
affected. Their brains are growing rapidly, and their skulls are thinner.”
For people who are concerned about any possible risk, a simple solution is to use a
headset. Of course, that option isn’t always convenient, and some critics have raised

58
worries about wireless devices like the Bluetooth that essentially place a transmitter in
the ear.
The fear is that even if the individual risk of using a cellphone is low, with three billion
users worldwide, even a minuscule risk would translate into a major public health
concern.
“We cannot say with any certainty that cellphones are either safe or not safe,” Dr. Black
said on CNN. “My concern is that with the widespread use of cellphones, the worst
scenario would be that we get the definitive study 10 years from now, and we find out
there is a correlation.”
well@nytimes.com

59
Mobile phones 'alter human DNA'
Radio waves from mobile phones do harm body cells and damage DNA, a laboratory
study has shown.

But the European Union-funded Reflex research did not prove such changes were a risk to
human health.

The scientists behind the study, which has not been published in a journal, said more work was
needed to see the actual effect of the phones on health.

But the UK National Radiological Protection Board said people should not be worried by the
study's findings.

A spokesman said the study had not shown the biological changes led to disease.

He added that even research looking at the effects of radiowaves on cells and DNA did not
consistently find evidence of damage.

“ This research is no reason for people to be worried ”
Dr Zenon Sienkiewicz, National Radiological Protection Board,

Around 1.5 billion people around the world use mobile phones.

There is an ongoing debate over their safety, with fears over potential dangers linked to mobile
phone masts and the handsets themselves.

But the UK government-commissioned Stewart report in 2000 concluded there was no evidence
of harm associated with using mobile phones.

However, the report did recommend a precautionary approach and said children should only use
mobile phones in emergencies.

The mobile phone industry maintains there is no scientific evidence of harmful effects from
electromagnetic radiation.

'Precautions'

The four-year Reflex study, co-ordinated by the German research group Verum, studied the
effects of radiation on animal and human cells in a laboratory.

They found that, after being exposed to electromagnetic fields, the cells showed a significant
increase in DNA damage which could not always be repaired by the cell.

“ The results of this study are preliminary, not yet published or peer reviewed and
require further replication by other groups ”
Mobile Operators Association spokeswoman

Damage was also seen in the next generation of cells. Mutated cells are seen as a possible cause
of cancer.
60
The study, which has not been published in a journal, also reported other harmful effects on
cells.

The radiation used in the study was at Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) levels of between 0.3 and
2 watts per kilogram.

The SAR is the rate at which the body absorbs emissions from the phone handset.

Most phones emit radio signals at SAR levels of between 0.5 and 1 W/kg.

Mobile phones cannot be sold to unless they fall within the SAR of 2 watts per kg.

Franz Adlkofer, who led the Reflex study, said people should use landlines, rather than mobiles,
wherever possible.

He added: "We don't want to create a panic, but it is good to take precautions."

He said definitive research would take another four to five years.

Other studies have suggested mobile phone radiation may have some effect on the body, such
as heating up body tissue and causing headaches and nausea, but no study that could be
independently repeated has proved that radiation had permanent harmful effects.

'No conclusions possible'

Dr Zenon Sienkiewicz, principal scientific officer at the UK's National Radiological Protection
Board, said: "This research is no reason for people to be worried.

"It is an interesting study, but its conclusions should not be over-emphasised."

He added: "The bottom line is that more research looking at whether mobile phones do have a
measurable effect on health is needed."

A spokeswoman for the Mobile Operators Association said: "Independent scientific review bodies
in the UK and around the world have consistently concluded that the weight of scientific
evidence to date suggests that exposure to radiowaves from mobile phone handsets and base
stations operating within international guidelines do not cause adverse health effects.

"The results of this study are preliminary, not yet published or peer-reviewed and require further
replication by other groups."

She added: "It is not possible to draw conclusions from this preliminary data.

"The authors of this unpublished study acknowledge that this work will need to be repeated by
independent laboratories."

61
Paul Joseph Brown / P-I
Henry Lai, a UW professor of bioengineering, has been warning of the potential health risks of cellular phones since the 1990s.

