Electromagnetic fields
Y
ou can’t see them, hear or feel them,
but we are bathed in them 24 hours
a day. Apart from the air itself,
electro-magnetic fields (EMFs) are the most
pervasive things in our environment. And
yet, few of us give them a second thought.
But there is a group of people who think
of little else. These are the so-called ‘electro-
sensitives’—people who find the fields
generated by everyday electrical appliances
so disabling that they cannot easily live a
normal life. Their symptoms range from
headaches to chronic fatigue.
How common is the problem? Because
there’s very little publicity given to it, you
would be forgiven for thinking that electro-
hypersensitivity (ES) is rare. But it’s possible
that as much as 3 per cent of the popu-
lation suffer from extreme adverse reactions
to EMFs, according to a Swedish survey
carried out by the prestigious Karolinska
Institute (Johansson O, Liu P-Y. ‘Electrosensitivity’,
‘electrosupersensitivity’ and ‘screen dermatitis’:
preliminary observations from ongoing studies in the
human skin. In Simunic D, ed, Proceedings of the
COST 244: Biomedical Effects of Electromagnetic
Fields. Workshop on Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity
EU (DG XIII). Brussels/Graz, 1995: 52–7).
Sweden is unusual in taking the problem
seriously as, in most other countries, the
medical establishment often denies the
issue, dismissing electrosensitives as mere
hypochon-driacs.
So, is the problem of ES really imaginary,
or are sufferers like canaries down mines—a
warning to the rest of us of the hazards we
all face in an increasingly electromagnetic
world?
Humanity has had millions of years of
evolution but, in the space of just 50 years,
we have rapidly become exposed to huge
amounts of artificial electromagnetic radia-
tion. While it is true that we evolved in an
EM environment—primarily radiation from
the sun and the earth’s magnetic field—
these natural fields are very different from
the EMFs produced by electric power.
Electromagnetic hazards
The first ‘canaries’ warning us all of the
hidden dangers in EMFs have been workers
in electricity-related industries. To the
authorities’ great surprise and discomfiture,
it turns out that there are significant
occupational risks from being regularly
exposed to high levels of electromagnetic
radiation.
Here again, Sweden has taken the lead in
Sweden is unusual in taking
the problem seriously as, in
most other countries, the
medical establishment
often denies the issue,
dismissing electrosensitives
as mere hypochondriacs
researching the link between EMF exposure
and sickness. Over a decade ago, researchers
at the Swedish National Institute of
Occupational Health concluded a 19-year-
long study of the increased risk of various
diseases among electrical workers, and a
clear pattern emerged. Consistently, these
workers were found to have an increased
risk of two types of cancer—brain tumours
and leukaemia, a virulent cancer of the
blood. There was a relatively consistent
dose– response, too: by and large, the
greater the EMF exposure, the higher the
risk of cancer. Among electronics engineers
and technicians, for example, the leukaemia
risk rose by 30 per cent but, for people
working on high-tension power lines, the
risk multiplied up to 280 per cent. Welders
were found to have a 30 per cent increase
in brain tumours, but television and radio
assemblers, being more continuously
exposed, suffered an extra 290 per cent risk
(Br J Indust Med, 1991; 48: 597–603).
After the same two cancers showed up in
electric-train drivers, the Swedish occupa-
tional-health doctors decided to find out
why. What they saw was profoundly disturb-
ing. They discovered that four out of five
drivers had “significant aberrations” in their
chromosomes.
But more alarming still was the fact that
these were occurring at relatively modest
Electro-Pollution 1
 levels of EMF exposure—as low as 2 micro-
teslas (see box, page 4). Evidenty, they
concluded, even low levels of EMFs can have
“genotoxic potential” ( Bioelectromagnetics,
2001; 22: 306–15).
This has since been confirmed by
American scientists at the University of
Washington, in Seattle, who have reported
finding “magnetic-field-induced DNA strand
breaks” in the cells of laboratory rats
subjected to EMFs (Environ Health Perspect,
2004; 112: 687–94).
But it’s not just workers in the electricity
industries who have been found at risk. Late
last year in the UK, an Oxford University
team announced the results of a study of
the effects of electricity power lines on the
general population, particularly children.
After studying over 70,000 medical
records, they concluded that children living
within 100 metres of overhead power lines
had almost twice the risk of developing
leukaemia (unpublished report by Draper G et al.,
‘Childhood cancer and electromagnetic field
exposures from powerlines’, reported in The Times,
30 October 2004).
What’s your exposure to EMFs?
Electromagnetic field (EMF) levels are calibrated according
to a variety of measures, the most common of which is
‘microteslas’ (mT). In the UK, the government body
responsible for advising on EMF safety is the National
Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). It has recently
drastically revised its limits downwards to fall into line with
the European Union guidelines, setting the acceptable levels
for public exposure at 100 mT. In contrast, the Swedish 1999
National Institute Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
report recommended an upper safe limit of 0.2 mT—1/500th
of the UK acceptable dose.
Nevertheless, the medical evidence “consistently” shows
that the number of childhood leukaemia cases roughly
doubles at 0.2 mT, and triples at over 0.35 mT, levels way
below the UK official guidelines (Annu Rev Public Health, 2004; e-
publication, ahead of print).
EMFs drop off rapidly the further you are from the source.
Nevertheless, the table below shows that some common
household appliances radiate levels that are not only above
the UK guidelines, but even above the Swedish maximum
levels.
Up close One metre away
Electric razor 2000 0.3
Hairdryer 2000 0.3
Vacuum cleaner 800 2.0
Television set 50 0.2
Washing machine 50 0.2
Bedside clock 50 0.02
Fridge 2 0.01
Electric blanket 3 nose, mouth and face, but they can arise
2 Electro-Pollution
The bioelectromagnetic man
Results like these have come as no surprise
to scientists in the relatively new field of
bioelectromagnetics. Forty years ago, US
scientist Robert Becker was among the first
to show that the human body has its own
very-low-level natural EMFs, and that these
fields are used by the body in many self-
healing processes.
Becker’s discoveries were later reinforced
by the work of German physicist Fritz-
Albert Popp and the late French biologist
Jacques Benveniste, who both independently
showed that all the cells of the body
communicate through subtle electro-
magnetic frequencies.
Their findings suggest that we are
fundamentally electromagnetic beings, thus
making it even more plausible that we
should be adversely affected by external
EMFs. However, thus far, the assault doesn’t
appear to be obvious, which means that few
of us are tempted to abandon the 21st
century.
Nevertheless, the cancers caused by
certain levels of electromagnetic exposure
do indicate that EMFs are basically toxic, so
they must be doing some damage to all of
us, even when it may be too small to
measure and perhaps lost in the ‘noise’ of all
the other insults to our immune systems.
That is why the 3 per cent of people who
are especially sensitive even to low levels
of EMFs are so important. For them, the
21st century could be likened to living in a
near-constant “electromagnetic smog” (Saun-
ders T. The Boiled Frog Syndrome. Chichester: Wiley-
Academy, 2002). The symptoms, particularly in
the milder or earlier stages of the
condition, are difficult to separate from
feelings of being just ‘run-down’. ES sufferer
Alasdair Philips describes the onset of ES
as “a generalised feeling of impending
influenza that never quite breaks out”
(Philips A, Philips J. Electrical Hypersensitivity: A
Modern illness. Powerwatch, 2004).
In 1998, a Swedish trade union carried
out a survey of the major ES symptoms
(Swedish Union of Clerical and Technical Employees.
Hyper-sensitivity in IT Environments. Stockholm,
1998). Top of the list were eye problems—
described as a smarting, irritating, ‘grit in
the eye’ sensation, which may be accom-
panied by photophobia (an aversion to
light). These were followed by skin con-
ditions—feelings of irritation, warmth,
itching, dryness and tingling; also, there is
often a reddening of the skin, leading to
rash or even pustules (Med Hypoth, 2000; 54:
663–71). The primary sites affected are the
anywhere on the body.
 Other problems on the list included
headache, fatigue, loss of concentration and
short-term memory, depression, breath-
Diary of the electrosensitive
lessness, excessive thirst, numbness and a
◆ John, a former director of an IT consultancy
‘prickling’ or weakness of the joints, leading
“My first experience with electrosensitivity was seven
to chronic severe pain such as in fibro-
years ago, while working very near a satellite-
myalgia.
communications base station. I worked in that job for
Dr Robert Becker sees a remarkable
11 months, and had concentration and short-term mem-
parallel between ES and the symptoms of
ory problems for most of that time. About three years
multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), another
ago, I installed wireless networking in my home and office.
increasingly prevalent environmental illness,
So, for 18 months, I had near-continuous exposure to
caused by exposure to toxic chemicals such
wireless networking, laptops, computers, and DECT
as pesticides. Both have the same
[digital enhanced cordless telecommunication] and mobile
characteristics peculiar to immune-system
phones.
disorders caused by a toxic overload (Becker
“It was then that both I and my close colleagues noticed
RO. Cross Currents: The Perils of Electropollution.
a significant effect on my work capability—poor
London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 1990).
concentration/focus, poor short-term memory, headaches.
Indeed, Dr William Rea, a doctor who
I also noticed I could tell when the wireless network was
himself suffers from both MCS and ES, and
on because of sensation in the skin of my face. So I
who has treated thousands of people
switched off all of the wireless equipment, and started to
suffering from environmental illnesses, says
use a Q-Link pendant, following a recommendation.
that the patients often cannot tell the
“Both of these changes made an improvement, but I
difference between the symptoms of ES and
was still having problems. I moved house to a semi-rural
MCS.
location, but my issues with concentration/motivation/
The link becomes even more compelling
memory still gave me problems. For example, once a week,
with the evidence that many sufferers report
I used to have to go to the Institute of Directors in London
that their ES began after a toxic chemical
for regular weekly meetings. But every time I went, my
assault.
symptoms got significantly worse, and those days were a
complete write-off for me. I discovered they had wireless
Is ES ‘all in the head’?
broadband in the building.
Of course, none of this cuts any ice with
“I had to resign from my firm.”
conventional medicine, which tends to
downplay both MCS and ES as imaginary
◆ Jason, a 33-year-old heavy mobile-phone user, who first
illnesses that are ‘all in the mind’. But this
developed ES symptoms about seven years ago
attitude is contradicted by some evidence
“I get tingling in my forehead and my head starts to
collected over the last 25 years.
burn. Then, if I don’t get away from the source that is
Swedish scientists recently showed that ES
affecting me, the left-hand side of my head can go numb
sufferers have significant physiological
and feel like it’s burning up inside. Finally, I get extremely
differences compared with non-sufferers—
lethargic and go in a zombie-like state. I feel the need to
for example, in their heart rate and galvanic
lie down and sleep, but sleep does not refresh. I can feel I
skin response (GSR). “ES patients have a
am going to collapse at any time.
rather distinctive physiological predisposi-
My short-term memory is now terrible. I also get very
tion to sensitivity to physical and
confused, and have difficulty making decisions and
psychosocial environmental stressors,” say
become very disorientated.
the researchers (Bioelectromagnetics, 2001; 22:
I have seen numerous doctors, but no one has offered
457–62).
any explanation or help. I have had to move house three
Two teams of investigators have tested ES
times in the last two years, and every home I live in I have
sufferers in blinded trials, randomly
had to have completely rewired-in screened mains cables
subjecting them to real or fake EMFs. In the
to eliminate electrical fields.
1980s, allergy specialist Dr Jean Munro and
Also, I can no longer drive or use any public transport
physicist Dr Cyril Smith collaborated on a
due to the high magnetic fields present in vehicles and
series of provocation tests. Their results
from people using mobile phones.
showed that ES patients reacted when EMF
In the last 12 months, I have also become sensitive to
equipment was switched on, and not when it
certain chemicals, showing early signs of MCS [multiple
was switched off (Clin Ecol, 1990; 6: 119–28).
chemical sensitivity], and the symptoms are virtually the
In the early 1990s, the aforementioned Dr
same as I get from electricity.
Rea, a pioneer of treatments for environ-
I am dictating this as I can no longer write or touch
mental illness, obtained the same results in
paper. We can’t have visitors anymore because I can smell
double-blind trials in which neither the
washing powder on their clothes. I have to sit in the
doctors nor the patients knew when the
gloom as my eyes have become sensitive to sunlight.”
EMFs were being generated. In these tests,
out of a total of 100 ES patients, 16 reacted

Electro-Pollution 3
 Living and working with EMFs
Most EMF exposure comes from buried electrical
wiring and appliances. In the average home, EMFs
range from 0.01 to 0.2 mT. Experts advise that the
places to watch out for are where you spend the most
time—for most people, this is in bed.
◆ Ensure that bedside electric clocks aren’t too
close to your head.
◆ If there are wires buried in the wall, move the bed
a few inches away from the wall.
◆ Avoid metal beds and spring mattresses, which can
act as EMF amplifiers.
◆ Don’t keep an electric blanket switched on while
in bed.
◆ If your under-the-floor EMF readings are high, take
up the carpet, put aluminium foil (cooking foil) on
the floorboards and re-lay the carpet. The foil
should be laid in overlapping strips and ‘earthed’
(connected to a water pipe or earth socket).
◆ Turn everything off at night. However, simply
turning off lights and appliances won’t do; there
will still be EMFs radiating from the wiring. But
turning off all the circuits at the main fuseboard,
while stopping the EMFs, will also leave you
without power or light in an emergency.
However, this conundrum has now been solved
with a so-called ‘demand switch’. This works by
shutting off the electricity at the fusebox as soon
as the last light is switched off at night. However, if
a light is switched on during the night, the switch
will register the ‘demand’ and, a few seconds later,
restore power to the circuit, thus turning on the
light. Demand switches cost £120–£160 and take
about 30 minutes to install. They are available from
www.equilibra. uk.com.
Frank Wiewel of People Against Cancer recommends
that all cancer sufferers should try and reduce their
EMF exposure to minimise the burden on the immune
system.
EMFs at work
◆ Avoid fluorescent lighting, the major culprit, say ES
sufferers. If these are not earthed, they can emit a
wide spectrum of EMF frequencies, according to
Alasdair Philips of Powerwatch. Another problem
used to be the flickering. Fortunately, modern
fluorescent tubes are now virtually flicker-free.
◆ EMFs from computer terminals (VDUs) are not
subject to any official limits, and were once
thought to be a major problem. However, all
manufacturers nowadays de facto abide by the
Swedish regulations, which limit EMF output to
2.5 milligauss (about 0.2. mT) at 20 inches.
“Modern VDUs are no longer a problem for
most of us,” says EMF expert Dr Roger Coghill,
“and now that they are being replaced by LCD
[liquid crystal display] screens, computers
essentially pose no risk.”
Some ES sufferers, however, continue to have
problems with any type of computer screens.
◆ Laptops are benign, provided they are running on
battery power. However, when plugged into the
mains via an adapter, they can emit “enormous”
EMFs, says Philips. The solution is to earth the
laptop, using a crocodile clip to attach a wire
to the laptop at one end and the earth of an
electric socket at the other.
Bluetooth and broadband are believed to be
safe but, as one expert EU body has pointed out:
“Guidelines are based on results of research
performed at hitherto commonly used
frequencies, which have been expanded to other
frequencies by extrapolation. A new technical
application may, however, challenge the basis for
such portability, as various signal characteristics
may be different” (Potential Health Implications From
Mobile Communication Systems. European Cooperation in the
Field of Scientific and Technical Research, Brussels, 11 April
2001).
In other words, regarding the safety of wireless
IT, we are almost completely in the dark.
When travelling
Cars can produce surprisingly high levels of EMFs.
For example, Volvos have been found to produce
12–18 mT near the driver’s legs, according to tests
carried out by the Swedish magazine Vi bilagare in
2002. Volvo has since fitted a suppression device
called the ‘225 Euro’ to its new models, a piece of kit
which can be retrofitted to older cars. Cars with
batteries in the rear appear to carry the highest risk.
Some ES sufferers also find car tyres a problem,
as they contain magnetised steel reinforcing, which
produces a pulsating EMF as the tyre rotates.
As for electric trains, EMFs in the carriages are
at an average of 1.6 mT, with higher levels found at
the ends of carriages.

to the presence of EMFs (J Bioelectr, 1991; 10:
241–56).
More recently, scientists in the US have
shown that exposing even non-ES sufferers
to EMFs at night, while they are sleeping,
has significant effects on heart-rate
variability (HRV). This relatively new
measure of cardiac activity is used to
predict heart problems, and the HRV found
to be caused by EMFs is now believed to
indicate long-term damage to the heart
(Bioelectromagnetics, 1998; 19: 98–106).
Tests with animals have also shown that
EMFs can affect short-term memory: rats
that have learned to negotiate mazes
perform significantly worse after being

4 Electro-Pollution
exposed to even relatively low-level EMFs
(Bioelectromagnetics, 1996; 17: 494–6).
A further confirmation that ES is a genu-
ine condition is the discovery that some ES
sufferers are, in fact, emitting EMFs them-
selves. These human-produced fields are
strong enough to cause electrical equipment
to malfunction. Typically, appliances like
television sets and toasters break down in
the presence of such people, and light bulbs
tend to ‘blow out’ rapidly (Philips A, Philips J.
Electrical Hypersensitivity: A Modern illness.
Powerwatch, 2004).
One of the problems bedevilling official
acceptance of EMF-related problems is the
lack of a coherent medical explanation for
EMF damage, particularly in cases of ES.
One theory has been that the key is mela-
tonin, a hormone known to be a powerful,
natural anti-cancer agent. Early German
experiments on laboratory animals showed
that even modest levels of EMFs would
appreciably suppress melatonin, thus
offering a plausible explanation for the
EMF–cancer connection.
However, the findings of studies in people
have not been so clear-cut, and a recent
review of the evidence now downplays the
theory, having determined that the
experimental data are “inconsistent” (Cook M,
Wood A. Clinical Studies and Electro-magnetic
Hypersensitivity. EMFRAPID Symposium 3:
Epidemiology Findings, April 1998).
Recently, however, Swedish scientists have
made an interesting discovery. EMFs, they
find, can produce a kind of allergic response
in that they trigger the same changes in
body cells as do allergens like pollen,
resulting in a release of histamine (Med
Hypoth, 2000; 54: 663–71).
Be that as it may, for some experts, the
exact mechanism is not of any great rele-
vance, as the basic biology of the problem is
self-evident. “The human brain has an
electric field, so if you put sources of EMFs
nearby, it’s not surprising that you get
interference, interaction with systems, and
damage to cells and molecules,” says
Professor Olle Johansson, of the Karolinska
Institute in Stockholm, a world authority on
ES for over 20 years.
Scientists like Johansson, however, are still
relatively lone voices. Nevertheless, in the
last 10 years, there have been significant
shifts in the official attitude towards EMF
risks. There is now a growing recognition
that, although the scientific evidence may
be imperfect, there are enough straws in the
wind to cause concern.
All over the world, governments are now
revising their recommended maximum EMF-
exposure levels downwards (see box, page 2).
Pacemakers: Missing the beat
Wherever there are electromagnetic fields (EMFs), there are
potential problems for people with pacemakers. Magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI) scans can cause the devices to
malfunction. In one report, several people in the US with
pacemakers died after having an MRI (BMJ, 1991; 303: 205).
Any number of more commonplace electrical devices can
also cause problems. Overhead power lines may cause
irregular unit function ( PACE, 1983; 6: 1282–92 ). The EMF
generated by anti-shoplifting devices can also cause
palpitations, nausea, dizziness and breathing difficulties each
time the cardiac patient passes through them. Doctors
therefore warn people with pacemakers to either avoid these
systems or endeavour to pass through them as quickly as
possible (N Engl J Med, 1998; 339: 1371–4).
Mobile phones may also cause problems. Studies have
shown that some cellular phones, when placed close to
implanted pacemakers, can interfere with the operation of
the pacemaker (N Engl J Med, 1997; 336: 1473–9).
More recent studies show that interference seems to
occur with digital cellular phones when they are closer
than three inches from the pacemaker. The interference is
generally temporary and disappears when the phone is
switched off or moved away from the pacemaker. However,
users should be aware of the possibility of interference
even when the phone is in standby mode.
Levels that were once considered safe have
now become officially hazardous.
It’s an exact parallel with X-rays. Fifty
years ago, they were thought to be benign
enough to allow shoe shops to measure
children’s feet with them. But now we know
that no X-ray exposure—however small—is
completely safe.
A decade ago, in 1995, officials of the US
National Council on Radiation Protection
and Measurements (NCRP) wrote a report
on the dangers of EMFs, and concluded with
a measured but firm warning. “A significant
proportion of the world’s population may
PC and TV radiation
One WDDTY reader was concerned about radiation
emissions from electrical gadgets such as the TV and
computer. One suggestion is to put a big piece of amethyst
on top of the TV, and put a large piece of malachite by the
PC.
Gerald Draper, director of the UK’s Childhood Cancer
Research Group, makes a small screwdriver that can detect
electro-magnetic radiation. The new televisions and LCD
computer screens emit far lower levels of radiation than
older products. Keep live mains wires away from the sleeping
area, and you can put aluminised plastic film over screen
cables, but don’t use standard-issue kitchen foil for the
Electro-Pollution 5
 be subjected to a low level of risk,” they
wrote, “but [this is] a risk factor with
significant societal consequences by reason
of its pervasive nature and serious conse-
quences for affected individuals.”
That statement, however, was never
officially published. You are only reading it
here because it was leaked to the cam-
paigning American publication Microwave
News.
More significantly still, another piece of
information suppressed by the US govern-
ment authorities was the NRCP’s recommen-
dation to reduce the maximum permitted
EMF exposure level by a factor of 500—
from 100 microteslas down to just 0.2.