Cell phone cancer risk debated
UW researcher sees vindication

By TOM PAULSON
P-I REPORTER

(Editor's Note: This article has been changed. Narandra "N.P." Singh's name was misspelled in the original version of this
article.)

More than a decade ago, the University of Washington's Henry Lai and his colleague Narandra "N.P." Singh
reported that cell phones appear to emit enough electromagnetic radiation to cause the kind of DNA damage to
brain cells that can lead to cancer.

Few paid much attention, and mobile phone use exploded. But the UW scientists said they became targets of an
industry strategy aimed at discrediting and suppressing studies raising health concerns about cell phone
radiation.

"They even wrote letters to the UW trying to get me fired," said Lai, a gentle man who laughs easily despite
being on the losing side in a war between business and science.

The latest skirmish to shine a spotlight on this battle – which has moved mostly to Europe because of lack of
research funding for it in the U.S. – came last week when a prominent cancer researcher, Dr. Ronald
Herberman at the University of Pittsburgh, warned parents against letting young children ever use cell phones.

"Recently, I have become aware of the growing body of literature linking long-term cell phone use to possible
adverse health effects, including cancer," Herberman wrote in an advisory that included brain imaging scans
showing how radiation from cell phones penetrates much deeper into the heads of children compared with
adults.

Herberman suggested that the electromagnetic radiation emitted from cell phones should be of concern to
adults as well, citing "unpublished data" from large studies done in Europe that – though not yet definitive – link
cell phone use and brain cancers.

Lai, for his part, chuckled at the media frenzy Herberman caused.

62
"I guess it's only newsworthy when a cancer doctor, who hasn't done any of the research himself, discovers it,"
Lai said, grinning widely. "We've been saying this for more than a decade."

The UW bioengineering professor emphasized that there is no direct evidence showing that cell phone use
causes cancer.

But in the decade since he was attacked by the cell phone industry – Motorola, to be specific – Lai said further
epidemiological studies done in Europe show some indication of a cancer link.

Not everyone agrees.

"I consider it alarmist, premature and without any scientific basis," said Dr. Marc Chamberlain, a neuro-
oncologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.

The most alarming studies aren't that credible, Chamberlain said, and the more credible studies done on the
potential risk of cancer from cell phone use have failed to document any link.

Herberman's warnings, Chamberlain said, are basically hearsay and border on irresponsible. Brain cancer does
appear to be on the increase, Chamberlain said, so it's important not to alarm the public without concrete
scientific facts.

John Walls, a spokesman for the cell phone industry trade association CTIA, agreed and noted that numerous
studies reviewed by the American Cancer Society, the Food and Drug Administration and other scientific
organizations agree that the majority of research shows no convincing evidence of increased cancer rates
among cell phone users.

"That may be due to the fact that so many of these studies have been done by scientists funded by the
industry," countered Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News, a newsletter devoted to getting the word out on
evidence of harm from various kinds of electromagnetic radiation.

Given the hundreds of billions of dollars at stake in the cell phone market, Slesin said, the industry is also trying
to discredit or redirect the independent science in Europe.

Herberman, he said, was referring to the so-called Interphone study – a 13-country, $15 million European
epidemiological study of tumor rates among cell phone users – which was completed in 2005 but remains
unpublished because of disagreement among the scientists (some of them funded by industry) on how to
interpret the results.

"Industry doesn't like the data," said Slesin, who has quoted some scientists who say the study clearly shows
increased cancer rates among cell phone users. "The problem is that we still don't know and the science has
been heavily politicized. Henry (Lai) was never alarmist. He just presented his findings and refused to budge
from them."

That was in the mid-1990s. Lai and Singh published their findings of DNA damage in rats exposed to relatively
low levels of the kind of radiation cell phone users get. At the time, the UW researchers had been working with
Motorola, sharing findings and meeting the company's scientists.

"We thought they were collaborating and interested in the science," Singh said.

"We were naive," Lai said.

As they later discovered when an industry memo was leaked to Slesin, and published in 1997 in Microwave
News, Motorola had secretly drafted a "war games" memo that aimed to use media relations, industry-paid
scientists and any other means possible to discredit and suppress the scientists' findings.
63
One industry-sponsored scientist even wrote a letter to then-UW President Richard McCormick asking that Lai
and Singh be fired, according to a UW spokesperson.