6 Electro-Pollution
Power lines
T
he question of health hazards from
power-line electromagnetic fields (EMFs)
periodically becomes the focus of much
media attention in the UK.
In the first such case in Europe, a Lancashire
couple are suing the local power company for
the death of their 13-year-old son of leukaemia.
Furthermore, a group of residents in north
London won a Judicial Review over the laying
of a 275,000-volt cable under their streets.
Considerable evidence now shows that living
near relatively low levels of magnetic fields from
mains electricity or power lines can raise the
chances of your child getting leukaemia by
three or four times. In 1979, two American
researchers, Nancy Wertheimer and Ed Leeper,
published the first major Western study linking
EMFs from power lines and domestic-wiring
configurations to an increase in childhood
cancer (Am J Epidemiol, 1979; 109: 273–84).
Since then, the evidence has got stronger so
that, today, given the recent Swedish results in
particular, the National Grid can no longer
dismiss it, and is being forced to defend itself
against a barrage of enquiries from the public
and the press, and even threats of legal action.
There are now some 12 studies of residential
exposure to EMFs, of which nine show an
elevated risk of childhood cancer. The three
studies that do not have been criticised for the
way they were put together.
Teslas are a measure of the density of
magnetic fields. An average household level is
70 nanoteslas (nT = one-thousandth of one-
millionth of a Tesla); the level beneath power
lines can rise to over 1000 nT.
On average, the positive studies found a
significant increased risk at 200–300 nT
whereas the UK’s National Radiological
Protection Board (NRPB) will only begin to
investigate at a level of 1600 microtesla (mT =
one-millionth of a Tesla)—a difference of 5400
to 8000 times.
In the US, the situation is very different.
Many researchers advocate a general policy of
‘prudent avoidance’, recommending a number
of safety measures to avoid excessive exposure.
At least 10 states have requirements on the level
of EMFs allowed in houses built near power
lines. There is also considerable litigation over
health-hazard claims from residential and
occupational exposures.
Electric and magnetic fields surround all
electrical conductors, including power lines,
appliances and the wiring in your house. EMFs
comprise both electrical and magnetic fields.
Electrical fields are determined by voltage, and
range from 240 volts in homes to as much as
In the US, the situation is very
different. Many researchers
advocate a general policy of
‘prudent avoidance’,
recommending a number of
safety measures to avoid
excessive exposures
400,000 volts in main power lines. They are
generally highest around high-voltage trans-
mission lines. Their fields are similar to the static
electricity you feel when you get a small shock
while walking across a new carpet. Unless you
live near a power line, this isn’t a major
problem, since such fields can be shielded
against by trees and walls.
Magnetic fields, on the other hand, are
generated by the electrical current whenever
you use electricity. They are more worrisome
because they can travel through walls and can’t
be shielded against, except by lead shielding,
or a careful design of wiring and electrical
equipment.
The crux of the argument over what levels of
EMFs constitute a hazard concerns the
difference between thermal and non-thermal
effects, and the perception of their harm.
All electrical fields generate the same type of
energy as ordinary sunlight.
Thermal effects refer to those that occur
when tissue is heated to the specific level at
which damage takes place by a given frequency
at a given intensity. This is how a microwave
cooks food.
Non-thermal effects are those that occur
below—in many cases, well below—the level at
which tissue-heating occurs. Many scientific
papers have shown that non-thermal effects do
arise, a conclusion also accepted by the NRPB
and other orthodox scientists. Where the
Electro-Pollution 7
 disagreement lies is over the question of the
level at which these effects become harmful.
Here, independent researchers and other
concerned parties are at loggerheads with the
NRPB, which still does not accept the
implications of the majority of residential
results indicating an at-risk level of 200–300
nT for childhood cancer. The NRPB is the
appointed body charged with advising the UK
Government and other bodies, including the
National Grid and the Health & Safety
Executive. Yet, it continues to base any exposure
guidance on a level relating to thermal or other
known levels of damage.
In September 1992, Drs Maria Feychting and
Anders Ahlbom, of the Institute of Environ-
mental Medicine at the Karolinska Institute in
Stockholm, announced the results of a large-
scale epidemiological study that found that
children exposed to average domestic EMFs of
300 nT or more had almost four times the
rate of leukaemia than expected (Am J Epidemiol,
1993; 138: 467–81).
The subjects were the 500,000 people who
had lived within 300 metres of the country’s
network of 220 and 400 kV (kilovolt) power
lines between 1960 and 1985, including 142
children who had developed cancer.
Probably one of the soundest studies to date
in terms of methodology, this study established
for the first time a clear dose–response
correlation between levels of magnetic field
exposure and increased incidence of leukaemia.
Children exposed to above 100 nT of EMFs had
two times, those exposed to above 200 nT
The case of Simon Studholme
Simon Studholme died in June 1992, aged 13, of acute
lymphoblastic leukaemia, which his parents allege was caused
by the high levels of EMFs in his bedroom at their home near
Bolton, Lancashire. They are suing the local power company,
NORWEB, which denies any liability.
EMF consultant Roger Coghill measured the average
magnetic fields in Simon’s bedroom continually over three-and-
a-half days in February 1993 as 1200 nT—four times the level at
which Feychting and Ahlbom observed a fourfold increase in
childhood leukaemia.
Simon is estimated to have spent some 6000 hours in his
bedroom. Spot measurements in his room were even higher,
with a reading of 3900 nT recorded on the bedroom wall nearest
the electricity meter.
Such observations emphasise the importance of assessing the
contribution of sources other than just power lines. In the
Studholmes’ case, there was both an electricity meter and an
alarm system on the other side of the bedroom wall, against
which the head of the bed was placed, as well as a power
substation next door. “This means that it is not just the large
overhead pylons that may cause us problems,” says Alasdair
Philips, another EMF consultant.
8 Electro-Pollution
nearly three times and those exposed to over
300 nT nearly four times the incidence of
leukaemia over those exposed to less than 100
nT. Similar results were obtained when exposure
was defined by proximity to power lines.
Such was the impact of this and another
study released at the same time, which also
found a strong link with brain tumours in men
occupationally exposed to EMFs (Cancer Causes
Control, 1993; 4: 465–76), that Sweden’s National
Board for Industrial and Technical Development
(NUTEK) formally announced that, henceforth,
it “would act on the assumption that there is a
connection between exposure to power
frequency magnetic fields and cancer, in
particular, childhood cancer.”
In addition, NUTEK has advocated a
moratorium on erecting power lines that create
fields of 200 nT near houses and school
buildings until further guidance, currently
being drafted, appears.
Indeed, even Professor Richard Doll, who now
chairs the NRPB’s Advisory Group on Non-
Ionising Radiation, has admitted that the
Swedish study is significantly better controlled
and designed than previous ones and, thus, has
increased the pressure on his group to carry out
equally well-controlled studies of its own.
This is now about to be attempted in the
form of a five-year, £5m study by the UK
Coordinating Committee for Cancer Research
(UKCCCR), chaired by Professor Doll, and
funded by several medical charities as well as
the electrical and nuclear industries. However,
although EMFs are one of the factors
researchers will be considering, there is concern
by some independent researchers that certain
specific factors may not be measured.
Roger Coghill, who runs one of the UK’s few
independent consultancies on EMFs in
Pontypool, Wales, has argued that, although the
magnetic field has been the main consideration
in EMF-exposure studies thus far, electrical fields
may, in fact, be the more significant factor. At
present, these fields have not been incorporated
into the UKCCCR study protocol.
The Feychting and Ahlbom study corrob-
orates previous research by Dr John Peters, in
the US, who found a significant link between
wiring configurations in the home and
childhood leukaemia (Am J Epidemiol, 1991; 134:
923–7).
Dr David Savitz has also observed a two- to
threefold increased risk in homes where the
estimated magnetic fields exceeded 250–300
nT (Am J Epidemiol, 1988; 128: 21–38).
This cut-off level of increased risk has
generally been supported by other studies as
well.
Pooling the results of three Scandinavian
studies, including the recent Swedish one,
Ahlbom and colleagues showed a consistent
 Protecting yourself
With so many possible sources of man-made
EMFs—both inside and outside of the home—to
which no generation of humans before us has ever
been exposed, the best course of action is ‘prudent
avoidance’—that is, observing a few safety
measures to avoid excessive exposure.
◆ Increase your intake of antioxidants. Professor
Gerald Scott, of Aston University and a world
authority on free radicals, has argued in the
Yorkshire Enquiry (EMN & VDU News, 1992; 3: 6–8)
that power-line EMFs increase free radicals in the
body. Other research has shown that EMFs can
also reduce the pineal gland’s production of
melatonin, another powerful antioxidant, thus
helping cancers to develop.
Free radicals are highly reactive molecules
produced in the body that, if not controlled, can
lead to the development of various illnesses,
including cancer. These damaging molecules are
scavenged by antioxidants such as vitamins A, C
and E.
So, eating lots of fresh green vegetables and
fruit will help the body fight any harmful
increase in free radicals caused by EMFs.
Vitamin/mineral supplements may also be useful,
although megadoses should not be taken without
first consulting an experienced, qualified
nutritional therapist.
◆ Measure EMFs in your home, especially in the
bedrooms, as this is where most of the time at
home is spent. You can have your home
independently monitored, or do it yourself by
hiring or buying a magnetometer (see Chapter
10).
Your local power company may offer to do the
testing, but will only do so on a weekday and
won’t leave its dataloggers or instruments in
place throughout the night. Yet, this is a critically
important time to monitor EMFs because the use
of cheaper electricity after midnight, especially
in rural areas, can cause magnetic fields in
bedrooms to rise by as much as three times from
just after midnight till the early hours of the
morning, as Alasdair Philips has shown (EMN &
VDU News, 1992; 3: 6–11). This can occur even if power
is not being used by the household itself, but is
being consumed by other houses on the same
circuit to the local substation. This fact alone
renders the few spot-measurements made during
the day unrepresentative and inadequate.
Power companies have also been known to
divert current to other circuits before taking a
daily reading, thus measuring levels that are
lower than they really are.
◆ Reposition your furniture to minimise
exposure. Based on such an EMF survey, you can
then move your furniture about and, where
possible, the EMF sources themselves. Magnetic
fields can penetrate almost anything and are
difficult to shield against, unlike electric fields,
which can be blocked by walls and trees. Thus,
you should avoid placing beds or chairs near
major domestic sources of EMFs such as
electricity meters or TV sets.
As a rule of thumb, allow a distance of at least
six to eight feet from such sources, especially for
beds. Research also indicates that it is advisable
to position bedside radio–alarm clocks, whether
electric or battery-driven, at least two feet from
your head. Electric blankets should be switched
off before going to sleep. And don’t plug in
adapters or battery packs for tape recorders or
computers near your bed.
◆ Consider moving. If a significant amount of the
fields in your home are shown to originate
from a nearby overhead power line, there is little
you can do except move. If the EMFs are very
high, the local power company may be prevailed
upon to help reduce them, given the amount of
negative publicity they are receiving over this
issue.
If you do live near electricity-generating
sources, make sure your children sleep in the
furthest room in the house from it. Make sure
that no power line runs directly under your
property.

doubling of childhood leukaemia risk (Lancet,
1993; 342: 1295–6). Nevertheless, according to Dr
Leonard Sagan, of the Electric Power Research
Institute in Palo Alto, California, the earlier
studies—including that of Savitz—caused
confusion among researchers because they
showed an association between the power load
of overhead lines and distance from the home,
but not with power levels measured inside the
homes of the children who developed
leukaemia (JAMA, 1992; 268: 625–9). This was the
main reason that researchers rejected the
earlier data.
Gerald Draper, director of the UK’s
Childhood Cancer Research Group, spoke for
the orthodox view when he argued that the
“lack of consistency” among published studies
and the absence of an “accepted biological
explanation for such a relation” means that no
causal relationship has been established
although, given the findings of the Swedish
study, it could no longer be dismissed (BMJ,
1993; 307: 884–5).
A further dimension to the whole power
lines/EMF issue is that childhood leukaemia is
but one of the possible health hazards

Electro-Pollution 9
 A further dimension to the whole power lines/EMF issue
is that childhood leukaemia is but one of the possible
health hazards identified, albeit the most researched.
Other studies have found links with depression, heart
attack and suicide, as well as minor problems such as
headaches, insomnia and irritability
identified, albeit the most researched. Other
studies have found links with depression, heart
attack and suicide, as well as minor problems
such as headaches, insomnia and irritability.
As in the past, the UK continues to take a
conservative view. Until recently, Michael
Heseltine, the UK Secretary for Trade and
Industry, was sitting on a report by the
inspectors of the Yorkshire Powerline Enquiry—
the largest public enquiry ever held in the
UK—since November of last year.
The enquiry concerns the proposed route of
a 50-mile 400,000 power line from Enron
power station in North Yorkshire, and was
10 Electro-Pollution
carried out between May and September of
1992. The report, which has finally been released,
has given the power line the go-ahead, but not
only if the landowners agree—which could lead
to another Judicial Review.
Dr Sagan believes that the most important
research on EMFs must attempt to isolate what
kind of exposure causes damage.
“We must understand . . . whether there is
a threshold level of exposure (dose) that must
be surpassed to produce effects, or whether
there are ‘windows of exposure’ of intensity or
frequency, within which EMFs may cause an
effect,” he says.
Wired for cancer
T
here is no doubt that electromagnetic
radiation can cause damage. And
mounting evidence shows that it can
cause a number of different types of cancer.
Studies into the effects of radiation suggest
an increased susceptibility in those exposed
during childhood. Among survivors of the
atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
Japan, susceptibility to leukaemia was greater
for those who were under 20 when exposed
compared with those who were older. More-
over, the type of leukaemia varied according
to the age at exposure (Environ Health Perspect,
1995; 103 [Suppl 6]: 41–4).
Evidence is also accumulating to show that
living near even relatively low levels of
electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation from
mains electricity or powerlines can significantly
raise a child’s chances of developing leukaemia.
In 1979, the first major study linking such EMFs
to childhood cancer was published (Am J
Epidemiol, 1979; 109: 273–84). Other studies
followed, including a Swedish study of some
half-a-million people showing that children
exposed to varying levels of household EMFs
had up to a fourfold greater risk of developing
leukaemia (Am J Epidemiol, 1993; 138: 467–81).
Others have also confirmed the EMF–cancer
link (Eur J Cancer, 1995; 31A: 2035–9; Lancet, 1993;
342: 1295–6; Am J Epidemiol, 1991; 134: 923–7; Am J
Epidemiol, 1988; 128: 21–38). A review in 1997
called for the pooling of information before
more studies are carried out since there now
appears to be support for the idea that
childhood leukemia may be linked to
electromagnetic fields (Scand J Work Environ Health,
1997; 23: 5–14).
Most recently, however, back-to-back UK
studies on electrical powerlines and cancer
reached mixed conclusions. One, by Professor
Denis Henshaw of Bristol University’s Human
Radiation Effects Group, took 2000 field
measurements and found that the toxic effects
of EMFs could extend up to more than 100
yards (91 metres) on either side of power lines.
He also suggested how EMFs could cause
cancer. According to Henshaw, living near
power lines with radiation levels dozens of times
over the legal limit may indirectly cause cancer
by increasing the concentration of carcinogenic
airborne particles that are produced naturally
in the soil and by local traffic pollution (Int J
Radiat Biol, 1999; 75: 1505–21). This conclusion
supports earlier research showing potentially
toxic interactions between alternating EMFs
surrounding powerlines and radioactive
breakdown products of naturally occurring
radon gas (Int J Radiat Biol, 1996; 69: 25–38).
Most recently, however, back-to-
back UK studies on electrical
powerlines and cancer reached
mixed conclusions. One, by
Professor Denis Henshaw of Bristol
University’s Human Radiation
Effects Group, took 2000 field
measurements and found that the
toxic effects of EMFs could extend
up to more than 100 yards
(91 metres) on either side of power
However, the UK Childhood Cancer Study
—an 18-year study of EMFs involving 2226
cancer-stricken children matched with healthy
children—did not support a link between EMF
exposure and childhood cancer (Lancet, 1999;
354: 1925–31).
Nevertheless, the authors noted that the
study design may have been flawed (an
admission omitted from most of the media
reporting). A non-relevant criterion was used,
and only 2.3 per cent of the studied children
fell into the higher-exposure category. Exposure
was also not comparable to studies in other
countries, such as North America, where the
voltage is different and rates of high exposure
are greater. Another study done in New
Zealand (Lancet, 1999; 354: 1967–8) also proved
inconclusive, but had the same design flaws as
the UKCCS.
Overall, we know pitifully little about the
role of environmental carcinogens in childhood
cancer (Environ Health Perspect, 1998; 106 [Suppl 3]:
875–80). When studies have been carried out,
scientists have tended to hedge their bets by
concluding that the effects on the general
population are likely to be small. But add up all
these small effects, and there may be a strong
case for an environmental cause for some
childhood cancers.
A number of studies have now established a
link between childhood cancer and exposure to
electromagnetic radiation (Am J Epidemiol, 1979;
109: 273–84; Lancet, 1990; 335: 1008–12).
Electro-Pollution 11
 Wired during pregnancy
Childhood leukaemia may even be caused by
the mother’s exposure to electromagnetic fields
while pregnant. Indeed, scientists are beginning
to suspect that prolonged exposure to
background EMFs, produced by electrical
objects, could be to blame.
Researchers at McGill University in
Montreal, Canada, had suspected organic dust
and synthetic fibres as the cause of the higher-
than-average incidents of leukaemia in children
born to a group of mothers in Spain.
But more recent research revealed that home
sewing machines seemed to generate very high-
level EMFs. Measured in microteslas, a sewing-
machine operator is exposed to 6.47 mT
(microteslas) over six hours, compared with
electricity power-line and cable workers, whose
exposures measure in at just 2.36 mT.
The McGill University researchers decided to
reexamine their findings, and discovered that
many of the mothers they studied worked on
sewing machines. They also found that these
women’s risk was 5.78 times greater than
average of having a child who developed
leukaemia (Lancet, 1995; 346: 177).
But adults are at risk, too. Overhead power
lines can concentrate pollutants in the air,
raising the risk of cancers of the lungs and skin
(Am J Epidemiol, 1996; 143: 841; Int J Radiat Biol, 1999;
75: 1505–21, 1523–31).
Household power linked to cancer
A leaked report from the US National Council on Radiation
Protection revealed that electrical household gadgets such as
vacuum cleaners, ovens and food mixers can cause cancer.
The report, prepared for the US Government’s radiation
advisers, recommends safety limits for exposure to electro-
magnetic fields.
The NCRP says that EMF exposure should never be higher
than 0.2 mT (microteslas). If introduced, this would mean that
most household gadgets would be considered unsafe: vacuum
cleaners and drills, for example, have a range of 2–20 mT, food
mixers 0.6–10 mT, hairdryers 0.01–7 mT, dishwashers 0.6–3 mT,
washing machines 0.15–3 mT and electric ovens 0.15–0.5 mT.
Without these appliances on, general household levels of
EMFs are considered safe, unless the home is within 25 metres
or less of a power line. If it is, a 400 kV line 25 metres from
the home will increase general EMF levels to 8 mT.
Swedish authorities are already proposing that new schools
for children should not have exposure levels of more than
0.2 mT (New Scientist, 1995; Oct 7: 4).
Airline stewardesses are 15 times more likely to develop
bone cancer, and twice as likely to get breast cancer than
average, research from Finland has revealed.
The Finnish Cancer Registry concludes that air hostesses’
high exposure to cosmic radiation is probably the cause of the
increased risk. Cancer cases tended to emerge after 15 years of
employment (BMJ, 1995; 311: 649–52).
12 Electro-Pollution
Professor Denis Henshaw, of Bristol
University’s Human Radiation Effects Group,
took 2000 field measurements and found that
the toxic effects of EMFs could extend up to
more than 100 yards (91 metres) on either side
of power lines. He also proposed a theory as
to how EMFs could cause cancer (see above).
Also, the government recently (March 2003)
extended its £7.4m initiative to investigate
the possible health hazards of cell-phone
technology to include the base stations as
well, following the publication of a report by
the Independent Expert Group on Mobile
Phones, part of a project called the Link Mobile
Telecommunications and Health Research
Programme (MTHR), set up to look into the
possible impact of mobile telecommunications
on health.
This initiative includes an epidemiological
study of early childhood leukaemias and other
cancers near to mobile-phone base stations. As
far as we know, this is the first programme of
such research into this area of concern.
Breast cancer risk
The first link between female breast cancer and
exposure to electromagnetic fields ironically
began with studies of breast cancer in men, an
extremely rare disease (Lancet, 1991; 337: 737).
Then, in 1989, Dr Genevieve Matanoski and
colleagues at the Johns Hopkins School of
Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland, found
that there was significantly more than the
expected cases of breast cancer among New
York State telephone technicians (scientific poster
presented at a contractors review meeting, Portland, OR,
15 November 1989).
This was followed by studies showing that
telephone linesmen, electricians and electrical-
power workers all suffer from an increased
breast cancer risk (Am J Epidemiol, 1991; 134: 340–7,
Lancet, 1990; 336: 1596, Lancet, 1992; 339: 1482–3).
In 1992, the first connection was made
between EMF exposure and female breast
cancer. Dr Dana Loomis of the University of
North Carolina observed a 40 per cent
increased mortality from the disease in female
electrical workers, twice the number of deaths
expected in women between ages 45 and 54 (J
Natl Cancer Inst, 1994; 86: 921–5).
Normal background magnetic fields in most
households vary between 60–120 nT, but can be
considerably higher in occupational settings.
Some 10 studies have now found an increased
risk of childhood leukaemia in households with
EMFs as low as 200–300 nT.
But the study that has prompted the most
interest is the recent follow-up of the work done
by Wolfgang Löscher and colleagues in
Hannover, Germany (Cancer Lett, 1993; 71: 75–81),
which has now confirmed a relationship
between the strength of a magnetic field and
 Why are children so susceptible?
Statistics show that, after accidents, childhood cancer
is the second-biggest killer of children in the US (Am
Fam Physician, 2000; 61: 2144–54). Government figures
suggest the same is true in the UK (National Statistics.
Mortality Statistics: Childhood, Infant and Perinatal. London: HMSO,
1999).
Just like adults, children can be prone to cancer at
any site in the body. Nevertheless, two sites—bone
and brain—are now particularly common. Figures
show that acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) rates
have risen 10 per cent in the last 15 years, while the
incidence of tumours of the central nervous system are
up more than 30 per cent.
Children are many times more vulnerable to the
effects of toxic insults than adults, and their response
to toxic exposures can also differ markedly. A good
example is the paradoxical response to phenobarbital
and Ritalin seen in children compared with adults.
Phenobarbital, a sedative in adults, produces
hyperactivity in children. On the other hand, Ritalin,
used as an antihyperactive drug in children, has the
opposite effect in adults.
the likelihood of developing breast cancer in
rats treated with a chemical carcinogen
(Carcinogenesis, 1995; 16: 119-25). The higher the
magnetic field, the more likely the rats were to
get cancer.
These results have so impressed other
scientists that various research groups are
now attempting to replicate them. The US
Department of Energy has even agreed to
sponsor Löscher’s work directly, one of the few
times it has funded EMF research outside of
the US.
Despite this amount of research, the UK has
no studies underway or even any plans to
study the EMF–breast cancer connection. It
also doesn’t appear to have any intention of
revising its guidance for the upper limit of
exposure to 50–60 Hz magnetic fields, which is
currently 1,600,000 nT—8000 times the level
at which an increased risk of childhood cancer
has been found in a number of studies.
One clue as to the precise mechanism by
which EMFs can trigger cancer came from
Löscher’s rats. When exposed to 10,000 nT,
the rats’ nighttime blood melatonin levels de-
creased by a third.
Melatonin is produced by the pineal gland,
the body’s master control gland, and is ex-
tremely sensitive to magnetic fields. It’s also a
powerful antioxidant that scavenges excess free
radicals in the body that, if allowed to build up,
can damage DNA and increase cancer risk.
A growing number of researchers, led by Dr
Russel Reiter, at the University of Texas Health
Science Center in San Antonio, believe that the
There are many reasons for this paradoxical
response. Differences in the developing infant and
child affect the absorption, dose, distribution,
metabolism, storage and excretion of chemicals or
drugs in the body and, therefore, their toxicity (Robert
RJ, in Guzelian PS et al. (eds). Similarities and Differences Between
Children and Adults. Washington, DC: ILSI Press, 1992; 11–5).
The efficiency and availability of metabolic enzymes
varies with age (Environ Health Perspect, 1995; 103 [Suppl 6]:
7–12), which can result in differences in sensitivity to
the toxic effects of both drugs and environmental
toxins.
But perhaps the most influential characteristic of
infants and children is that they are still growing and
developing. During childhood, different systems and
organs develop at different rates and at different
times. Growing tissue may be more sensitive to toxic
insults than other tissue. Studies of exposure to
cigarette smoke have shown that the risk of dying
of breast cancer is greater for those who started
smoking before age 16 than for those who started
after age 20 (Am J Epidemiol, 1994; 139: 1001–7).
suppression of melatonin production is the
most important likely link between EMFs and
all cancers (J Pineal Res, 1995; 18: 1–11).
At the 1994 annual meeting of the
Bioelectromagnetics Society, Robert Liburdy,
from the University of California’s Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratories, reported on his
observation that, when cultured human breast-
cancer cells were exposed to magnetic fields of
between 600–1200 nT, the anti-cancer action of
melatonin was suppressed, thereby allowing
cancer cells to multiply (J Pineal Res, 1993; 14:
89–97).
Recently, a leaked draft report of EMF
exposure guidelines for extremely-low-
frequency (ELF) electrical and magnetic fields
from the US National Council on Radiation
Protection (see box page 12) tacitly acknowl-
How to minimise EMF exposure
In the light of this mounting evidence, everyone—but especially
women—should reduce their exposure to EMFs, both at work
and in the home. Sit at least four feet from the sides and rear of
VDUs (where the highest fields are emitted).
In the home, the major source of greater exposure is usually
where you sleep. If you already have breast cancer, you might be
well advised to check magnetic field levels in your bedroom
overnight (see Chapter 10 for products for doing this).
Ensure that your diet is high in antioxidants and supplement
with the antioxidant nutrients vitamins A, C and E, beta-
carotene and selenium
Electro-Pollution 13
 Disturbance of the normal
diurnal melatonin rhythm is
associated with altered estrogen
receptor formation in the
breast, a line of experimental
evidence now
under study for possible links
between ELF field exposure
and human breast cancer
14 Electro-Pollution
edged the danger: “Disturbance of the normal
diurnal melatonin rhythm is associated with
altered estrogen receptor formation in the
breast, a line of experimental evidence now
under study for possible links between ELF field
exposure and human breast cancer. Further,
melatonin has general properties as a free
radical scavenger, with the possibility of a
preventive role in oxidative stress, recognized as
a basic factor in a broad spectrum of human
degenerative disorders, including coronary
artery disease, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s
diseases, and aging.”
Mobile phones
T
he latest news about mobile phones is
not good. In 2004, a 750-people study
carried out by Sweden’s Karolinska
Institute suggested that using a mobile phone
for 10 years or more increases the risk of ear
tumours. Dutch evidence suggests that mobile-
phone use can affect brain function, and other
European research indicates that radiation from
these phones can cause DNA damage. The latest
report from the UK’s National Radiological
Protection Board (NRPB) is that children should
not use mobile phones because of the health
risks involved.
After years of putting its head in the sand,
the British government has finally publicised its
own concern over the possible health risks of
mobile phones.
Chastened by the mad-cow disease debacle,
the government, following the Stewart Report—
by the Independent Expert Group on Mobile
Phones (IEGMP), chaired by Sir William Stewart,
set up in 1999 and reported in May 2000— has
also advised that children should restrict their
use of mobiles to only brief communications
and emergency calls until more is known as to
the possible health hazards. The industry has
also been warned not to specifically target
children in their campaigns.
However unrealistic this hope, it does at least
show that the government is taking the health
issue seriously.
Colin Blakemore, a co-author of the report,
believes that the lack of data so far does not put
mobile phones in the clear: “RF [radio-
frequency] radiation below guideline thresholds
has a demonstrable effect on cells and tissues
and this suggests that a precautionary approach
is warranted.” He believes that the lack of
conclusive evidence on harm caused by mobile
phones should not be taken as a declaration of
their safety, and has called for more research.
Children have smaller brains, which are still
developing, and their skullbones are thinner,
putting them at greater risk when using mobile
phones. For this reason, says Blakemore, “. . . we
wanted to give a clear message to the industry
that they should not continue to market mobile
phones specifically to young children until
more research is done” (Lancet, 2000; 355: 1793).
How a mobile phone works
The UK’s acknowledged electro-pollution and
magnetic-therapy guru is Roger Coghill,
founder of Coghill Research Laboratories
(www.cogreslab.co.uk), whose family coat-of-
arms motto is: ‘Non dormit qui custodit’ (roughly
translated as ‘No peace for the guy looking
after the place’)—which seems rather
“RF [radio-frequency] radiation below
guideline thresholds has a
demonstrable effect on cells and
tissues and this suggests that a
precautionary approach is warranted.”
appropriate. He claims that all mobile phones
should carry a label, warning of possible ill
effects on health.
“The difference between electromagnetic
fields [EMFs] and electromagnetic radiation is
that, with the field, the energy doesn’t actually
leave the source whereas, with radiation, the
energy forms a closed loop that leaves the
source entirely. That’s the basic difference,” he
says, “so that radio frequencies (radiation)
completely escape the transmitting antenna.
“But the thing is that these antennae don’t
only emit radio frequencies, they emit a cocktail
of frequencies which include very long (or
extra-low) frequencies [ELFs],” he adds. “These
are the components in the signal so, in that
case, a radio mast of the kind used in cellphone
telephony comprises both a field and a signal.
Both of these are imposed upon anyone within
a kilometre or two (in the case of radio
frequencies) or hundreds, if not thousands, of
kilometres (with ELF fields).”
The Missouri-based American EMF guru Roy
Beavis (http:/emfguru.org) says the difference
between the EMF of power lines, and the
electromagnetic radiation of cell phones and
their towers, is a difference of frequency (wave
length). But does that ‘difference’ introduce any
significant health risks? “We don’t know for
sure,” he says. “Perhaps—and, if so, it seems
likely to be as a matter of degree mainly.
They both have the same physical or radiation
Electro-Pollution 15
 characteristics. There has been more study of
power-line exposures than of cellphone towers,
though I regard the present evidence as
sufficiently convincing in the case of cellphones
per se (the sets we hold in our hands to our
ears). I am not so sure about the risk from the
much weaker signals we get from the towers.
Much more study is needed on the tower
exposures.”
Radiowaves, microwaves, visible light and X-
rays are all examples of electromagnetic waves
produced by the motion of electrically charged
particles. These waves are also called
‘electromagnetic radiation’ because they radiate
out from electrically charged particles. They
travel through empty space as well as through
air and other substances.
The carrier frequencies used by ‘digital’
(as opposed to the older ‘analogue’) mobile
phones are 900 and 1800 megahertz (1 MHz =
1 million cycles per second) for the GSM
(global system mobile) used by Vodafone and
Cellnet, and 1800 MHz for the PCN (personal
communication network) system used by
Orange and One2One. (It is not possible to
use the PCN on a mobile based on GSM or
vice versa, but there are dual-band phones that
can work with both systems.)
The peak power output from a mobile is two
watts, which is the power level at which it
connects to the system when you make a call.
After this, it will usually ‘power down’ by a
factor of up to 500, depending on how good
the reception is in your area.
The basic carrier frequency of the phone is
pulsed in bursts at 217 Hz, which is involved in
transmitting the speaking voice. Thus, the main
frequency ‘carries’ another signal—in this case,
at 217 Hz—which delivers a regular, low-
Reducing your mobile exposure
When you dial a number, wait until it has connected before
putting the mobile phone to your head. While it is searching for
a base station to contact, the phone is operating at its maximum
strength of 2 watts.
Only when it has connected does it ‘power down’ to about a
hundredth (0.02 W) of this level. By holding the phone away
from the head for the four or five seconds before it connects,
you can avoid taking a four- to five-second 2 W ‘hit’ to your
brain each time you make a call, multiplied by possibly as many
as 10 hits a day.
If you are in a good-reception area, the phone should
automatically power down. However, in a bad area, it will stay
at its near-maximum strength of 2 W. So, when calling (or
receiving) in a bad-reception area, keep the call as short as
possible.
Finally, consider getting a shield or remote earpiece to cut
radiation. Remember: you are talking about a lifetime’s
cumulative exposure (see Chapter 11 for protection devices).
16 Electro-Pollution
frequency pulse into the brain. There are
further subtle, harmonic pulses at 2, 4 and 8 Hz,
as well as high electromagnetic field pulses from
the phone’s battery to which the phone user is
exposed.
It is these as well as other parameters of the
signal that are causing concern, and which are
not taken into account in the current guidance
advice—based solely on the signal’s capacity to
heat tissue—coming from the UK’s National
Radiological Protection Board (NRPB).
Current NRPB and international guidance
is based on the peak SAR (specific absorption
rate), which is a measure of how much radia-
tion is absorbed per gramme (g) of tissue over
a given time. The NRPB focuses solely on pre-
venting temperature rises exceeding 1 degree
Celsius, and bases its guidance on keeping any
heating to less than 10 watts per kilogram (W/
kg) in any 10 g of tissue, averaged over six
minutes.
By contrast, the International Committee
on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)
recommends a heat level of 2 W/kg—which is
five times lower (the US uses 1.6 W/kg, but in
1 g of tissue). The Stewart Report has recom-
mended that the UK should fall in line with
the rest of Europe and adopt the ICNIRP
levels instead of the current NRPB guidelines.
Although this is a step in the right direction,
it is clearly an embarrassment for the NRPB.
However, the whole basis of using peak SAR
as a reliable measure of exposure, given the
complexities of the signal, has been called into
question. A special seminar was held at the
House of Commons in June 1999, involving
speakers from overseas as well as the NRPB’s
Professor Sir Richard Doll, and attended by MPs
and pressure groups. Professor Michael Kundi,
of the Institute of Environmental Health at the
University of Vienna, presented five basic
assumptions in using a peak SAR for mobile
phones that can be scientifically challenged (EM
Hazard Ther, 1999; 10 [no 2–3]: 3).
Although a standard protocol is being
developed to enable emissions from different
mobiles to be compared, and eventually made
available to the public and printed on
packaging, there are considerable reservations
about using peak SARs as an indication of
mobile-phone safety.
SAR levels can vary, depending on the angle
at which the phone is held. The head acts as an
inductive coupler and can absorb as much as
80 per cent of the radiation from the phone
(some Russian studies claim even more).
At present, manufacturers vary in where
they measure SAR. For example, the Motorola
StarTac states a deceptively low SAR, which is
measured at the ear. However, its total SAR,
when measured at the face of the phone by the
cheek, is actually higher than some other
phones with high peak SARs that emit most of
their radiation from antennas. In the case of the
StarTac, the field that would normally be high
at the aerial has been routed away from the ear
to emerge lower down the phone.
Remote earpieces
Recent concerns about mobile-phone hazards
have not been helped by the confusion
generated by the set of tests reported by Which?
magazine recently. This consumers-watchdog
magazine reported that its tests had shown that
remote earpieces trebled the amount of
radiation entering the head. However, the
claimed results were strongly criticised and
could not be replicated, not even by Con-
sumer’s Association groups overseas. Others,
including the Department of Trade and
Industry, had found that hands-free kits
considerably reduced radiation into the head.
Publication of a second set of results by
Which? showed that the tripling effect only
occurred when the extension wire to the
earpiece ran up the side of the phone past the
aerial on its way to the ear. When the wire
avoided the aerial, the radiation levels dropped
by up to 97 per cent.
What the magazine should have done is put
its earlier findings in context rather than scare
people unnecessarily. Most people would realise
that if you run a wire past an aerial, you will
pick up and transfer a signal and its associated
radiation. Manufacturers should perhaps
include basic instructions on how to use a
hands-free kit, but Which? caused much
unnecessary confusion. Certainly, they were not
justified in denigrating two other protective
devices, one of which—Microshield—is now
taking legal action against them for their
comments.
DECT
People are increasingly asking whether cordless
phones pose as much risk as mobiles. The
answer depends on which type of cordless you
use. The recent new digital cordless phones have
produced many complaints of headache,
earache, extreme fatigue, and concentration and
memory losses compared with only a few
adverse complaints from users of the older
analogue cordless phones.
Unlike analogue phones, which operate at a
lower frequency and do not pulse, a DECT
(digital European cordless telephone) emits
pulses of microwave radiation very similar to
that of cellular phones. The frequency used is
around 1900 MHz, which lies between the PCN
cellular frequency band at 1800 MHz and
microwave-oven radiation at 2450 MHz.
The base unit of a DECT also emits pulses of
microwaves. So, if the phone is used close to its
main base unit, the caller is then exposed to two
Publication of a second
set of results by Which?
showed that the tripling
effect only occurred
when the extension
wire to the earpiece ran
up the side of the phone
past the aerial on its
way to the ear
separate doses of microwave radiation. The base
units also give off low-frequency EM fields and
should be located away from where you sit or
sleep. The main unit ideally should be in a
hallway or passageway. However, as EMFs and
microwaves can travel through walls, it is
advisable to take note of what pieces of
furniture are located on the other side of the
wall. This especially applies to beds and chairs.
Any other handset charger units should be
situated at least three feet from where you sit or
sleep. The main DECT base unit emits
microwaves every time the phone rings, but
these will cease when the call is picked up on a
telephone wired up in the usual way (via a
landline or cable). The base unit emits low-
frequency EMFs at all times when plugged into
the mains, even when the phone is not in use.
Cellular digital-mobile phone systems are
‘intelligent’ and, once the link is established, the
base unit directs the handset to turn down its
output to the lowest level adequate to maintain
the call. In city areas and near to base stations,
this can be as low as four milliwatts at peak
power, or half a milliwatt on average. This does
not happen with a DECT.
A DECT uses fixed pulses of 250 milliwatts
all the time. Their average power is only 11
milliwatts—but there are 100 bursts of 250
milliwatts of microwave pulses next to the user’s
head every second. Increasing numbers of
scientists now believe that we are talking about
electrical ‘brainstorms’ rather than heating
effects—the regular pulsing disrupts the brain’s
intercellular signalling system.
A DECT also emits low-frequency EMF
pulses into the side of the user’s head. These
are typically up to 3000 nT in strength. Two
recent large-scale meta-analyses of the best
studies of childhood leukaemia confirmed that
a significant increase in the incidence of the
Electro-Pollution 17
 disease was associated with low-frequency EMF
levels over 300 nT. Thus, the use of cordless
phones by children is clearly not to be
recommended.
How dangerous are mobiles?
The first report commissioned by the British
government, carried out by Dr Alan Preece at
Bristol University and released in 1999, exam-
ined the effects of mobile-phone radiation on
cognitive (mental) function. It proved to be
something of a damp squib.
This was mainly due to the pathetically
inadequate funding (£3000) from the Depart-
ment of Health (DoH), which only allowed
him to carry out two exposure tests of 25–30
minutes each, with two groups of 18 subjects.
Both groups were exposed to either a simulated
analogue or digital mobile-phone signal at
915 MHz, or no signal at all, and then tested
on 15 different cognitive tests.
The only significant finding, for both groups,
was a 4 per cent decrease in reaction time on a
choice-reaction test, which was more pro-
nounced for the analogue exposure than the
digital.
Different press reports interpreted this as
everything from a beneficial effect to a hazard.
In fact, the result may simply reflect the
effect of the very brief exposure time that might
disappear or reverse with prolonged exposure—
in the same way that alcohol in small doses
is a stimulant whereas, in large quantities, is a
depressant.
Despite previous media misreporting, Preece
did not observe any short-term memory loss
(Int J Radiat Biol, 1999; 75: 447–56).
The small number of subjects and the limited
exposure time are obvious flaws in the study,
so finding a statistically robust effect from
such findings is worrying, especially since it
could be an indication of a non-thermal effect,
a possibility that both the NRPB and mobile-
phone industry currently deny.
Preece suggests that his results might have
been produced by a heating effect, as the
temperature in the head has been estimated to
rise between 0.5–2 degrees C over 30 minutes
when exposed to a mobile phone.
But when blood flow through the head is
taken into account, a temperature rise is very
small indeed—ranging from 0.01–0.1 degree C.
The NRPB generally considers a thermal effect
to be one that raises the temperature by at
least 1 degree C.
However, taking into account the enhance-
ment effect of metals—specifically, amalgam
and other metal tooth-fillings, earrings and
eyeglasses (especially the metal-rimmed
variety)—the amount of radiation absorption
could be considerably increased, causing ‘hot
spots’ on the head easily above the NRPB’s
18 Electro-Pollution
thermal guidance. This is a possibility that
researchers have completely ignored to date.
Nevertheless, no useful conclusions can be
made from this DoH study mainly because Dr
Preece did not receive enough funding to use all
of the pulsing characteristics of a standard
digital phone.
The real story that was missed by the media,
and the key factor which Preece’s research and
that of others does not address, is this low-
frequency pulsing, which a growing number of
independent researchers believe is a major cause
of health problems.
Pulsing effects occur below the level of
heating, and are generally denied by the NRPB
and the mobile-phone industry. The non-
thermal effects produced by the low-frequency
pulsing is what many researchers believe is one
of the principle ways that mobile-phone
radiation can affect, for instance, brain function.
Based on previous research, notably Professor
Ross Adey’s findings in the US on magnetic
fields producing calcium ion influx in the brain,
this frequency might produce other cognitive
effects. In 1994, Professor Leif Salford at Sweden’s
prestigious Lund University, found changes in
the permeability of the blood brain barrier at
levels as low as 0.016 W/kg, which is well below
the level of heating (Microsc Res Tech, 1994; 27:
535–42).
Recent work by Adey’s long-time colleague,
Dr Carl Blackman, has also shown an effect of
magnetic fields on apoptosis (programmed cell
death).
More recently, the UK Ministry of Defence’s
Defence Evaluation Research Agency, led by Dr
J. Tattersall and located at Porton Down, the
secret military research base in Wiltshire, has
tested the effects of 700 MHz (the mobile-
phone frequency is 900 MHz) on rat hippo-
campus tissue in the lab. This is the part of the
brain responsible for learning and short-term
memory, and is also involved in epilepsy.
Exposing the tissue for 30 seconds at a time,
the researchers found that the evoked potential
rose at very-low frequencies and then dropped
immediately when the power was increased.
When the power was switched off, the tissue
recovered; when the power was switched on
again, the effect was repeated (presented at the
Institute of Electrical Engineers Science Meeting, 28 June
1999, London).
Research is also being funded by the DoH to
investigate the implications of this finding on
living animals, including humans, and is hoped
to be completed within a year.
Other recent research includes the largest-
ever study of some 11,000 analogue and digital
mobile phone users. Conducted by Swedish
scientist Dr Kjell-Hansson Mild of the National
Institute of Working Life in Sweden, the study
found, among other things, an increase in
 Research is not concentrating solely on the
hazards of EMR, but also on how to reduce
or prevent exposure. French scientists have
also found evidence of how a new antenna
protected chick embryos from mobile-
phone radiation
headaches, fatigue and sensations of facial
heating in users of either type of phone
(National Institute of Working Life, Umea, Sweden.
Arbetslivsrapport 23, 1998)
Research is not concentrating solely on the
hazards of EMR, but also on how to reduce
or prevent exposure. For example, French
scientists have found evidence of how a new
antenna protected chick embryos from mobile-
phone radiation.
Dr Madeleine Bastide and colleagues at
Montpellier University, France, exposed chicken
embryos to radiation from a mobile phone,
measured the ELF (0–300 Hz) and VLF (300
Hz–30 MHz) ranges, and observed that the
exposed group suffered a 72 per cent higher
death rate than the unexposed group (12 per
cent). The distribution of the dead embryos
was essentially around the source of the phone
radiation (Bioelectromagnetics, 1998; 18: 514–23).
The same researchers have also reported
depressed immune function in chickens from
VDU radiation.
The evidence that digital-mobile phones can
have serious health effects is becoming
overwhelming. One researcher’s case against a
Welsh mobile-phone distributor is ongoing and,
in the first British legal action of its kind, a
27-year-old British woman is taking a manu-
facturer to court, claiming that her brain
tumour was caused by radiation from her
mobile phone.
Phones and children
Children in the home are at particular risk from
EMFs. The government’s Stewart Report
highlighted public concerns and uncertainty
regarding the health effects of mobile
telephony, including base stations. Although
levels of RF (radio-frequency) radiation
associated with mobile-phone base stations were
thought to be low (and, in some cases,
indistinguishable from background radiation),
the Stewart Report noted that “the possibility of
harm from [base station] exposures insufficient
to cause important heating effects of tissues
cannot yet be ruled out with confidence.”
The Mobile Telecommunications and Health
Research (MTHR) Programme study will
determine whether or not childhood-cancer
cases occur more frequently near mobile-
phone base stations than would be expected
from the national distribution of births.
But this information on its own will not be
able to say whether any excess risk near mobile-
phone base stations is causally linked to base-
station emissions.
New Italian evidence
Italian researchers have come up with new
research that suggests that the phones could
cause leukaemia.
The research team, from the National Re-
search Council in Bologna, decided to inves-
tigate the potential link after previous studies
had indicated that leukaemia seemed to be
more prevalent among mobile-phone users
(although, as the entire population seems to
have a mobile these days, this may be less
compelling than it appears to be).
Paradoxically, the radiowaves killed off
leukaemia cells during the first 24 hours of
exposure but, after 48 hours, the process went
into reverse and the cells began replicating
dramatically.
Other experts, who point to the UK
government research that found that mobiles
represented no health risks, have contested the
findings. The only way cells could be affected is
if they are heated by radiowaves, and signals
from mobile phones are too weak to achieve
this, they argue.
But the head of the Italian research team,
Fiorenzo Marinelli, believes that radiowaves
could be affecting the DNA of cells which, in
turn, interferes with the cells’ biochemical
signals.
While the research provides some concerns
about cancer cells, the real question remaining
is the effect of mobile phones on healthy cells.
Electro-Pollution 19
Mobile-phone masts