Motorola spokeswoman Paula Thornton Greear, in an e-mail to the Seattle P-I, denied that the company ever
sought to suppress Lai's research but rather sought out independent review of the UW's findings.

She said: "It is noteworthy that, despite numerous attempts, other scientists have not been able to confirm Dr.
Lai's claims of DNA breaks. In fact, recent scientific reviews have concluded that the weight of scientific
evidence demonstrates that RF (radio frequency) exposure does not induce DNA breaks."

Lai noted with a chuckle that if you subtract from the literature all of the industry-funded scientific studies, most
research shows evidence of health effects from cell phone use.

Scientists at other institutions they worked with lost funding and university positions as a result of this industry
campaign. Lai said the UW, however, supported them despite the industry attacks, but the campaign succeeded
in effectively eliminating independent studies of electromagnetism and health in the U.S.

"It's all being done in Europe now," he said.

Well, maybe not all of it. Dr. Sam Milham, a retired Washington state epidemiologist who has for many years
studied the health effects of electromagnetic radiation, continues to pursue this question on his own time.

Milham, Lai and other international scientists have formed the BioInitiative Working Group dedicated to
improving safety standards for exposure to electromagnetic radiation.

Milham has long believed that even household or office exposures to electromagnetic radiation can be
dangerous. But it remains a hard sell, and a hard case to make scientifically.

"Look, people love their cell phones and microwave ovens," Milham said. "Nobody wants to hear this. And even
though the corporations have cut off all the research money for this in the U.S., there's plenty of new data
supporting this coming out of Europe."

Lai, however, emphasized that scientists still can't say with any certainty that using cell phones causes cancer.
But he won't use a cell phone or a wireless headset, which he said puts out just as much radiation.

What the professor said he does know for certain, from personal experience, is the cell phone industry has
worked hard to prevent science from resolving the uncertainty.

P-I reporter Tom Paulson can be reached at 206-448-8318 or tompaulson@seattlepi.com.

64
The Cell Tolls for Thee
By Julie A. Evans, Best Life

Best Life

When Vini Khurana, PhD, an Australian (and Mayo Clinic–trained) neurosurgeon, announced that the
link between cell-phone use and cancer was irrefutable--the result of his analysis of more than 100
studies--it set off alarm bells around the world. Use a cell phone, he said, and you increase your risk
of developing a malignant brain tumor by two to four times. Until recently, the majority of research
indicated little or no link between cell phones and cancer (the World Health Organization and the
American Cancer Society maintain that cell phones pose no threat), but several new long-term
studies have cast doubt about their safety. Given that cell phones and PDAs serve as lifelines for so
many people--24 percent of 10- and 11-year-olds carry them--it raises urgent questions. To find out
what precautions you should take when using your cell phone, we dialed the nation's leading experts.

Do cell phones cause cancer?

Maybe…with extended use. Mobile-phone users are twice as likely to develop malignant, difficult-to-
treat brain tumors called gliomas, according to a first-of-its-kind study that analyzed the effects of
cell-phone use over 10 years or more and was published last year in the journal Occupational
Environmental Medicine. The Bioinitiative Working Group, an international coalition of scientists and
public-health experts, recently published a hefty report detailing the link between the nonionizing
radiation caused by a cell phone's electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and cancer, DNA damage,
Alzheimer's, and other diseases. "The cells in the body react to EMFs in cell phones just like they do
to other environmental toxins, including heavy metals and chemicals," says Martin Blank, PhD, a
professor in bioelectromagnetics at Columbia University and one of the report's authors. The study
found that risk from cell-phone use starts at 260 lifetime hours.

Do cell phones emit radiation only when you are talking?

No. "Cell phones give off radiation any time they're turned on so that they can communicate with
base stations," says Lou Bloomfield, PhD, professor of physics at the University of Virginia and author
of How Everything Works: Making Physics Out of the Ordinary. "The radiation emitted, however, is
stronger and more frequent when you're talking or messaging." Also, the greater distance you are
from a base station, the more radiation your phone must emit in order to get a signal, which is why
your phone feels hot when you have low reception. That heat you feel is radiation. The Bioinitiative
study found that adverse effects to DNA can also occur before the phone heats up. To reduce your
exposure, make calls only when you have strong reception, hang up before your phone heats up, and
store your phone away from your body when it's not in use.