O
nce an expensive novelty, mobile
phones are now considered a necessity.
The staggering fact is that more people
in the UK now own mobile phones than a
landline-connected telephone.
But a mobile phone only works if it’s
transmitted through radio signals beamed from
a phone mast. Each of the four main mobile-
phone companies in the UK has its own
antennae. So far, the four have installed about
40,000 antennae across the nation, with only
the remotest rural parts still without coverage.
Indeed, some communities have as many as 16
phone masts on one site.
This figure is set to double in the near future
with the advent of the third-generation (3G)
mobiles, offering video and Internet access as
well as voice transmissions. UK phone
companies recently paid the government £22.5
billion for the 3G system, so there are huge
commercial and political interests in not
rocking the boat of mobile technology. In
practice, this means that the UK government
and even the UK judiciary would prefer not to
put up legal obstacles to the erection of mobile
masts or admit to any possible health risks.
Indeed, in a recent test case, a British judge
overruled the objections of parents, the local
council, government planning inspectors and
even the office of the Deputy Prime Minister,
and cleared the way for an 81-foot 3G mast to
be erected near three Yorkshire schools. Now
under appeal, the decision—where the judge
claimed that all safety considerations had been
met—was seen to provide a clear path for
mobile-phone companies to erect phone masts
near schools. It is at variance with government
policy, which says that schools should have the
right to veto masts planned to be built near
their buildings.
The scientists who advise governments on
the safety of mobile-phone technology tend to
come from the nuclear and microwave
industries and, thus, have a particular view of
what constitutes a health risk. In Britain, the
government advisory body is the National
Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), and these
experts place mobile technology in the same
category as microwave dishes and radar.
The principal danger from microwaves and
radar has always been thought to be thermal—
in crude layman’s terms, can these forms of
‘non-ionising radiation’ cook people? But, as
the thermal radiation from mobile-phone
transmissions is considered too weak to break
chemical bonds or heat up tissue, the NRPB
gave an all-clear to the technology as soon as
it appeared in the 1980s. In this view, electro-
magnetic fields (EMFs) are just a kind of
external toxin and, in the case of mobiles and
masts, too little of one to have any effect.
However, a growing number of scientists are
now questioning officialdom’s complacency as
to the health risks associated with mobile
technology. Many of these critics are experts in
a field of science called ‘bioelectromagnetics’.

Is there a mast near you?

Mobile-mast radiation is everywhere. The source
may be obvious—such as on the sides of buildings—
but antennae are increasingly being hidden from
view.
To find out if you live near a source of radiation,
you can check out the mobile-phone companies’
antennae sites at www.sitefinder.radio.gov.uk (in
the US, www.emrnetwork.org/index.htm). If you
zoom in on your town, it will show you exactly
where the mobile-phone masts are, whose they are
and how powerful. However, some of these data
may be incorrect or out of date.
Instead, consider buying or renting a device that
either displays mobile-phone radiation in V/m or
translates it into an audible sound—COM Environ-
mental Microwave Monitors or AcoustiCOMs,
respectively. These are obtainable from Perspective
Scientific (100 Baker St, London W1U 6WB; tel:
020 7486 6837).
If you find significant levels of radiation in your
home, you don’t have to move house. Protect
yourself by installing a domestic version of a Faraday
cage—a metal structure that blocks all radiowaves.
A good one is a see-through copper-mesh ‘curtain’
that can be hung up like a mosquito net around
the bed (from Powerwatch, tel: 01353 778 919). A
cheaper alternative is to wallpaper your bedroom
with a layer of metal kitchen foil.
But perhaps the best move of all is the preemptive
strike. Get together with other members of your
community and your planning department, and
discuss where to put the masts so that they are
at a maximum distance from residents’ homes and
schools.
If no one is prepared to listen to reason, get
your entire community to put pressure on the council
and mobile-phone companies. No mast provider is
interested in adverse publicity. Many communities
have resorted to picketing or tearing the masts
down.

20 Electro-Pollution
 US biologist Dr Robert Becker, the late
French biologist Jacques Benveniste and
German physicist Fritz-Albert Popp are just a
few of the prestigious scientists who have
experimentally demonstrated that all living
things—humans, animals and plants—generate
EMFs and that EM signalling is the primary
means of communication between cells.
The new science of bioelectromagnetics has
clearly established that we are fundamentally
electromagnetic beings. In this view of the
human body, the fundamental nature of our
being is frequency, and exposure to external
frequencies from the entire transmission
infrastructure of, say, mobile-phone technology,
can cause us to pulse to the wrong beat.
Microcells and macrocells
The mobile phone-transmission system works in
separate side-by-side zones, each with its own
transmitter. The zones resemble body cells,
which is why, in the US, mobiles are called
‘cellphones’. Each cell has its own base station,
which both receives and transmits radiowaves.
However, a base station can only handle about
100 calls at the same time, so large cities may
have many cells per square mile whereas less-
populated, rural areas may have single cells
covering several square miles.
There are three types of mobile-phone
transmitters/ receivers. Base stations with
‘macrocell’ antennae have the biggest ranges—
up to 22 miles—and are usually attached to tall
masts or buildings. ‘Microcell’ and ‘picocell’
antennae have much shorter ranges—down to
as little as 100 yards—and are used to boost
coverage in towns and cities. These antennae are
difficult to spot as they are burglar alarm-sized
boxes that tend to be sited high on walls,
lampposts and flagpoles, or in chimneys and
ceiling cavities.
Are masts a danger to health?
This was one of the questions asked by
Professor William Stewart, chairman of the UK
government’s official investigation four years
ago [The Report of the UK Independent Expert Group on
Mobile Phones (The Stewart Report), 11 May 2000].
His committee’s overall answer was “probably
not”, taken by both government and mobile
phone companies as a ‘no’. Yet, the small print
of the report acknowledged that it is impossible
to assess the long-term health consequences of
mobile technology after just a few years of
experience. And health effects are already
showing up.
The earliest warning signs in Europe came
from cattle grazing in fields near mobile masts.
In Germany, university vets were called to a
farm where a dairy herd was experiencing
problems after the installation of macrocell
antennae. Milk yields were way down,
spontaneous abortions were up, older cows
were dying and the rest of the herd was
behaving strangely.
The problems started when antennae were
attached to a TV mast. The vets also discovered
that the power output of the antennae was well
below official German government limits. 'The
evaluation of possible factors which could
explain the abnormalities in the livestock did
not disclose any factors other than the
measurable high-frequency electromagnetic
fields,' the vets reported (Pract Vet Surg, 1998; 79:
437–44).
This suggests something unique about
mobile-phone transmissions that sets them
apart from the usual EMFs.
One scientist specialising in mobile
technology is physicist Dr Gerald Hyland, of
Warwick University and the International
Institute of Biophysics in Neuss, Germany, an
international group of scientists like Popp
working on the biophysics of biological
radiation. He believes that an unrecognised
hazard of mobiles is that, in the more modern
systems, the EM signals are not sent out
continuously like radiowaves, but in pulses. This
pulsed transmission is a particular feature of the
latest GSM (global system for mobiles)
technology, rapidly becoming the standard in
Europe.
These pulse rates, says Dr Hyland, can have
serious biological effects. “The pulses happen to
be close to some of the brain’s own electrical
and electrochemical rhythms. Since these are
involved in the control and regulation of
bioprocesses essential to well-being, it is
reasonable to anticipate that the functionality
of the body will be impaired” (Lancet, 2000; 356:
1833–6).
Primary effects noted by Hyland were based
on Russian research on the brain and behaviour
(Vest Novy Med Tekhnol, 1999; VI: 24–6, 40–2). The
former Soviet Union is in the vanguard of
studies of EMFs and human health. “Particularly
Electro-Pollution 21
 disturbing is that the low frequencies [of] GSM
pulsing are close to those at which it is known
that human mood and behaviour can be
influenced . . . ranging from depression and
docility to rage,” he says.
In one study, pulsed radio-frequency waves
significantly increased calcium in brain cells.
Calcium is involved in the release of
neurotransmitters, and any disturbance in the
usual ratio could disturb the balance of
chemicals in the brain, with repercussions on
the nervous and immune systems (Merritt JH, in
Klauenberg BJ et al., NATO ASI Series. New York: Plenum
Press, 1995).
A recent Dutch study exposed 36 volunteers
to radiation as emitted by mobile masts. Most
of them reported “detrimental effects on well-
being”, including nausea, tingling and
headaches, on top of impaired memory, reaction
time and alertness. The researchers were
surprised as the radiation levels used were well
within government limits [Netherlands Organisation
for Applied Scientific Research (TNO). FEL-03-C148,
2003].
This ties in well with French research that has
uncovered more serious neurological effects
from mobile-phone masts. A team from France’s
National Institute of Applied Science surveyed
more than 500 people living near mobile masts,
and found a significant increase in headaches,
sleep disturbances and tiredness up to 300
metres away from the base station.
Mast emissions: a movable feast
Most experts don’t think of mobile-mast radiation as a
problem, so you’d expect international regulations to be
broadly in line with each other. However, radiation limits vary
widely from one country to another.
Perhaps as a reflection of political–commercial pressures,
Britain has the least stringent limits in the world.
Radiation is measured in volts per metre (V/m), which vary
according to the frequency—measured in megahertz (MHz).
Mobile phones operate on two frequencies: 900 MHz and
1800 MHz.
900 Mhz 1800 MHz
Britain 41 V/m (was 112 V/m) 58 V/m (was 194
V/m)
Switzerland 4 V/m 6 V/m
Russia 6 V/m 6 V/m
Italy 6 V/m 6 V/m
Luxembourg 3 V/m 6V/m
Radiation levels from a 15-m mast are at their maximum at a
distance of about 100 m, falling away to near-zero at 300 m. A
30-m mast has a radiation peak at a distance of about 200 m,
falling away at 800 m.
22 Electro-Pollution
The problems were worse the nearer the
mast. Many of those living within 100 metres
experienced irritability, depression, loss of
memory, dizziness, lowered libido, loss of
appetite and nausea (Pathol Biol [Paris], 2002; 50:
369–73).
In Australia, doctors have reported the case
of a man accidentally exposed to high levels of
base-station radiation for less than two hours.
He suffered from headaches, blurred vision,
pupil constriction and other abnormalities of
the trigeminal ophthalmic nerve—which took
six months to clear up (Occup Med [Lond], 2001;
51: 410–3).
These sorts of problems are consistent with
the recent discovery that mobile-phone
radiation can make the brain—at least in rats—
more vulnerable to external toxins.
Nature has endowed the brain with a kind of
Berlin Wall known as the ‘blood–brain barrier’.
This prevents dangerous molecules from
entering the brain and causing damage.
However, Swedish researchers have shown that
mobile-phone radiation was able to cause brain-
cell damage in these animals (Environ Health
Perspect, 2003; 111: 881–3).
Even more worrying is the finding that
mobile-mast radiation can affect DNA. Lab tests
using human cells have shown that mobile-
phone radiation is ‘genotoxic’—able to interfere
with cellular chromosomes and DNA (Bioelectro-
magnetics, 2002; 23: 7–13).
This has serious implications as genotoxicity
is a known risk factor for cancer.
According to Hyland, pulsed frequencies
have further worrying effects. They increase
levels of the brain enzyme ornithine
decarboxylase (ODC), high levels of which can
promote tumours (Cancer Res, 1998; 48: 422–6).
They also cause overexpression of heat shock
proteins (HSPs). These stress proteins are called
upon when the body undergoes an environ-
mental stress; they also act like traffic cops in
each cell, making sure that proteins are where
they should be and that old proteins are
disposed of. Most significantly, they help the
immune system recognise the diseased cells for
disposal.
When overexpressed, these proteins are
believed to block apoptosis, or programmed cell
death. This could also have the effect of
promoting cancer (Differentiation, 2001; 67: 93–7;
Differentiation, 2002; 70: 120–9).
When laboratory animals were exposed to
mobile-phone radiation, cancer-promoting
effects have been found. Among the first of
such studies was one from an Australian
medical team which used exactly the same kind
of pulsed EMFs as radiated by mobile base
stations. After directing the EMFs at cancer-
prone mice for just one hour a day for 18
months, these scientists found a significantly
 Planning law: valid objections?
In the UK, only phone masts more than 15-m high require full planning permission;
anything shorter can be erected anywhere with just local-authority approval.
Nevertheless, it is required that the public be consulted. The government has stipulated
that “it should not be necessary for a Local planning Authority . . . to consider health
effects”. The upshot of this is that “planning committees are not allowed to use
adverse health effects as a ground for refusing applications”, says solicitor John Hunt,
a specialist in mobile-phone planning law.
When you and other residents object to phone masts, you must mainly do so on
environmental grounds (it will block pavements and ruin the neighbourhood). How-
ever, in 2001, some planning inspectors accepted sufficient “public fear of possible
health effects” as grounds for rejection, says Hunt, “whether or not that fear is based
in objectively proven scientific evidence”. However, the recent Yorkshire case (see
main text) may have overturned this ruling.

increased risk of cancer among the mice (Radiat
Res, 1997; 147: 631–40).
The evidence continues to mount that
mobile phones themselves can cause cancer. An
epidemiological US study found a two- to
threefold increase in a rare brain cancer where
EMF exposure from handsets is greatest. A large
Swedish epidemiological study came to similar
conclusions (JAMA, 2000; 284: 3001–7; Eur J Cancer
Prev, 2002; 11: 377–86).
Those unfortunate enough to have mobile
masts sited near where they live are exposed
to round-the-clock radiation, and a growing
number of communities have seen a sharp
increase in illnesses—especially cancers—
apparently coinciding with the installation of
a mobile mast.
Clusters of cancer cases
The informal pressure group Mast Sanity has
found over 18 sites in the UK with clusters of
health problems close to mobile base stations.
The authorities tend to dismiss these as merely
coincidental, but all the cases seem to have
occurred after masts were erected.
◆ In one street in South Woodford, Essex, five
people contracted cancer after 16 mobile
antennae were placed on top of a block of
flats 30 yards away.
◆ In one street in Thorpe St Andrew, in
Norfolk, six people developed cancer after a
120-foot mast was erected a few hundred
metres away.
◆ Of only 180 people living within 250 metres
of a 15-foot mast in Shooters Hill, Meir
Heath, three died of brain haemorrhages and
one child contracted epilepsy—all within a
few years of its erection.
◆ In Tolworth, Surrey, two women living
between two base stations both died of brain
haemorrhages.
◆ In Cookridge, Leeds, a housing development
near a small forest of mobile masts has the
highest cancer incidence in the area.
◆ In Crediton, Devon, a mobile mast beam
went straight through residential housing.
The beam was measured as over 4 V/m—
way below the UK legal limit—inside some
Beware of TETRA
The new mobile-phone communications standard for
emergency services and commercial companies TETRA —Trans-
European Trunked Radio Access—is a potentially dangerous
system that is now being added to mobile phone masts,
maybe the one near you. There are also plans to use it in
the London Underground.
In 1999, Simoco, the UK-based digital radio specialist, won
a contract to supply Dolphin Telecom with 10,000 TETRA
mobile phone handsets. The base stations (420–425 MHz) and
handsets (410–415 MHz) are typically 50–100 per cent more
powerful than ordinary digital mobile phones “to give a more
secure mode of communications”. BT Cellnet are currently
running trials within the new police system in Lancashire and
have already started their £2.5 billion roll-out across the UK.
How TETRA found its way through the various European
Standards Committees is baffling. The engineers who thought
it up chose a system which pulses at 17 Hz, a frequency known
to affect brain activity, triggering epileptic attacks in susceptible
people. This frequency is also far more likely to interfere with
hospital equipment, which will not be able to detect the
difference between body signals and external signals. The
brain also accepts and acts upon signals from both inside and
outside the body, and 17 Hz signals are likely to disrupt normal
brain functioning in ways that are difficult to predict.
Car remote-locking systems and some household intruder
alarms have already been shown to become ineffective near
base stations with TETRA equipment.
The TETRA system was developed because it can offer
GSM-style handsets, almost-instantaneous call set-up times,
advanced speech and data facilities, group-call facilities, Internet
access, wide area coverage, excellent voice quality, and
immunity from interference and eavesdropping. But no one
has researched the possible biological effects. Anyone
encouraged to use the system (or have a mast installed near
them) should be strongly advised of the potential danger.

Electro-Pollution 23

Here come the G3s
The major health problems with networks of mobile-phone
masts could worsen as the G3 masts start appearing.
One example of this advanced technology is the TETRA
mobile network, which is being introduced to all 53 of the UK’s
police forces. It is an advanced digital network that should be
fully operational by next spring, at a cost of £2.9 billion to the
UK government.
As usual, the network has been introduced with all the
standard scientific platitudes that it is perfectly safe. But early
reports back ‘from the field’ suggest otherwise.
Six people based at one police station in Norfolk have all
reported sick with a debilitating health condition since a
TETRA mast was installed just yards from them. The police
staff has suffered bouts of dizziness and severe headaches, and
it’s been as bad for the 25 local residents who also happen to
live near the mast. Repeated nosebleeds, disturbed sleep and
skin problems, especially among the children, have been
reported.
The police staff has been warned not to make public their
health concerns. A similar ban was imposed on one policeman,
Neil Dring, who died from cancer of the oesophagus, which
developed after he had been using his TETRA handset.
These incidents are not isolated examples. Some reports
suggest that hundreds of policemen and women have
complained of deterioration in their health since TETRA was
introduced in their area (The Daily Telegraph, 14 August 2004).
of the bedrooms. A three-year-old girl who
had lived with this radiation all her life
developed lymphoblastic leukaemia; there
have been two other cases of leukaemia and
four cases of cancer in the same area.
◆ In Wishaw, Warwickshire, of the 50 people
living within 500 metres of a base station, 34
have reported medical problems—
sleeplessness, skin irritation, low blood-cell
counts and seven cases of cancer. Local
residents have since torn down the mast.
◆ Gainsborough, Lincolnshire, has reported 10
cancer cases among those living within 100
metres of a base station.
24 Electro-Pollution
◆ In Saintfield, Northern Ireland, 12 children
developed leukaemia and seven adults
developed cancer—all residing within half a
mile of a base station.
◆ Near Dunganon, Northern Ireland, in the
five homes below the Cranlome Hill mast, six
people got cancer, three of whom died.
Again, local residents have since felled the
mast, which bristled with 35 antennae.
◆ In Paris, the mobile-phone company Orange
itself dismantled a mast after eight
schoolchildren contracted cancer. The
company had put the antennae on the
schoolhouse roof.
◆ In Valladolid, Spain, four young children were
diagnosed with cancer in a school of 450
children after a mobile base station was
installed 50 metres away—seven times the
average national incidence.”In 32 years, there
had never been a case of childhood cancer
here,” said local doctor Luis Martin.
In October 2002, thousands of German
doctors put their names to the Freiburger
Appeal, which blamed mobile-phone
technology for the “dramatic in rise in severe
and chronic diseases among our patients”. The
document cited symptoms such as headaches,
behavioural problems, sleeplessness, chronic
exhaustion and infections, heart attacks, cancer,
leukaemia and brain tumours, and pleaded for
a halt to mobile-phone expansion.
Nevertheless, the technology appears to be
unstoppable. There are already over a billion
users of mobile phones worldwide, a figure that
is expected to triple within a decade—mainly
because the technology is so much cheaper
than landlines and, hence, more attractive to
developing countries. But with more mobiles
come more masts.
It could be said that we are all participants
in the biggest epidemiological experimental
study in history.
The mobile-phone companies have tried to
insure themselves against future health claims,
but no insurance company in the world will
take on the liability.
Are you living in a hot spot?
D
oes the earth spew out fields of
energy that are harmful to humans?
The Australian aborigines and
other ancient populations believed that the
earth produced ley lines—lines of energy
emanating from the earth—and for 11
centuries the Chinese have employed feng-
shui experts, who divine energies from the
earth, and offer advice about where a house
should be built and where objects should
be placed inside the building.
Recent scientific evidence demonstrates
that these ancient cultures were on to
something. Seismologists have discovered
that the earth does emit electromagnetic
rays and that there is indeed scientific
explanation for the presence of the lines
followed by ancient peoples. P and S rays,
for instance, which run in straight lines,
have been found to correspond to ley lines.
Geopathic stress, as it is usually referred
to, comes from many sources. Faults (where
two blocks of deep rock slip against each
other in different directions), thrusts (where
the earth is forced up from below),
earthquakes, gas seeping up from the earth,
some underground water sources and
cavities in which ions percolate all cause
natural energy waves to emit vertically
through the earth. The electromagnetic
(EM) frequencies of this radiation disrupt
the body’s natural EM brainwave control.
The brain operates with very-low-frequency
waves, from 0–300 cycles per second
(Hertz).
No one knows for sure what types of
rays these are, although Simon Best, editor
of Electromagnetic News and Therapy, says that
it’s likely that they are microwaves (rays of
tiny frequencies and millions of cycles per
second), since this type of EM radiation is
known to affect humans.
Geopathic stress primarily affects human
brainwaves. Some sensitive individuals
receive effects from forthcoming earth-
quakes, even at remote distances. At a con-
ference in 1989 entitled ‘Biological Effects
of Elecromagnetism, Part 3’, held by the
Environmental Medicine Foundation,
George Allen, a former engineer from
Lockerbie, Scotland, described his peculiar
ability to sense earthquakes.
Up to a week before a major earthquake
(which usually has to register at least 6 on
the Richter scale), he feels pain alternately
in his upper and lower body.
Others find that active faults, such as the
famous ones at Great Glen in Scotland or
No one knows for sure what
types of rays these are,
although Simon Best, editor
of Electromagnetic News and
Therapy, says that it’s likely
that they are microwaves
(rays of tiny frequencies and
millions of cycles per second)
San Andreas in California, bring on
headaches, nausea or depression, even
sudden collapse—effects which lift as soon
as the earthquake energy is discharged.
This ability to ‘sense’ a future earthquake
has been given credibility by studies
conducted by the Edinburgh Seismology
Unit.
According to Anne Silk, author of the
forthcoming book Ancient Rays of the Earth,
both humans and animals sometimes will
suddenly drop to the ground when travel-
ling over an area that affects brainwaves.
Silk, an optician by trade, found that
geopathic stress can even profoundly affect
vision. “People may have their field of vision
narrow to tunnel vision, but they don’t
realise it,” says Silk. “Or they’ll suffer partial
loss of the visual field, as if a black curtain
descended over their field of vision.”
EM earth rays are usually detected
through dowsers, sensitive individuals who
are able to locate minerals, waters or other
substances—most notably oil—using a
variety of instruments. These come in many
varieties: forked sticks, which bend near the
substance being looked for; a pair of
movable L-shaped wires, held in each of the
dowser's hands, which swivel when near the
sought-for substance; and, most commonly
in medicine, a pendulum, to which the
dowser directs yes/no questions. Movement
Electro-Pollution 25
 of the pendulum in one direction or
another (usually left or right) provides the
answer to a particular question.
Dowsing as a tool is less farfetched than
it seems when you consider that the brain’s
hippocampus and pineal gland are both
very sensitive to magnetic fields.
Although many workers in the scientific
community denigrate dowsing as a diag-
nostic tool for illness and also geopathic
stress, healer Daniel Benor (author of Healing
Research, vol 2, Helix, 1994) has uncovered a
wealth of scientific evidence demonstrating
that dowsers have a remarkably high degree
of accuracy in detecting EM fields.
Perhaps the most interesting of these
concerns the work of Zaboj V. Harvalik, a
professor of physics of the University of
Arkansas and a former advisor to the US
Army Advanced Concepts Materials
Agency.
Harvalik conducted a series of tests with
a highly skilled dowser, Wilhelm de Boer,
Do you live in a hot spot?
If you feel unwell, continually suffer from low-grade
infections or have trouble sleeping, you could try
investigating whether geopathic stress is the cause. Dr
Anthony Scott-Morley, based in Bournemouth, uses a
geomagnetometer to measure whether a house has
geopathic stress, but a good dowser can also make an
accurate diagnosis.
Although a number of electrical gadgets on the market
all claim to neutralise geopathic stress, Anne Silk has found
that results with all such devices are mixed. Although
some people swear by them, others feel decidedly worse.
One particular product actually increases microwave
emission.
If you are interested in trying one of these radiation-
neutralising devices, be sure to only purchase one if you have
a trial-purchase deal, so that you can return it with a full
refund if you find no improvement or feel worse with it.
Silk says that those who tend to be more susceptible to
the earth’s rays tend to be low in antioxidants, since EM
rays create free radicals in the body. So, one simple
protective measure is to increase your intake of antioxi-
dants, especially selenium, plus magnesium and manganese.
She also recommends that you do not sleep on a mattress
with interior springs, which amplify rays, but change to a
foam-rubber mattress, such as Dunlopillo.
Another factor that could increase an individual’s
susceptibility is too much lighting at night. If it isn’t fairly
dark where you sleep, your pineal gland can’t produce
enough melatonin, a hormone that governs your sleep–
wake cycle.
If you do find you are sleeping in a dangerous spot, the
easiest solution is to move your bed. If your entire house
is a problem, you could have a geopathic-pollution expert
drive copper stakes into the ground to deflect the EMFs.
26 Electro-Pollution
to determine whether he could detect EMFs.
de Boer was blindfolded, then led past two
electrical generators, which were switched
on and off randomly. Harvalik also moved
the position of the generator coils so that
de Boer would randomly cross or miss
crossing the magnetic fields as he passed the
generators.
In 40 runs, de Boer was able to reliably
determine when he was crossing the
electromagnetic beam. Even when a copper
screen was used to block the beam or
deflect it away from or towards the dowser,
de Boer was able to accurately work out
when the field crossed his path. Harvalik
also discovered that he could considerably
lessen the dowser’s accuracy by placing a
copper mesh over de Boer’s solar plexus and
partially inhibit it when placing the shield
on his head. This suggests that these two
parts of the body are vital to the dowser’s
sensory ability to detect EMFs (Am Dowser,
1973; 113: 92–6).
Harvalik was then able to repeat his
experiment with 14 other dowsers. In 694
trials, they correctly ascertained when the
EMF was turned on 661 times—an accuracy
rate of 95 per cent. These studies were all
the more impressive because they were
double-blind—neither the dowsers nor
operator of the generator knew when the
field was turned on or off. It was also
‘random’ in that there was no pattern for
when the field was turned on and off (Physiol
Chem Physics, 1978; 10: 525–34).
According to Benor, Harvalik concluded
that experienced dowsers had exquisite
sensitivity, capable of responding to the
most minute changes in magnetic fields—to
some 0.000001 gauss per second (J Soc
Psychic Res, 1982; 51: 343–67).
Although there is still much that we
don’t know about the electromagnetic
energy coming up from the ground, the
evidence that it causes ill health in
susceptible individuals is compelling.
European doctors in Austria and Germany,
in particular, have long been fascinated by
geopathic stress. Numerous studies have
demonstrated that cancer and other
illnesses are far more prevalent in these
geopathic ‘hot spots’.
As early as 1929, Freiherr von Pohl, a
German scientist with many years of study
into the radiation levels produced by the
earth, began a study with the Berlin Centre
for Cancer Research to examine the 54
cancer deaths that had occurred in Vils-
biburg, a tiny southern German village that,
in those days, had an extraordinarily high
proportion of such deaths for a tiny
population of 3000.
 Where to find help
British Society of Dowsers, 2 St Ann’s
Road, Malvern, Worcestershire
WR14 4RG; tel/fax: 01684 576 969;
e-mail: info@britishdowsers.org;
website: www.britishdowsers.org;
can provide a list of dowsers who
have been carefully vetted for
proof of ability and success
Käthe Bachler’s book Earth Radiation
(Manchester: Wordmasters, 1989)
Rolf Gordon’s book Are You Sleeping
in a Safe Place? (Dulwich Health
Society, 130 Gipsy Hill, London SE19
1PL; tel: 020 8670 5883)
Dr Daniel J. Benor’s book Healing
Research, vol 2 (Deddington, Oxon:
Helix, 1994)
von Pohl drew a map of the town that
included all the underground water arteries,
and created a rating system for this
radiation—up to a strength of 16. He then
compared the addresses of all the cancer
victims. Virtually every death occurred
exactly above the lines von Pohl had rated
as being above nine on his scale and
therefore capable of producing cancer.
In a later study of a further 10 cancer
deaths, von Pohl also found that the beds of
the victims were again positioned exactly
over the lines of the hot spots.
von Pohl’s study, published in the Journal
of the Centre for Cancer Research, was replicated
by another prestigious doctor, who was also
the president of the Chamber of Medicine
in Marburg. He noted that all of his ill
patients slept above areas of geopathic
stress.
In yet another study, Professor Hugo
Hubacek, head of the Institute of Applied
Research and Product Marketing in Vienna,
produced evidence demonstrating that
200 patients suffered a significant drop in
levels of serotonin, which governs mood,
and immunoglobulins, part of the immune
system, when moved from an ordinary spot
to a hot spot of geopathic stress (presented at
the Biological Effects of Electromagnetism, Part 3,
meeting, September 30, 1989).
Käthe Bachler, an Austrian teacher and
author of Earth Radiation (Manchester: Word-
masters, 1989), has conducted some 3000
dowsing experiments on 12,000 subjects,
and has collected many case histories
showing that childhood behavioural and
learning problems, and even cancer, can
result in those who habitually sit or sleep
over a zone of geopathic stress. She found
that moving the beds or school desks of
these children away from the hot spots
often resulted in immediate improvement in
school performance.
There is also evidence—and a good deal
of speculation—about the existence of
‘black spots’ of geopathic stress on
roadways, where accidents frequently
happen. This doesn’t seem so farfetched
when you consider that geopathic stress
may affect vision.
Electro-Pollution 27
Microwave ovens
D
ecade-old evidence, suppressed by the
Swiss courts, shows that food from a
microwave can cause worrying changes
in your blood. More recent studies add to the
mounting evidence that microwave ovens pose
a hazard to your health.
In 1989, a Swiss food scientist called Dr Hans-
Urich Hertel made some worrying discoveries
about microwave ovens. Nevertheless, for more
than a decade, he has been fighting for the right
to let the world know what he has found.
The point that he has been desperately
trying to make public is vital to consumer
interests: any food eaten that has been cooked or
defrosted in a microwave oven can cause changes in the
blood indicative of a developing pathological process
that is also found in cancer.
Nevertheless, for all this time, Hertel has
been effectively gagged by the manufacturers of
microwave ovens who have effectively used
trade laws and the Swiss legal system to muzzle
him—even to threaten him with personal ruin.
In March 1993, the Canton of Bern
Commercial Court, following a complaint filed
by the Swiss Association of Dealers for
Electroapparatuses for Households and
Industry, prohibited Dr Hertel from publicly
declaring or writing that microwave ovens were
dangerous to health. Flouting the order could
incur a fine of up to SF5000 or even land him
In 1989, a Swiss food scientist called Dr Hans-Urich
Hertel made some worrying discoveries about
microwave ovens. Nevertheless, for more than a decade,
he has been fighting for the right to let the world know
what he has found
28 Electro-Pollution
up to a year in prison.
The Swiss Federal Court in Lausanne
confirmed the verdict in 1994. The court based
its verdict on the Swiss Law Against Unfair
Competition, which prohibits “discriminating,
untrue, misleading and unnecessarily harming
statements against a supplier or his products” (J
Nat Sci, 1998; 1: 2–7), a law that solely considers
the inhibition of trade per se and not malicious
intent.
That law effectively muzzles the Swiss press as
well, as any statements which could be viewed
as critical of microwave ovens could easily lead
to litigation. The view of the Swiss on Dr
Hertel’s findings are not shared by the rest of
Europe. In August 1998, the European Court of
Human Rights ruled that the gag order issued
by the Swiss courts against Dr Hertel was
contrary to the right of freedom of expression.
The European court also ordered Switzerland to
pay him a compensation of SF40,000.
Despite his victory, which is two years old, Dr
Hertel is still waiting for the Swiss courts to
reverse their earlier decision and lift a SF8000
fine against him. In the meantime, his explosive
discoveries are being corroborated by evidence
cropping up here and there all over the world.
Hertel’s research
Eleven years ago, Dr Hertel, a food scientist who
had worked for several years for one of the
international Swiss food companies, joined
forces with Professor Bernard Blanc, of the
Federal Institute of Technology, to conduct an
extensive research programme into the effects of
microwaved food on humans. Although the
programme was turned down by the Swiss
National Fund, the two scientists decided to
finance a smaller research programme
themselves.
They selected eight people from the
Macrobiotic Institute at Kientel in Switzerland,
all, including Hertel himself, all adherents to
strict macrobiotic diets to minimise the
presence of confounding elements affecting
blood measures. Except for Hertel, who was 64
at the time, all were aged between 20 and 40.
As Hertel told WDDTY: “We all lived in the
same hotel for eight weeks and there was no
smoking, no alcohol and no sex.” At intervals of
two to five days, the volunteers received one of
eight possible food sources on an empty
stomach: raw milk from a biofarm; the same
milk conventionally cooked; the same raw milk
cooked in a microwave oven; pasteurised milk
from conventional sources; raw vegetables from
an organic farm; the same vegetables cooked
conventionally; the same vegetables frozen and
defrosted in a microwave; and the same
vegetables cooked in a microwave.
Blood samples were taken from each
volunteer immediately before eating, then at
specified intervals after eating, the above
preparations.
Significant changes were observed in the
blood of those who had consumed microwaved
food, including a reduction in all haemoglobin
and cholesterol values—both the high-density
lipoproteins (the ‘good’ HDL cholesterol) and
low- density lipoproteins (‘bad’ LDL cholesterol)
(Nexus, 1995; April/May: 25–7).
Lymphocytes (white blood cells) showed a
more noticeable short-term decrease after the
ingestion of microwaved food than after the
intake of the other foods. In addition, Hertel
discovered a strongly significant association
between the amount of microwave energy in
the test foods and the brightness of the types of
bacteria that light up (when looked at under a
special light) on exposure to blood from those
who’d eaten the food. Hertel concluded that
such energy may be passed on to those eating
microwaved food.
Besides these effects of microwave heating of
food, Hertel also noted non-thermal effects
which, he claims, alter the cell membrane’s
permeability by changing the electric potentials
between the outer and inner sides of the cell.
The damaged cells then become easy prey to
viruses, fungi and other microorganisms.
The natural repair mechanisms of cells are
also disturbed, which eventually forces cells to
How a microwave oven works
A microwave oven uses a device called a ‘magnetron tube’,
which causes an electron beam to oscillate at very high
frequencies, producing microwave (MW) radiation.
Domestic and commercial units use a frequency of 2.45
gigahertz (GHz) at an output of 400–900 watts for a
typical domestic oven, which has a power supply designed to
deliver 4000-volt pulses to the magnetron.
The 2.45-GHz frequency is used because water absorbs
electromagnetic energy quickest and maximally at this
frequency, thus allowing the water in food to be heated
quickly.
The molecules within the food are forced to align
themselves with the very rapidly alternating field and to
oscillate around their axis. Heat is produced from the
considerable intermolecular friction. Microwaves are beam-
ed from the magnetron into the oven compartment, where
they heat the food from the inside out—unlike conven-
tional ovens, which do the reverse. Heating from the inside
first can give rise to cold spots, hence the need to rotate
the dish constantly.
The maximum leakage level allowed under current
standards is a power density of 5 milliwatts per square cm
at a distance of 5 cm from the oven door. This limit is
based on standards for MW radiation that are disputed by
those who argue that non-thermal effects of MW radiation
should be taken into account when tallying radiation levels
(as, for example, with mobile phones).
The door itself should also be checked periodically to
ensure that it is not leaking excessively.
respond to a ‘state-of-emergency’ energy supply,
switching from aerobic (oxygen-based) to
anaerobic (no oxygen) respiration. Instead of
producing water and carbon dioxide, they
produce hydrogen peroxide and carbon
monoxide. In such a situation, Hertel asserts,
cells revert from ‘healthy oxidation’ to an
unhealthy ‘fermentation’ process of energy
generation.
Hertel goes on to state that when food is
microwaved, the oven exerts a power output of
about 1000 watts or more. The resulting
destruction and deformation of food molecules
produces new compounds called ‘radiolytic’
compounds, which are unknown in nature. The
current received wisdom in scientific circles is
that microwaved and other irradiated food does
not contain significantly higher levels of
radiolytic compounds than that cooked
conventionally, but Hertel’s results suggest the
contrary.
Blood analyses from the participants also
confirmed that all was not well in those eating
microwaved food. Samples taken at 7.45 each
morning, at 15 minutes after food intake and
two hours later showed that erythrocyte (red
blood cell), haemoglobin, haematocrit and
leucocyte measures were all at the lower limits
Electro-Pollution 29
 of normal in those eating the microwaved food.
These results are akin to those of individuals
with a tendency towards anaemia; the results
were more pronounced and statistically
significant during the second month of the
study. Furthermore, as these values decreased,
blood cholesterol levels correspondingly
increased.
It is not hard to see why the publication of
such results in 1992 might have produced a
furore in Switzerland. Nevertheless, the reaction
of the Swiss authorities and industry which
took Hertel to court and convicted him under
their Unfair Competition law remains a
shameful chapter in Swiss history.
In addition, such was the pressure on
Professor Blanc that he felt forced to publicly
dissociate himself from the interpretation given
in their joint report shortly after publication.
Privately, he admitted to Dr Hertel that he
feared for the safety of his family (J Nat Sci, 1998;
1: 2–7).
Despite attempts to shut him up publicly, Dr
Hertel’s research remains available to the public
outside of Switzerland through the post or his
website (copies are available from The World
Foundation for Natural Science, Box 632, CH-
3000, Bern, Switzerland, tel: +41 33 438 1158;
fax: +41 33 437 4816; website: www.wffns.org).
Russians ban microwave ovens
After World War II, the Russians also
experimented with microwave ovens. From 1957
up to recently, their research has been carried
out mainly at the Institute of Radio Technology
at Klinsk, Byelorussia. According to US
researcher William Kopp, who gathered much of
the results of Russian and German research, and
was apparently persecuted for doing so (J Nat
Sci, 1998; 1: 42–3), the following effects were
observed by Russian forensic teams:
Heating prepared meats in a microwave
sufficiently for human consumption created:
◆ D-nitrosodiethanolamine (a well-known can-
cer-causing agent)
◆ destabilisation of active protein biomolecular
compounds
◆ a binding effect to radioactivity in the
atmosphere
◆ cancer-causing agents within protein
hydrolysate compounds in milk and cereal
grains.
Microwave emissions also caused:
◆ alterations in the catabolic (breakdown)
behaviour of glucoside and galactoside
elements within frozen fruits when thawed in
this way
◆ altered catabolic behaviour of plant alkaloids
when raw, cooked or frozen vegetables were
exposed for even very short periods
◆ formation of cancer-causing free radicals
within certain trace-mineral molecular
formations in plant substances, especially in
raw root vegetables.
Eating microwaved foods caused a higher
percentage of cancerous cells in blood. As a
result of the chemical alterations within food
substances, malfunctions occurred in the
lymphatic system, causing degeneration of the
immune system’s capacity to protect itself
against cancerous growth. The unstable
catabolism (breakdown) of microwaved foods
altered their elemental food substances, leading
to disorders in the digestive system. Those
ingesting microwaved foods showed a
statistically higher incidence of stomach and
intestinal cancers, plus a general degeneration
of peripheral cellular tissues, with a gradual
breakdown of digestive and excretory system
function.
Microwave exposure caused significant
decreases in the nutritional value of all foods
studied, particularly:
◆ a decrease in the bioavailability of B-complex
vitamins, vitamins C and E, essential minerals
and lipotrophics
◆ destruction of the nutritional value of
nucleoproteins in meats