What is a phone's SAR value and why does it matter?

SAR stands for specific absorption rate, and it refers to the rate of radiation exposure from radio
frequency and microwaves measured in watts per kilogram of tissue, says Bloomfield. The FCC limit
on any cell phone sold in this country is 1.6 watts per kilogram. To find the SAR value for your
phone, go to fcc.gov/cgb/sar/. At press time, the phone with the lowest radiation was the LG KG800,
65
at 0.135 w/kg. The highest: Motorola V195s, at 1.6 w/kg. The Apple iPhone is in the middle, at
0.974 w/kg.

What is the range of the radiation?

Exposure to radiation from your cell phone drops off slowly for the first three to four inches from
your body, and then it falls dramatically, says Bloomfield. To reduce your exposure, invest in a
hands-free headset and limit the amount of time you spend talking on the phone. Khurana
recommends using the speaker mode and holding the phone about eight inches away from you. Also,
limit your use of Bluetooth devices. While it's true that they emit the least amount of radiation (one
study found they can operate as low as 0.001 watts per kilogram), even that can add up fast.

Is it risky to carry a cell phone in your pants pocket?

Maybe. One 2006 study found no link to testicular cancer, but other researchers suspect a link to
male infertility. Ashok Agarwal, PhD, director of the Center for Reproductive Medicine at the
Cleveland Clinic, recently completed a study in which cell phones were set down for one hour in talk
mode, next to sperm samples in test tubes. He found that the sperm's motility and viability were
significantly reduced, and levels of harmful free radicals increased after exposure. Agarwal suggests
storing the phone in your jacket pocket to reduce exposure to cell-phone radiation. Pregnant women
need to take precautions too, because a recent study found that cell-phone use while pregnant is
linked to behavioral problems in children.

Are kids more at risk?

"Yes, since children's nervous systems are still developing, and they have thinner scalps and skulls
than adults, they should use cell phones only in emergencies," says Gene Barnett, MD, professor and
director of the Brain Tumor and Neuro-Oncology Center at the Cleveland Clinic. The association
between childhood leukemia and exposure to EMFs like those from cell phones has led the
International Agency for Research on Cancer to classify them as a "possible human carcinogen." The
medical establishments in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom all recommend severe
restrictions on children's cell-phone use, with some experts going so far as to say that children under
16 shouldn't use cell phones at all. Make sure your kids opt for landlines when they're at home, and if
you must buy them a cell phone for emergencies, get one with a low SAR number.

What about texting?

It's actually a safer way to communicate, says David O. Carpenter, MD, director of the Institute for
Health and the Environment at the University at Albany. Since kids hold phones away from their
bodies when texting, they're exposed to less radiation than when they have the phones to their ears.
"We are very concerned about teen cell-phone use, fearing that we face an epidemic of brain tumors
10 to 20 years from now, and there are so few who are raising warning flags," says Dr. Carpenter.
Make sure your teen keeps his cell phone turned off and stored in his backpack when it isn't in use,
which will dramatically reduce exposure.

The 10 worst cell phones according to their SAR numbers:

66
1. Motorola V195s 1.6

2. Motorola Slvr L6 1.58

3. Motorola Slvr L2 1.54

4. Motorola W385 1.54

5. Rim BlackBerry Curve 8330 (Sprint) 1.54

6. Rim BlackBerry Curve 8330 (Verizon) 1.54

7. Motorola Deluxe ic902 1.53

8. T-Mobile Shadow 1.53

9. Motorola i335 1.53

10. Samsung Sync SGH-C417 1.51

The 10 best cell phones according to their SAR numbers:

1. LG KG800 0.135

2. Motorola Razr V3x 0.14

3. Nokia 9300 0.21

4. Nokia N90 0.22

5. Samsung SGH-G800 0.23

6. Samsung Sync SGH-A707 0.236

7. Nokia 7390 0.26

8. Samsung SGH-T809 0.32

9. Bang & Olufsen Serene 0.33

67
10. Motorola Razr2 V8 0.36

Source: CNET.com, current as of May 22, 2008

MSN Tech & Gadgets: Which Cell Phone Radiation Level Is Correct?