Protecting yourself against microwave radiation

If you must continue to use a microwave oven:
❖ Have it checked regularly for leaks, especially the door, which is prone to leakage
❖ Never open the door while the oven is on
❖ Stand at least three feet away (especially children) from the oven when in use to avoid the cumulative
effects of even low-level exposure. The lens of the eye is most at risk from prolonged microwave
exposure because it has no way of dissipating the energy, thermally or otherwise
❖ Avoid microwave cooking of frozen foods and commercially prepared meals, especially if they are to
be cooked in their packaging
❖ Use non-PVC cooking containers whenever possible
❖ Discourage growing children from eating microwaved food or using a microwave oven
❖ Be aware that the majority of restaurant food is now microwaved in large commercial ovens. These
pose even greater potential risks to users, and those using them should be warned accordingly.

30 Electro-Pollution
◆ lowering of the metabolic activity of
alkaloids, glucosides, galactosides and
nitrilosides (all basic plant substances in
fruits and vegetables)
◆ marked acceleration of structural
disintegration in all foods (Perceptions, 1996;
May/June: 30–3).
As a result, microwave ovens were banned in
Russia in 1976; the ban was lifted after Perestroika.
Recent research
While some of the above findings remain to be
replicated, other research in Britain and the US
has unearthed further possible hazards. In 1990
at the University of Leeds, two scientists in the
Department of Medical Microbiology studied
the uneven heating that can be caused by
microwave ovens. They found that the salt
content in a specified portion of mashed
potatoes influenced its inside temperature—the
greater the salt content, the lower the
temperature.
The authors concluded that “the poor
penetration of microwaves into the test food
with high ionic concentrations may result from
the induction of electrical/ionic flow in the
surface of the food. This would also explain why
commercial food heated in microwaves
commonly boils on the surface, but is cool on
the inside” (Nature, 1990; 344: 496).
A case was reported in 1991 of a patient in
hospital in Tulsa, Oklahoma, who died of
anaphylaxis (allergic shock) after receiving a
transfusion of blood that had been warmed in
a microwave oven. The irradiation appears to
have altered the blood in such a way as to have
caused the patient’s death (J Nat Sci, 1998; 1: 2–7).
In August 1989, British government research
showed that Listeria and other potentially fatal
bacteria can survive in microwave cooked food,
even when cooking instructions have been
followed (Food Business, 1989; 20: 12).
Other American research has shown that the
practice of reheating leftover food in a
microwave is potentially dangerous. Researchers
investigating an outbreak of Salmonella among
those attending a picnic in 1992 discovered that,
of 30 people who took home leftover meat, all
10 who used a microwave became ill. None of
the 10 persons who used a conventional oven or
skillet to reheat the pork became ill.
The researchers concluded that, compared
with conventional methods of reheating food,
microwave ovens offered no preventative
protection from illness (Am J Epidemiol, 1994; 139:
903–9).
Not all the evidence has been negative.
Scientists at a nutrition and food research
institute in Zeist, The Netherlands, carried out a
13-week study of the effects of microwaved food
on the blood chemistry and other health
indicators in rats, and apparently found no
Where did it all start?
Some believe that microwave ovens were developed during
World War II by the Germans to enable easy food production
in their submarines; others say that the same scientists
developed them to support mobile operations during the
invasion of the Soviet Union. Whatever the case, their
invention dates from WWII.
After the War, the technology was taken back to the US,
where it was developed, resulting in the first domestic
microwave oven being launched onto the market there in
1952 by the Raytheon Company.
Since then, the technology has been promoted all over the
world, with virtually no research by the relevant authorities
in any country into possible harmful effects.
It was not until the 1970s that the first reports started
appearing, casting doubt on the safety of food cooked in a
microwave. Histological (tissue) studies with microwaved
broccoli and carrots revealed that the molecular structures
of nutrients were deformed to the point of destroying cell
walls whereas, in conventional cooking, the cell structures
remain intact (J Food Sci, 1975; 40: 1025–9).
adverse effects (Food Chem Toxic, 1995; 33: 245–56).
Nevertheless, these were animal studies and may
not necessarily apply to human health.
Beware of leaking additives
Another problem with microwaved food is that
it is low in colour and flavour compared with
conventionally cooked food, expecially in foods
containing pastry. This has encouraged the
development of microwavable food additives to
artificially produce the colours and flavours
consumers have come to expect. As Australian
academics John Ashton and Ron Laura state in
their strongly recommended book The Perils of
Progress (Zed Books, London, 1999):
“An example of one new type of flavour-
producing technology designed for use in
microwave ovens is susceptors. These devices are
usually glued to the packaging of microwav-
able foods and are used to achieve local areas
of high temperature. This has the effect of
browning the food during microwave cooking.
A subtle side effect of some of the pre-
1992 susceptor devices involved the release of
small amounts of a toxic chemical, bisphenol
A diglycidyl ether (BADGE), into the food
during microwaving. BADGE was a component
of the adhesive used to fix susceptors to
packaging.”
The authors also cite a 1992 study of 52
samples of pizza, in which nine samples of
susceptors used in one brand contained BADGE
at concentrations between 0.2–0.3 per cent.
The chemical was found to migrate into the
pizzas when they were cooked in their
packaging, according to the instructions (Food
Add Contam, 1995; 1: 779–87).
Electro-Pollution 31

Don’t heat milk in a microwave
Heating or thawing human milk by microwave causes a
decrease in the level of anti-infective factors in the milk,
even when low temperatures (20–53 degrees C) are used
(Pediatrics, 1992; 89: 667–9).
In one study, conducted at Stanford University in
California, microwaving at higher than 72 degrees C was
found to cause a considerable decrease in all of the tested
anti-infective factors.
As a result, the Stanford researchers strongly rejected the
use of microwaving, even at low temperatures, of human
milk in hospitals.
Another study, carried out in Vienna by Dr G. Lubec and
colleagues, found that microwave cooking induced high rates
of change in food proteins that were not seen after
conventional cooking. D-Proline and cis-D-hydroxyproline
were found in significant quantities in microwave-heated
infant-milk formulas, whereas only L-proline is normally
found in biological material. (L stands for laevorotary, D for
dextrorotary, referring to the rotational direction of
electrons.)
The researchers warned that “the conversion of trans to
cis forms could be hazardous because, when cis-amino acids
are incorporated into peptides and proteins instead of their
trans isomers, this can lead to structural, functional, and
immunological changes” (Lancet, 1989; 2: 1392–3).
Other research has also found that microwaving infant
formula can produce molecular changes in the amino acids in
milk proteins, causing toxicity or affecting the nutritional
value of the milk formula. Nevertheless, the quantity of
proteins changed was very small (J Am Coll Nutr, 1994; 13: 209–10
Other research has shown that a large
number of chemicals are released from
susceptors packed together with foods such as
32 Electro-Pollution
pizzas, waffles and french fries intended for a
microwave. One study identified 44 different
volatile chemicals, including the carcinogen
benzene (AOAC Int, 1993; 76: 1268–75).
Another toxic chemical observed to migrate
from packaging into food when microwaved is
benzophenone, a component of the ink on the
printed paperboard (Food Add Contam, 1994; 11:
231–40).
Bread and breakfast cereals are often sold in
waxed bags for easy heating in a microwave.
However, a recent study showed that following
the instructions on the packaging resulted in
60 per cent of the wax being transferred to the
food (Food Add Contam, 1994; 11: 79–89).
Indeed, the PVC plastic films that cover food
during microwave cooking have been found to
release plasticisers into the food to such a
degree that a 1996 study recommended that
PVC should not be used in direct contact with
food during cooking (Badeka AB, Kontominas, MG,
1996; cited in The Perils of Progress, page 68).
The message seems clear:
Don’t cook food in a microwave oven,
especially for children, unless there is a genuine
need for urgency.
Resist the slick and misleading advertising
offering the ‘quick-fix’ for your ‘busy life’.
Realise that the body requires wholesome
food prepared in as wholesome a way as
possible to function optimally. To the degree
that you consume less-than-wholesome food,
your body organs and other bodily processes
will be adversely affected, leading to degen-
eration and disease.
Treat your body like a Rolls-Royce, not a
waste-disposal bin.
VDUs and computer equipment
T
he health hazards of visual display
units—better known as VDUs—are a
good example of fashions in health
scares. It was once the stuff of every other
newspaper headline—and research grant, come
to that—but today, you’d be hard-pressed to
find any mention of it, even in the medical
journals.
VDUs were once thought to cause
headaches, tiredness, and skin and eye problems.
A survey in 1982 among the clerical staff
working at the Department of Employment
concluded that VDUs were also likely to
increase the risk of miscarriage. Furthermore,
a Swedish study several years later suggested
that pregnant women who regularly used a
VDU while pregnant had an increased risk of
a deformed baby or a stillbirth.
These problems were blamed on electro-
magnetic field (EMF) emissions from VDUs. The
older-style VDUs radiated up to eight different
types of radiation—from X-rays to ultraviolet,
infrared, radio-frequency, ELF, pulsed and static
fields.
Critics argued that these emissions were far
too low to have any damaging effects on health,
and this view was supported by research carried
out in the early 1990s. In one study, scientists
compared two groups of women who had
miscarried, and concluded that exposure to
VDUs played no part in their early termination
(Br J Indust Med, 1992; 49: 507–12).
What little research that has been done in
recent years seems to support the sceptic. One
Norwegian study was unable to replicate an
earlier trial that concluded that skin problems
were caused, or exacerbated, by VDU emissions.
To test the original theory, the researchers
monitored the health of 42 office workers who,
for one week, worked on computers without a
filter, then for three months with an inactive
filter and, finally, for three months with an
active filter. The participants did not know
which filter was active.
There was no difference in the symptoms of
the participants at any time during the trial,
suggesting that any health problems—including
skin, eye or nervous system symptoms —were
psychological (Scand J Work Environ Health, 1999;
25: 415–21).
Filters did, however, help to relieve eye strain,
and improved the posture of computer
operators, according to another trial. Of 60
study participants, 40 had a filter fitted to their
VDU, while the remainder worked without one.
Researchers found that those using filters
complained of far fewer eye and musculo-
skeletal problems, or had problems that were
shorter-lasting (Cent Eur J Public Health, 1998; 6:
249–53).
This last study captures the mood of the
times. Ergonomic issues, such as screen glare,
the positioning and angle of the VDU, and poor
posture appear to be the only concerns among
health watchdog groups. The Health and Safety
Executive highlights this thinking in its new
booklet, Working With VDUs (HSE Books, 2003),
which provides guidance for both employers
and employees in the UK.
Incidentally, if the older VDUs (CRTs, or
‘cathode-ray tubes’, like your TV screen) were
not a problem, why should people be feeling
better with an LCD (liquid-crystal display) flat
screen, such as used on portable computers?
Although there is no research to support their
Cutting through the jargon
VDUs work in a similar way to your television set. An
electron gun—called a ‘cathode-ray tube’ (CRT)—is contain-
ed within a glass tube and produces a narrow electron
beam. The beam is controlled by a magnetic field to move
up and down and across to produce an image on the
screen.The number of times this movement cycle is repeat-
ed every second is measured in Hertz (Hz): in most VDUs,
this is usually between 15,000–30,000 times a second, or
15–30 kilohertz (kHz), depending on the type of VDU.
In addition, 60-Hz alternating-current (AC) fields
originate in the monitor’s power transformer, but these can
usually only be measured in the immediate vicinity.
Basic information and definitions
❖ One cycle per second = 1 Hertz (Hz)
❖ 1000 Hz = I Kilohertz (i kHz)
❖ 1000 kHz = 1 Megahertz (MHz)
❖ 1000 MHz = 1 Gigahertz (1 GHz)
❖ Domestic power frequency in the UK is 60 Hz (50 Hz in
the US and some other countries), both of which fall into
the range termed ‘extremely low-frequency’ (ELF)
❖ Frequencies from 300 Hz to 300 kHz fall into the very-
low-frequency (VLF) range
❖ Below 30 megahertz (MHz), electrical and magnetic fields
are measured in volts and amps per metre (V/m; A/m,
respectively)
❖ Above 30 MHz, electrical and magnetic fields can be
measured, usually by power density, as in watts per square
metre (W/m 2 ), and milli- or microwatts per square
centimetre (mW or mW/cm2).
❖ Magnetic flux density, to assess biological exposure, is
measured in milli-, micro- or nanoteslas (MT, mT, nT),
representing one-thousanth, one-millionth and one
thousand-millionth of a Tesla, respectively
❖ 1 MT = 10,000 milligauss (mG), an older unit of measure.
Electro-Pollution 33

anecdotal evidence, it is true that LCDs do not
emit any electromagnetic radiation.
So, are the users’ responses only in their
heads, as some researchers have maintained, or
could it be that early CRT screens did present
more of a health risk than suggested by studies?
Keeping your eyes healthy
To counteract the effect of EMFs on your eyes:
◆ Boost antioxidants. Many antioxidant vitamins,
including A, C and E, but also selenium, can help
prevent age-related macular degeneration
(AMD) ( Am J Epidemiol, 1988; 128: 700–10; Arch
Ophthalmol, 1993; 111: 104–9). Increase your intake of
vitamin A-rich fruits and vegetables (carrots,
pumpkin, squashes) and vitamin C-rich foods
(dark-green leafy vegetables and citrus fruits)
◆ Eat your tomatoes. One study noted that low
levels of lycopene were most strongly linked to
the development of AMD (Arch Ophthalmol, 1995;
113: 1518–23). Lycopene is found in rich supply in
processed tomato products such as tomato paste,
ketchup and tinned tomatoes, and in watermelon
◆ Lose weight. There is evidence that women who
are overweight may have trouble metabolising
the eye-protective carotenoids lutein and zea-
xanthin or metabolise them more slowly (Am J
Clin Nutr, 2000; 71: 1555–62)
◆ Quit smoking. Smoking has been linked to
macular degeneration, so stopping smoking may
reduce your risk of developing the disease (JAMA,
1996; 276: 1141–6)
◆ Eat more fish. Eating fish more than once a
week can halve your risk of developing AMD
compared with those who only eat fish once a
month (Arch Ophthalmol, 2000; 118: 401–4)
34 Electro-Pollution
VDUs and eye health
For more than a decade, Anne Silk, a retired
optician and member of the Royal Society of
Medicine, has made a special study of the
effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) on eye
function. She believes that the issue of EMF
damage has been greatly underplayed by
medicine and the media, and the findings of her
research make disturbing reading (J Electromag
Hazard Ther, 1998; 8: 10–11; 9: 8–9).
Silk believes that EMFs can cause eye damage
both directly and indirectly. For instance, low-
level microwaves, such as those found in
everyday communications equipment, have
been shown to cause direct damage to the
retina, iris and macula. She also reports that
dopamine loss, which can be triggered by
external electrical fields, can lead to blurred
vision. Dopamine is a hormone essential for the
development and maintenance of eye health.
Reduced night vision is a further case in
point. According to the conventional wisdom,
it’s something which comes with age or from
wearing certain types of corrective lenses. But,
according to Silk, it can also be caused by sitting
in a magnetic field all day long.
Research on indirect damage has proven
more challenging to obtain. Researchers in
◆ Be choosey about alcohol. Total alcohol
consumption has not been linked to AMD (Am J
Ophthalmol, 1996; 122: 743–5; Ann Epidemiol, 1999; 9: 172–7).
But specific types of alcohol may have different
effects. Beer, for instance, has been linked to an
increased risk (Ophthalmology, 1998; 105: 789–94; Am
J Ophthalmol, 1995; 120: 190–6), while wine drinkers
were found to have a significantly lower risk of
macular degeneration compared with those
who don’t drink wine (J Am Geriatr Soc, 1998; 46: 1–7;
Am J Ophthalmol, 1995; 120: 190–6). Red grape juice
may produce the same benefits without the
risks of alcohol
◆ Wear sunglasses. Bright sunlight can trigger
oxidative damage in the eye which, in turn, can
cause AMD (Surv Ophthalmol, 1988; 32: 252–69)
◆ Limit the time spent on your computer or take
frequent breaks. Swap metal frames (which act
like antennae, concentrating EMFs around your
eyes) for plastic ones, and take your glasses off
when using a mobile phone
◆ Zinc might work. There is evidence that zinc
supplementation may slow the progression of
AMD (Arch Ophthalmol, 1988; 106: 192–8), although
there is other evidence that it doesn’t (Invest
Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 1996; 37: 1225–35). Before supple-
menting, it may be worth getting yourself test-
ed for zinc deficiency.
 Wireless modem affected by heartbeat
Although there is little evidence about the effect
of wireless technology, we’ve had some complaints
from isolated case reports from our readers.
Here’s one we received from Francesca J. Fox,
via e-mail.
Last July, out of the blue, I developed a
disruption to my heart rhythm. The arrhyth-
mia continued to the point where I was aware
of it for most of the day. I also experienced
disturbances to my sleep, waking in the early
hours and then being unable to fall asleep
again. From the tightness of my chest, I knew
I was not getting enough oxygen.
I linked the onset of my symptoms to our
acquisition of a laptop with a wireless modem.
This ‘base station’ had been transmitting
microwaves 24 hours a day at a frequency of
2.4 GHz, extending to a radius of 150 feet.
We disconnected the base station and
replaced it with a fixed line. Within three
weeks, I was totally free of any abnormality;
my sleep and energy levels settled back to
normal.
On looking back, during that summer,
Norway have found that airborne particles,
including dust and toxic chemicals, concentrate
close to electrical fields (University of Bergen.
Meteorological Report Series, Report No 101994; ISBN
82-90569-61-0).
Also, according to Silk, researchers in Tokyo
have recently investigated the growth of both
Escherichia coli and Bacillus subtilis in a stronger-
than-normal magnetic field. Their findings
indicated that not only was cell growth greater,
but also the death rate of the bacterial cells was
inhibited. Research at the University of
California at Los Angeles has also shown that
fungi proliferate in electromagnetic fields.
The polymers used in the manufacture of
others in my family had been abnormally
fatigued with disturbed sleep patterns. My
18-year-old daughter had an episode of
dizziness lasting a whole day after close
contact with the transmitter. My 22-year-old
son experienced vomiting and vertigo after
spending two hours within feet of the
apparatus.
The base station is marketed by NET GEAR
and is called a Wireless ADSL Modem Gateway
DG824M. They are being placed in the foyers
of airports, hotels, in GPs’ surgeries, coffee
shops and students’ halls of residence so that
individuals can use their laptops with the
minimum of fuss.
From March 2004, a number of airlines will
have introduced them on their planes,
following trials by BA and Lufthansa.
If this is how it affects a healthy family of
adults over a short period of time, what will be
the consequences on the general population,
let alone those with recognised heart problems
or pacemakers, the pregnant and the young?
What is the real price of convenience?
contact lenses can also be affected by emissions
from VDUs. Ongoing studies cited by Silk have
shown that they can be prone to discoloration
and, more worryingly, to developing minute
holes which, in turn, can irritate and affect the
health of the eye.
Finally, the metal elements in spectacle
frames also constitute a risk. Metal frames can
act as antennae, focusing EMFs around your
eyes. This effect was first reported by the World
Health Organization as early as 1987 and again
in 1993, in the report Electromagnetic Fields 300
Hz–300 GHz (WHO, Geneva). Both ordinary
metallic spectacle frames and certain types of
safety spectacles produce this effect.
Electro-Pollution 35
Halogen lamps
H
alogen is the latest trendy form of
lighting, replacing track-lighting as
the darling of decorators,
particularly in the kitchen, bathroom and in
public places such as restaurants and offices.
Halogen floor lamps, known as ‘halogen
torchière lamps’, are also extremely popular
with students, providing a focused light that
is far more intense than incandescent
lighting. Halogen lamps are now a popular
supplement to the poor fluorescent lighting
of university dormitories.
These floor lights are built with an
upright open shade containing a tubular
halogen bulb and a thin glass guard over it
to catch the pieces in case the bulb shatters.
The recent concern over halogen lamps
has to do with their potential as a fire
hazard—specifically, their propensity to
ignite anything within reach that’s
combustible. In the US, where an estimated
30–40 million torchière-style halogen floor
lamps are currently in use, the lamps have
been responsible for some 189 fires and at
least 11 deaths since 1991, according to the
Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC).
Jazz legend Lionel Hampton’s home was
destroyed when a halogen lamp caught fire.
In Albany, New York, a halogen torchière
lamp caused a fire which injured two young
The biggest problems tend to be
caused when fabric is draped
over the lamps or when they
come in contact with curtains.
Students,
in particular, are notorious for
draping clothing over lamps, or
leaving them in contact with
fabric and other combustibles
36 Electro-Pollution
children, and one firefighter died in the
blaze at an American university dormitory,
which caught fire after a halogen lamp
tipped over, igniting a hanging tapestry.
Unlike the common standard lamp, which
employs incandescent bulbs of between
60–100 watts, halogen floor lamps have
bulbs of 300–500 watts, or roughly five to
10 times more power. According to the
CPSC, the lamps can generate ceiling
temperatures of up to 1200 degrees.
The biggest problems tend to be caused
when fabric is draped over the lamps or
when they come in contact with curtains.
Students, in particular, are notorious for
draping clothing over lamps, or leaving
them in contact with fabric and other
combustibles.
In the UK, several fires have started when
overhead halogen lights were too close to
objects in the room. One such fire occurred,
says UK lighting specialist Christopher
Wray, when a customer positioned one of
his recessed low-voltage lights too near a
kitchen cabinet.
Besides the problem of the intense heat
generated by these lamps, there is also their
propensity to tip over. “Our tests showed
that it required only 17 ounces of force
applied to the brass rung, which is 46 inches
from the floor, to tip,” says New York State
fire administrator James Burns.
In the US the CPSC, which is currently
investigating 31 fires directly linked to
halogen floor lamps, has the authority to
look into product defects. Nevertheless, it
doesn’t set the standard for halogen lamps.
That job falls to Underwires Laboratories,
an industry-funded group which sets a
safety standard that is basically voluntary.
In the wake of all the fires, several
American universities, such as the Rochester
Institute of Technology in New York, have
banned torchière-style halogen lamps.
Other universities will only allow halogen
lamps that meet certain standards into
residence halls.
A number of bodies in the US and UK
have modified the specifications for floor
and ceiling halogen lighting. In the States
after 5 February 1997, Underwriters Labs
began requiring halogen floor lamps to go
through a much tougher safety test.
However, one independent lab, Inchcape
Testing Services, tested three varieties of the
new floor lamps to see if the new safety fea-
tures, such as lower wattage, made a differ-
ence to their potential to cause fires.
 In the test, a lamp with a 300-watt bulb
is left on for 15 minutes, then a double layer
of cheesecloth, which is highly flammable, is
draped over the top of the lamp. If it
doesn’t catch fire in seven hours, the lamp
passes the test with flying colours.
Nevertheless, in the recent Inchcape test,
the first lamp caused the cheesecloth to go
up in flames in 34 seconds; in the second,
holes burned through the cheesecloth in 16
seconds and, in the third, the cheesecloth
caught fire in 25 seconds—and this among
lamps that were recently redesigned to meet
the new safety standards!
With halogen ceiling lamps, the main
concern is not only what is under the
lamps, but also what is above them; fires
have started when the lamp is positioned
near floor insulation, which is also highly
flammable.
Less well known than the fire hazards are
the problems of low-level radiation. Alas-
dair Philips, of Powerwatch, says that all
halogen lights, whether free-standing or
embedded in the ceiling, require low-volt-
age transformers (12, 24 or 48 volts)
compatible with the voltage of the building
(110 in the US, 240 in the UK).
“Most of these transformers are cheap
and cheerful, and usually quite crude,” says
Philips. Consequently, the transformers can
create pools of strong magnetic fields three
feet below the lights, as well as above the
lights. This is worrying in a kitchen, where
the maximum intensity of the field is close
to where a tall adult would be standing, but
even more so in the room above, which is
often a bedroom, where people could be
sleeping inches away from the embedded
ceiling lights of the floor below.
In one instance, Philips was called in to
test the electromagnetic fields by a woman
who had halogen ceiling lighting in the
kitchen of her farmhouse. He discovered
horrendously high levels of EMFs in her
daughter’s bedroom, which was directly
above the kitchen.
One way to reduce the EMFs generated
by recessed halogen lighting is to have an
electrician run all your halogen lights off
one good-quality transformer—placed, say,
in a cupboard.
Alasdair Philips, of Powerwatch,
says that all halogen lights,
whether free-standing or
embedded in the ceiling, require
low-voltage transformers . . .
“Most of these transformers are
cheap and cheerful, and usually
quite crude,” says Philips.
Consequently, the transformers
can create pools of strong
magnetic fields three feet below
the lights,
A final problem is caused by staring at
these high-intensity bulbs for too long. The
UK’s National Radiological Protection Board
has produced a leaflet, which says that pro-
longed staring at halogen bulbs can cause a
condition in the eyes not unlike macular
degeneration and affecting central vision.
This happened to Alasdair Philips himself
when he was filmed by a television pro-
duction company for 15 minutes, and asked
to look into a camera that had a halogen
light with a broken diffuser. Twelve hours
later, a black patch appeared in the middle
of one of his eyes. This was eventually
diagnosed as a central serous retinopathy—
a blister at the back of his retina. It took a
full year for the condition to clear.
If you wish to have recessed lights, you
can opt for the good old-fashioned incan-
descent variety, which are still better for you
than fluorescent or halogen lighting.
For more information, log on to
Powerwatch’s website at www.powerwatch.
org.uk, or call them on 01353 778 919.
Electro-Pollution 37
Measuring EMFs
M
any of us are concerned about the
levels of electromagnetic fields
(EMFs) that surround us, but few of
us have any idea what their immediate EMF
environment is really like. You can have the
level of EMFs in your home, office or school
professionally tested—a good idea if you live
in an area that is close to power lines or
traintracks. Your local-area power company
can do this for you, but the disadvantage of
this approach is that power-company
employees generally only work during the
day and may turn up randomly at times
when the levels of EMF radiation in your
particular building may not reflect their true
overall values.
To get a better picture of your EMF en-
vironment, you could hire a portable device
called a ‘gauss meter’, which measures the
strength of magnetic fields. The instrument
allows you to take measurements over a
period of days or other time periods, which
will provide a much more accurate picture of
your true EMF exposure.
A gauss meter measures the strength of
the EMFs in ‘gauss’ or ‘G’ units. They can vary
widely in price and accuracy as well as in
the strength of EMF they can measure. A
meter for measuring EMFs from power lines,
transformers, substations and appliances
around the home, for example, should be
able to detect as low as 0.1 mG (milligauss).
Our investigations suggest that,
for what it is, Dr Gauss is accurate
enough, and clear and easy to
read. However, it only detects a
range of 0–10 mG. This should be
adequate as the upper ‘safe’ level
for EMFs is 4 mG. Nevertheless,
for those who live near power
lines, it would be handy to know if
your exposure is 10 mG or 40 mG
38 Electro-Pollution
Simple gauss meters like ‘Dr Gauss’ and
others (most of which originate in the US)
are usually ‘single-axis’—they can only read
EMFs from one direction at a time. You must
point the meter’s sensor towards each of
three directions—to get the X, Y and Z axes—
then combine the three readings, using a
specific mathematical formula (see below), to
get an idea of your total exposure in any
given space or location.
To do this, you need to move the meter
around until you find the maximum reading,
then record it. Then, point the meter 90
degrees up or down from the first position,
and take a second reading. Now return to the
maximum reading, and point the meter 90
degrees right or left for the third reading.
Square each reading, add them all together
and find the square root of the result. If the
first reading was 10, the second six and the
third three, the result would be the square
root of 145 (100 1 36 1 9), or just over 12.
Note that the final result is always greater
than each separate reading.
A triple-axis meter will do all this in one
go but, while it is reasonably accurate, it
can cost you hundreds of pounds. Our
investigations suggest that, for what it is, Dr
Gauss is accurate enough, and clear and
easy to read. However, it only detects a
range of 0–10 mG. This should be adequate
as the upper ‘safe’ level for EMFs is 4 mG.
Nevertheless, for those who live near power
lines, it would be handy to know if your
exposure is 10 mG or 40 mG.
Also, the Dr Gauss doesn’t have an off
switch; instead, it turns itself off auto-
matically after about five minutes. In the
meantime, it buzzes if it’s in a magnetic field.
Similarly, the volume of its audible indicator
cannot be changed nor can the audible
indicator be turned off.
Dr Gauss is not available in the UK, but
it can be purchased through the Internet.
The price varies widely, so better shop
around. We’ve seen it on sale for $29.95 on
the Net, but be sure to remember to check
the cost of postage, which can be
considerable.
A gauss meter can vary widely in both
price and accuracy, so it pays to invest in the
best-quality meter you can find. Also, to get
the best out of your meter, you should
consider the following points:
◆ Your meter should be able to detect levels
as low as 0.1 mG (milligauss)
◆ Gauss meters generally have either a
single-axis or a triple-axis coil. To use a
 single-axis meter, you need to take three
separate measurements and then combine
these to calculate the combined field
strength (see above). The triple-axis meter
takes all three readings at the same time
and does the calculation for you
◆ A ‘frequency-weighted’ meter is more
accurate because it monitors background
frequencies and includes these in the final
read-out.
Where to go
There are various do-it-yourself meters
available for purchase or hire, including (or
from):
◆ Coghill Research Laboratories, which offers
similar devices as Powerwatch, as well as
EM-protective ‘nets’ (www.cogreslab.co.uk;
tel: 01495 752 122)
◆ EMF Professional Electric and Magnetic Field
meter, which can be rented for £25/week
(www.healthy-house.co.uk)
◆ Perspective Scientific, 100 Baker Street,
London, W1U 6WB (www.perspective.
co.uk; tel: 020 7486 6837; purchase only)
◆ Powerwatch, which sells or hires out meters
to monitor electrical/microwave exposure
(www.powerwatch.org.uk; tel: 01353 778
814)
◆ Tom’s Gadgets, which sells a range of devices
costing from around £24–173 (www.
tomsgadgets.com; tel: 0845 456 2370).
Inexpensive single-axis EMF meters are not
exactly commonplace, and they are par-
ticularly hard to find in the UK.
While some people use EMF meters to
check their level of EM exposure, others use
them to hunt ghosts. The latter type of meter
is often cheaper than the former—even
though they perform the same function.
You may wish to investigate the following
alternatives to Dr Gauss:
❖ ElectroSensor: $24.95, measures 1.3–30 mG
❖ CellSensor: $44.95, measures ELFs in the
0–5 and 0–50 mG ranges
❖ 2G EMF: £44.95 (incl p&p), measures ELFs
in the 0–50 mG range.
Electro-Pollution 39
Mobile-protection devices
T
he Prime Minister’s wife Cherie Blair’s
recent appearance with a ‘bioelectric’
device to protect herself from harmful
electromagnetic radiation (EMR) has thrust the
issue of EMR hazards and protection onto the
public’s attention.
Said by its inventor to deflect EMR from
office equipment, the device has been dismissed
by various members of the medical fraternity as
‘superstition’ and a ‘placebo’.
However, in one arm of Dr Madeleine
Bastide’s Montpellier University experiment (see
Chapter 4), chick embryos were again exposed
to mobile-phone radiation but, for one group
of chicks, the phone was fitted with a Tecno
AO Antenna (made by the French company
Tecnosphere). The embryo death rate for the
‘protected’ group was 29 per cent compared
with 57 per cent in the ‘unprotected’ group,
indicating that the Tecno AO Antenna did
indeed shield the embryos. With further
research, such results could have significant
implications for pregnant women.
While the inventor of the
bioelectric shield says it works as
a gatekeeper, filtering out
incompatible energy fields, the
Tecno AO Antenna is thought
to help the body protect itself
against various frequencies by
boosting brainwave frequencies
to combat them
40 Electro-Pollution
Researchers at Britain’s Luton University
found that the Tecno AO device fixed to a
VDU significantly reduced stress in users,
compared with the effects experienced by those
using a VDU without one.
Eminent ophthalmologist Professor Mikio
Miyata at Kitasato University, Japan, has shown
that the Tecno AO also protected against
corneal eye injury caused by VDU use. Analysis
of the results is still continuing and will be
published in a peer-reviewed journal.
While the inventor of the bioelectric shield
says it works as a gatekeeper, filtering out
incompatible energy fields, the Tecno AO
Antenna is thought to help the body protect
itself against various frequencies by boosting
brainwave frequencies to combat them.
More information and evidence is available
from Tecno AO (UK), Draycot Foliat, Swindon,
Wiltshire (www.tecnoaouk.com; e-mail: sales@
tecnoaouk. com; tel: 01793 741 080; fax: O1793
741 079).
Clearly, it is prudent for all of us to protect
ourselves from pulsed microwave radiation,
given that many of us will probably be using
technology that generates EMR every day for
the rest of our lives, which could amount to up
to 40 years of exposure.
The products
It would be prohibitively difficult to test each
protective device fully in a laboratory, especially
as many of them do not claim to shield the user
but, instead, strengthen the body’s bioelectric
system to withstand radiation from the handset.
Thus, the assessments here are based on the
information and claims made by the
manufacturers, the research —if any—referred
to and provided by them, and observations on
the general plausibility of the product’s claims.
GoVoiceGo
Manufacturer: GoBizGo Ltd
Price: £49.99 (incl VAT)
This remote speaker device—not an earpiece—
has only just been launched in the UK (tel:
01733 893 475). It can be used in the car, office
or home—or anywhere else. The speaker is
connected directly to the phone, avoiding any
need to be in contact with the mobile. Hence,
the radiation is dramatically reduced compared
with holding it to the head. No tests have been
done, but these are apparently being planned.
This is the ultimate device for those who don’t
want to hold the phone while using it.
Microshield
Manufacturer: Microshield Industries
Price: £34
This is a protective jacket that goes over the
phone and uses an adjustable metal strip to
“inductively load the antenna” to shield the
user’s head against antenna radiation. (Devices
are tailored for specific makes and not all makes
are available.)
It is almost certainly the most researched
device on the market, having been tested by
many independent laboratories in Australia,
Russia and the UK. The UK’s National Physical
Laboratory tested this device and found that it
reduced SAR by up to 90 per cent when the
phone was operating at full power. Even in a
worst-case scenario—when the phone increases
its power from operating at a low level—it still
reduced the final SAR by about 25 per cent.
Critics say that the sliding antenna shield
requires the phone to ‘power up’ (draw more
power), but Microshield (www.microshield.
co.uk; tel: 020 8363 3333) maintains that any
such effect is only marginal because of reduced
inductive coupling by the head, and is offset by
the extra protection provided. Microshield does
not specifically address the low-frequency
pulsing, which it considers of lesser importance
than the main microwave radiation.
The Consumers’ Association Which? tests
reported a 70 per cent reduction in SAR in the
head and then, quite inexplicably, went on to
say that shields are worthless.
Microshield is collecting data on the
experiences of its customers and already has an
archive of over 3000 questionnaires on
customers’ health problems using mobile
phones. The company contributed comments to
the Stewart Report, and also organises
conferences on mobile-phone health hazards
and is often invited to speak at others. It boasts
large numbers of satisfied users who claim that
the device has stopped their adverse symptoms.
AegisGuard
Manufacturer: Aegis Corp, St Louis, Missouri
Price: £34.95
This barrier shield deflects radiation away from
the head. Every model includes a shielded
earpiece, and a shielded transparent keypad and
display cover. Independent laboratory tests
show that AegisGuard deflects up to 99.9 per
cent of the radiation emitted at the area above
the keypad and display, and up to 99.5 per cent
of the radiation emitted from the keypad
and/or display itself. Possible consequences of
the reflected radiation being absorbed into the
hand are not discussed.
The manufacturer tested 33 different makes
of phones, operating at between 800–1900