More About Cancer:

Prevention Is More Possible Than You Think
The Intelligence of Detection
7 Steps to Reduce Your Risk
When Cancer Returns

Popular Slide Shows on MSN Health & Fitness:

Breast Cancer Survivors
Improve Your Chances to Survive Cancer
Breast Cancer Suspects
Strong Men: Cancer Survivors

Provided by Best Life

URL: http://health.msn.com/health-topics/cancer/articlepage.aspx?cp-
documentid=100211877&page=1

68
Cell Phone Wake Up Call

HENRY LAI HAS A VIVID RECOLLECTION OF HIS INTRODUCTION to the politics of big science. It
was 1994, and he had just received a message from the National Institutes of Health, which was funding work
he was doing on the effects of microwave radiation, similar to that emitted by cellular phones, on the brain. He
and UW colleague Narendra "N.P." Singh had results indicating that the radiation could cause DNA damage in
brain cells.

The news was apparently unwelcome in some quarters.

Someone had called the NIH to report that Lai was misusing his research funding by doing work not specified
in the grant (the grant didn't mention DNA). And the agency wanted to know what was going on.

"It really scared the hell out of me," says Lai, a research professor in the UW's Department of Bioengineering
who earned his Ph.D. from the UW in 1977. "I was awake all night, worrying about it, wondering what to do."

In the morning, he sent a fax to the agency, explaining how the research fell within the parameters of the grant.
The NIH accepted his explanation and assured him that all was well. "They are usually fairly liberal in that
regard," Lai says. "To do otherwise would stifle the scientific process."

The incident, he says, was only the beginning in a David-and-Goliath
conflict pitting him-and other researchers-against an emerging technology
that would rapidly become one of the most lucrative and powerful
businesses on the planet: the cell phone industry.

The controversy goes back to a study by Lai and Singh published in a 1995 issue of Bioelectromagnetics. They
found an increase in damaged DNA in the brain cells of rats after a single two-hour exposure to microwave
radiation at levels considered "safe" by government standards.

The idea behind that study was relatively simple: expose rats to microwave radiation similar to that emitted by
cell phones, then examine their brain cells to see if any DNA damage resulted. Such damage is worrisome

69
because DNA carries the body's genetic code and breaks, if not repaired properly, could lead to mutations and
even cancer.

When the study was first published, a spokesperson from the cell phone industry said it was "not very relevant
because they didn't use the [same] cellular frequency or cellular power."

True, responds Lai. But effects at one frequency could also happen at another frequency, and the exposure level
in the experiment was actually lower than one can get from a cell phone. What it indicated was potential
problems with the type of radiation the devices emit.

To this day, the cell phone industry continues to dispute Lai and Singh's findings.

"I don't believe any of those studies have ever been replicated," says Joe Farren, director of public affairs for
CTIA-The Wireless Association, a Washington, D.C.-based industry consortium that provides $1 million a year
in funding for cell phone research. "We believe you should follow the science. The science to date shows there
is not a health risk associated with the use of any wireless device."

Technically, Farren may be correct about Lai's study, but that's because no one has tried to replicate Lai and
Singh's exact experiment. And a 1998 experiment that used common cell phone frequencies did find biological
damage in some cases. More recently, a European research effort by 12 groups in seven countries also
documented DNA damage from cell phone radiation.

While Lai is the first to say there are "no solid answers" to the controversy
over cell phones and DNA damage, there is "cause for concern" and more
work needs to be done. Instead, Lai says, he and his colleague have been
the focus of a campaign to discredit their research. Consider:

Internal documents from Motorola in the 1990s point to an organized plan to "war-game" Lai's work.
When a scientist in California published results that seemed to support Lai's findings, he lost research funding
and eventually left the field.
At one point, the director of a group created to manage $25 million in industry-donated research money sent a
memo to then-UW President Richard McCormick saying that Lai and Singh should be fired.
Federal money for scientific investigation in the field has dried up, supplanted by funding from the industry-
funding that Lai and others say can come with restrictions so oppressive they hamper scientific inquiry.

The stakes, both in terms of potential ramifications and profits, are high. According to consulting firm Deloitte
& Touche, the global wireless market is expected to grow to two billion subscribers by the end of this year. An
overall dollar figure for the industry would easily be in the hundreds of billions, according to Louis Slesin, who
as editor of Microwave News has followed the ins and outs of research in the field of bioelectromagnetics for
more than 20 years.

"It's all about science, politics and money, and not necessarily in that order," Slesin says. "Henry and N.P. had
the courage to buck the system, and they have paid dearly for that."
70
In preparing this article, some industry officials didn't return phone calls asking about Lai's work and the
controversy surrounding it. Others said they didn't have specific knowledge of the original study and the events
it set into motion-it was more than 10 years ago-but they characterized such research as outside mainstream
findings, which they say show that wireless technology is safe.

Still others maintain that possible hazards from recent studies could be discounted because those studies focus
on older analog phones, which send out a steady wave of radiation. Newer digital phones operate at a lower
intensity, sending out a pulsed stream.

A Swedish study published last fall that tracked 750 subjects who had used cell phones for at least 10 years
made note of that difference, and included the following caveat:

"At the time the study was conducted, only analog mobile phones had been in use for more than 10 years and
therefore we cannot determine if the results are confined to the use of analog phones or if the results would be
similar after long-term use of digital phones."

UW Research Professor Henry Lai with a few of his laboratory rats.
Photo by Kathy Sauber.

But it would be a mistake to use that to support a stance that digital phones are
proven safe, according to Slesin. The problem, he says, is that pulsed radiation
is more likely than continuous wave radiation to have an effect on living things.

"There is a lot of work out there showing that digital signals are more biologically active," Slesin says. "At this
point, no one knows whether the enhanced biological activity might compensate for the weaker signals."

Lai, a soft-spoken bespectacled man with an understated sense of humor-he once deadpanned to a national
television reporter that the most difficult part of his research involved getting the rats to use tiny cell phones-
still expresses surprise at being at the center of the ongoing, swirling debate.

"I'm just a simple scientist trying to do my research," he says. He sees the path that led to controversy as marked
by chance and serendipity.

A Hong Kong native, Lai earned his bachelor's degree in physiology from McGill University in Montreal and
came to the UW in 1972 to do graduate work. He earned his doctoral degree in psychology and did post-doc
work in pharmacology with Akira Horita. His initial research involved the effects of alcohol on the brain. He
also worked on a new compound to treat schizophrenia.

71
A shift came in 1979. Bill Guy, UW emeritus professor and a pioneer in the field of radio wave physics, offered
Lai a chance to do research on microwaves through a grant from the Office of Naval Research.

The pair first examined whether microwaves can affect drug interactions (they can), then if there appears to be
an effect on learning (there does). Then, in the early '90s, Singh arrived in Seattle. He approached Lai about
joining his lab. "He was an expert on DNA damage," Lai recalls. "I said, 'Well,
why not?'"

Top: A comet assay of a normal cell shows little DNA damage. Bottom:
The same assay of cells exposed to microwave radiation shows "tails"
of damaged DNA. Images courtesy of Henry Lai.

Singh is one of the world's foremost experts on a DNA analysis called the
"comet assay." The assay gets its name from the appearance of a damaged cell.
First, the cell is set in a gel and "lysed" or punctured. Then an electric current is
run across the cell. When strands of DNA break, the broken pieces are charged.
The electric current causes those pieces to migrate through the gel. As a result, a
damaged cell takes on the appearance of a comet, with the bits of damaged DNA forming the tail. The longer
the tail, the more damage has resulted.

With Singh's expertise now at hand, Lai decided to look at how microwaves affect DNA. Lai and Singh
compared rats exposed to a low dose of microwave radiation for two hours to a control group of rats that spent
the same amount of time in the exposure device, but didn't receive any radiation. The exposed rats showed
about a 30 percent increase in single -strand breaks in brain cell DNA compared to the control group.

As Lai and Singh sought funding to conduct follow-up studies, word of the research began to get out. According
to internal documents that later came to light, Motorola started working behind the scenes to minimize any
damage Lai's research might cause. In a memo and a draft position paper dated Dec. 13, 1994, officials talked
about how they had "war-gamed the Lai-Singh issue" and were in the process of lining up experts who would be
willing to point out weaknesses in Lai's study and reassure the public. This was before the study was published
in 1995.

A couple of years later, Lai got money from Wireless Technology Research (WTR), a group organized by
CTIA to administer $25 million in industry research funding, to do some follow-up studies. But the conditions
that came with the funding were restrictive. So much so that Lai and Singh wrote an open letter to Microwave
News recounting their experience. The letter, published in 1999, cited irregularities in processes and procedures
that the two called "highly suspicious."

72
"In the 20 years or so that we have conducted experiments, for a variety of funding agencies, we have never
encountered anything like this in the management of a scientific contract," the two wrote.

WTR leader George Carlo responded with a six-page letter to then-UW President Richard McCormick,
complaining of the "libelous" letter to Microwave News and "a pattern of slanderous conduct by these men over
the past several years." The letter closed with a threat of legal action and stated that Lai and Singh should be
fired from the project. An answering letter from Vice Provost Steven Olswang stated that the University
"encourages legitimate academic discourse" and would not intervene in the dispute.

While Lai and Singh were attempting to do their industry-funded follow-up study, the industry was looking for
another opinion. Motorola approached Jerry Phillips, a researcher who worked in a lab at the Veteran's
Administration Medical Center in Loma Linda, Calif. He was investigating electromagnetic fields and their
biological effects. The lab had done work with Motorola before, and Phillips was interested. He made a
proposal and was funded.

He sent people to Seattle to learn how to do the comet assay. And he decided to expose the animals in his
experiment to actual cell phone frequencies. What they found were increases in DNA damage at some levels of
exposure and decreases at others.

"That's not unusual," Phillips says. "It happens with chemicals. One dose can do one thing, while a higher or
lower dose does the opposite. In this case, if you produce a little bit of DNA damage, you are stimulating the
repair mechanisms and you could actually see a net decrease because the repair will be done. However, if you
overwhelm the repair mechanism, then you could see an increase.

"Based on the data, I told them that we need to start looking at repair
mechanisms," Phillips recalls.

Motorola disagreed. Phillips says he was told the results were not ready
for publication, was encouraged to do more work, and was offered
additional money to continue the experiment.

"I said as much as I would like the money, this part of the study is done," he recalls. "I said it's time to move
on." The study was published in Nov. 1998. Once the findings were released, Phillips' source of funding dried
up.

Since then, another group, working out of Washington University in St. Louis with industry funding, has tried
to replicate the experiment, but without success. According to Lai and Phillips, that group is doing the study
differently, including using a different technique to gauge DNA damage.

"They haven't properly replicated the work that Henry did, or that I did," Phillips says.

In the meantime, recent findings from overseas, more than 10 years after Lai's work, seem to finally be
providing support for a closer look at cell phone radiation.
73
Last fall, the journal Epidemiology published research results from a Swedish group that showed an increase in
a rare type of non-cancerous brain tumor among cell phone users on the side of the head where the phone was
most often held.

In December, a pan-European organization released results from an extensive four-year study carried out by 12
research groups in seven countries. Known as the REFLEX study, that research found significant increases in
DNA damage in human and animal cells exposed to cell phone radiation in the laboratory. While not a cause for
alarm, the results, which have yet to be published, underline the need for further study, scientists said (see
"Making Waves," page 4).

A spokeswoman for the UK-based Mobile Operators Association called the results "preliminary," adding that,
"It is not possible to draw conclusions from this preliminary data."

In 2000, Sir William Stewart, former chair of a British group that looked into the cell phone debate issued a
report urging "a precautionary stance" while scientific data is gathered. This January he repeated that warning,
adding that children should not use the devices for the time being.

Industry spokesman Farren says his organization sticks to its position. "Any official precautionary measures
need to be based on the science," he says. "The majority of studies have shown there are no health effects."

It's a point well taken, Lai says. However, what the science seems to say depends on how you quantify it.

Lai says there have been about 200 studies on the biological effects of cell-phone-related radiation. If you put
all the ones that say there is a biological effect on one side and those that say there is no effect on the other,
you'd have two piles roughly equal in size. The research splits about 50-50.

"That, in and of itself, is alarming," Lai says. But it's not the whole story. If you divide up the same 200 studies
by who sponsored the research, the numbers change.

"When you look at the non-industry sponsored research, it's about three to one-three out of every four papers
shows an effect," Lai says. "Then, if you look at the industry-funded research, it's almost opposite-only one out
of every four papers shows an effect."

The problem, he adds, is that there is no longer funding available in the United States that isn't attached to the
industry. Lai, for one, refuses to take any more industry money.

"There are too many strings attached," he maintains. "Everyone uses the analogy of the tobacco industry and
what happened there. It's like letting the fox watch the henhouse." While the FDA administers cell phone
radiation studies, the money comes from the industry, he adds.

Microwave News Editor Slesin says he has pondered why government
funding isn't available. His hypothesis is that it's a matter of attitude.

74
"There is a view out there among many scientists that this is just impossible-the radiation is too weak and there
cannot be any effects," Slesin says. "We all know that ionizing radiation is bad. Ions are more reactive, there's
no doubt it can lead to cancer, it's nasty stuff."

The people who work with ionizing radiation see EMF radiation-that from electromagnetic fields-as a 97-pound
weakling, he continues. They believe it's not capable of doing anything.

"Yet, when you see effects like Henry reported, especially at the low power intensities, you have to ask what is
going on to cause this?" he says. "As long as that attitude remains unchanged, you won't get more funding and
you don't get anywhere."

As a result, many U.S. scientists have moved on, either focusing on other areas or leaving the research arena
altogether, relying on the rest of the world to pick up the slack. In Lai's case, he is pursuing other research
directions, where he can get funding. The most promising involves artemisinin, a derivative from the
wormwood plant currently used to treat malaria. Lai's research shows it has promise as a powerful anti-cancer
agent. Late last year, the UW licensed the technology to a Chinese pharmaceutical company that plans to take it
to human trials and, if successful, to market.

After what happened in Loma Linda, Phillips and his wife left research altogether. They now live in Colorado
Springs, Colo., where he works for a company that develops science curricula. "I do have a lot of regret for
those lost opportunities," Phillips says. "We were really in a position to develop some good basic
understandings of how radio frequency affects biological systems."

It's an issue that desperately needs to be explored, according to Slesin.
Right now, a solid understanding doesn't exist. If anyone says they
absolutely have the answer, he cautions, absolutely don't believe them.
"We are swimming in uncertainty."

And the issue becomes increasingly relevant with each passing day.

"We are making some fundamental changes to the electromagnetic environment in which we live," Slesin
continues. "Soon entire cities will be online so you can take your laptop anywhere and be on the Internet. What
that means is we will all be exposed to electromagnetic radiation 24/7. I don't know if there's a problem, but I
think we owe it to society to find out."

In the meantime, Lai prefers to err on the side of caution. He doesn't use a cell phone and requires that cell-
savvy family members use headsets. He doesn't see the problem as intractable, just one that needs serious
attention. We engineered the technology, he says, and he's confident that we can engineer our way out of any
problems. But first, we need to take a close look at the data and admit that there may be a problem.

Either way, the answers will come, given time, Lai says. The question is will we get those answers in the way
we want?

75
"We see effects, but we don't know what the consequences are," Lai says. "With so many people using cell
phones, we will eventually know. The largest experiment in the history of the world is already under way. We
will know, in about 10 or 15 years, maybe."

-Rob Harrill is the engineering writer in the UW's College of Engineering. Although his children are not
allowed cell phones (despite repeated pleas), both he and his wife use one-sparingly.

Go To: Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4
Inside the Wave: Web exclusive on more cell phone radiation research
Making Waves: Worrisome results from European cell phone study
Old Medicine, New Cure?: Henry Lai's cancer research shows promise

76