Go for the bead

Mobile-phone users have long been told that hands-
free kits are the preferred way to keep radiation
risks to a minimum. Recent studies show they can cut
emissions by around 53 per cent. However, radiation
can still travel up the wire and reach the brain.
Recently, Professor Lawrie Challis, vice-chairman
of the NRPB Inquiry and chairman of the Mobile
Telecommunications and Health Research Pro-
gramme, put forward a safety suggestion: attach a
small ferrite bead to the wire.
Ferrites are metallic/ceramic compounds, designed
to absorb electromagnetic fields. This magnetic bead,
he says, blocks any unintentional current (which runs
outside of the wire, not within it), so no radiation
can reach the head.
Professor Challis now wants all mobile-phone
companies to use the magnetic beads on their
hands-free kits. Reading between the lines, the
Professor’s magic-bead idea suggests that the
government may know more than they are telling,
and are desperately trying to find a way to keep the
telecommunications industry happy while at the
same time avoiding a health disaster that would
make CJD look like the common cold.
The mobile-phone industry, of course, has rejected
Professor Challis’ idea out of hand. After all, should
they incorporate ferrite beads as a safety feature,
it would surely beg the awkward question, “Was the
device unsafe in the first place?”
The only way we are really going to find out is
through research. Because proactive research into
the safety of mobile phones has effectively come
to a halt, the only data available will be post-
marketing information—watching the millions of
human guinea pigs that use the devices every day
and seeing what happens.
Until a clear conclusion is drawn, any reasonable
precautions should be considered. The ferrite bead is
simple, cheap and unobtrusive. There’s evidence that
it works best when placed below the microphone
on a hands-free kit.
The catch is that you will have to source these
items from specialist electrical suppliers, who know
these beads as ‘ferrite clamps’, and use them to filter
radio-frequency (RF) signals in electrical equipment
and to stop data interference on computers. Most
hands-free kits have wires with a diameter of 4 mm
or less, so make sure you know the size you want
before you buy.
A good source to get you started is Maplin
Electronics, a nationwide chain that carries a range
of clip-on ferrites. Visit its website (www.maplin.
co.uk) or phone its customer services (tel: 0870 429
6000) for more details.

Electro-Pollution 41
 MHz, as well as two cordless phones operating
at up to 2540 MHz, using a non-SAR method
of assessing total emitted radiation levels. Pulsed
effects are also considered.
Unlike other reported shielding results that
use a coaxial cable connected between the
phone and test equipment, Aegis Corp’s test
results and measurements were derived using
base station-type antennas to duplicate actual
radiation emissions in a real-world situation. Its
website (www.coaegis.com) shows an impressive
knowledge of the complexities of radiation and
protection problems.
SafeTshield
Manufacturer: SV1, Boca Raton, Florida
Price: £15.95 (approximately)
This is a shield device that fits over the ear-
piece. According to their impressive website
(www.safetshield.com; tel: 0800 458 3351), it
is made from a polycarbon-metallic fibre
originally developed for military use. It has
been tested by labs in the US, UK, Germany,
Japan and Czechoslovakia, and shown to reduce
radiation by more than 90 per cent and up to
as much as 99 per cent. There’s no mention of
low-frequency pulsing, but the research
evidence provided is strong.
Techno AO Antenna
Manufacturer: Technosphere, France
Price: £25.75
This small oval-shaped device is attached to the
mobile phone and “emits a constant alpha wave

What is Q-Link?
The Q-Link is a pendant that claims to balance
the body’s subtle energies. Worn suspended on a
nylon cord and worn on the chest above the heart
area, the manufacturer Clarus says it strengthens
resilience and resistance to the effects of stress,
increases energy and enhances mental perfor-
mance, especially under pressure, and increases the
capacity to function in electromagnetic-field
(EMF)-saturated environments.
Where’s the evidence?
Anecdotally, Clarus says that some users report an
absence of discomfort, improved sleep, more energy
and a greater ability to cope, both mentally and
physically. Others report increased intellectual
clarity and focus.
These kinds of things, being mostly subjective,
are, of course, difficult to prove, but Clarus can
provide details of several studies involving the
Q-Link pendant. All are unpublished, but this is
not unexpected. It’s hard to imagine any
conventional peer-reviewed medical journals ever
publishing studies that are so small in scale and
dealing with a subject that most scientists find
highly contentious.
Nevertheless, the results of these studies are
intriguing. Tests using human subjects showed that,
after wearing the Q-Link pendant for 72 hours, the
integrity of their blood cells was maintained. There
was also a reduction of the negative effects of
EMF radiation from a range of sources—including
mobile phones, computers and powerlines—on
brainwave patterns.
Consider this
The body creates and sustains its own energy
system. There is some evidence that signals from
other electromagnetic systems (such as computers,
hairdryers and mobile phones) can interfere with
the human electrical system and that this
interference might result in the sort of cellular
derangements that can lead to disease.
The Q-Link is said to be encoded with
Sympathetic Resonance Technology (SRT), a
pioneering branch of quantum physics. What this
means is that the pendant acts like a tuning fork,
resonating with the ideal ‘note’ or frequency at
which the body's energy system should hum. The
body responds positively to this optimal frequency
and ‘pitches’ itself to it so that, in time, the ideal
and the actual ‘notes’ of the body become attuned
or in harmony.
The question that always hangs in the air with
devices like this is: how do we determine what the
optimal health-giving frequency is for individual
human beings? In the same way that we all require
different vitamins at differing levels, our energy
patterns and the frequencies we need to balance
them may also vary from one person to another.
Does SRT really pick up the perfect ‘note’ for each
and every individual? Or does it impose a vibration
that might not be quite right? Or is this all just a
load of pseudoscientific hokum? The answers are
not clear.
Nevertheless, Q-Link has done what many
similar devices have not done—attempted to back
up its claims with research.
The basic pendant is the least expensive in the
range (which also includes brushed and polished
silver and gold pendants priced up to £485).
All of the various types come with a lifetime-
service guarantee and require no batteries since it
is powered by the wearer. The Q-Link is fully water-
resistant and comes with a 90-day, full money-back
guarantee.
Clarus can be contacted by phone on 0870 241
4135 and you can visit the Q-Link website at
www.qlinkworld.co.uk.

42 Electro-Pollution
 The Techno AO Antenna
What does it claim to do?
While most of the research into the damaging
effects of EMFs has concentrated on high-
frequency radiation, there are new concerns that
low-frequency energy can cause disturbances in
the human system, which itself is electromagnetic.
The result are problems that can range from eye
damage, tiredness, joint pain and headaches to
many other physical and psychological symptoms
experienced by people who use VDUs and
cellphones.
According to the distributor, “The Tecno AO is
a small device which attaches to your VDU or
mobile phone and emits a constant alpha-wave at
a similar strength to that of the human brain in
certain states of non-activity. This, in turn, helps to
stabilise the electromagnetic structures within the
body and enables them to resist the disturbance
from random radiations.”
Has the product been tested?
Remarkably—yes, it has. Numerous studies in
Europe and the Far East have been conducted.
Research carried out at Cochin Hospital (University
of Paris) Occupational Medicine has shown almost
a 25 per cent reduction in stress, a 13 per cent
increase in VDU operator speed, and improvement
in concentration and alertness of 23 and 9 per cent,
respectively.
Follow-up questionnaires showed improvement
in, or the disappearance of, a wide range of health
problems often attributed to other causes.
Similar studies at Luton University in Britain and
Kitasato University, Tokyo, showed improvements
in mental and emotional symptoms as well as
diminished corneal eye damage.
Animal studies suggest a protective effect and
remarkable improvements in hormonal and
immunological responses.
Other comments
Can we believe our eyes? It appears so. At £67, this
device is not cheap, but all available research
suggests that it works. It’s frustrating, however,
that the way the product works cannot be explained
in everyday language. Although designed by phy-
sics experts, it’s going to be used by the layman
who will need to—and indeed has a right to—
understand its effects fully.
According to the distributor, “The nearest
analogy to the Tecno AO’s action in everyday
parlance is the effect that antioxidants, such as
selenium and vitamin C, have on human cells,
enabling them to resist free radicals.”
It won’t be long before other similar devices hit
the market, and consumers need to be cautious of
buying these without seeing proof of their
effectiveness.

at a similar strength to that of a human brain
in certain states of non-activity, which helps to
stabilise the EM structures within the body and
enables them to resist the disturbances from
random radiations”, says one of the company’s
promotional leaflets (www.tecnoaouk.com; tel:
01793 741 080).
The device claims to boost the body’s ability
to neutralise the low-frequency pulse from a
mobile and has some impressive research (see
above), mainly done at Montpellier University,
France, to support its claims. (It also claims to
have other, double-blind research from Reading
University to support the benefits of its device
for VDUs; see box above)
However, it is difficult to understand how the
signal it emits—which is some 200 times lower
than the earth’s natural ionospheric resonances
—can have the power to boost the body’s
resistance.
Company literature discusses quantum
effects, and the importance of transferring the
embedded information in a signal rather than
the intensity of the signal itself.
Whatever the explanation for the effects, the
research cannot be dismissed.
Technosphere continues to fund research,
organise conferences and has distributors in a
number of countries.
Q-Link
Manufacturer: Clarus Ltd
Price: £84.26
This is a pendant that claims to neutralise EMFs
from phones and other sources. Although the
website does describe research that has been
carried out in the US, Australia and Austria
(www.qlinkworld.co.uk), no references are given,
suggesting that none has been published in a
peer-reviewed journal.
The device claims to work by using a
microchip and a resonant circuit. In fact, when
dismantled, it turns out to be a surface-
mounted link soldered to two copper pads that
are not connected to anything else. The unit
had no significant resonances between 1 Hz and
100 MHz.
Despite claiming many satisfied customers
and offering a 90-day, money-back guarantee, it
is very difficult to see how the Q-Link can offer
any real protection from a mobile phone’s
radiation (but see box, page X, for more
information).

Electro-Pollution 43
 Biophone
Manufacturer: Ecoflow Ltd
Price: £30
This ‘button’-type device “has been specifically
designed to combat the harmful effects of EM
radiation”. It has apparently “been developed,
after much research . . . and effectively helps the
body ‘neutralise’ the harmful emissions from a
mobile phone”. Ecoflow (www.ecomagnets.com;
tel: 01732 882 661) describes a study of 100
users over 18 months—53 with, 47 without, the
device, and a control group of 106 non-users.
General users’ complaints such as earache,
warmth and fatigue were measured, and “either
a reduction in health problems or improvement
in functional status” occurred when the device
was used. There is no mention of pulsed
radiation, and the science and the claims seem
highly questionable.
Wave Buster
Manufacturer: Daewoo
44 Electro-Pollution
Price: £9.99
This two-piece device uses a self-adhesive
backing on one piece that fits over the speaker
in the form of a ceramic ‘button’, while the
second piece is stuck by the aerial—whether
internal or external. Although its material is the
same as that used by manufacturers to shield
the inside of phones, it is of little use stuck on
as a button externally.
The website (www.wavebuster.co.uk) says this
is the “only device independently tested to
absorb up to 70 per cent of EMFs from mobile
phones”—which isn’t true—and gives no
references as to who conducted the research or
where it can be viewed.
It also states, with reference to general
radiation, that: ”Even the use of hands-free kits
have [sic] shown to be no help in preventing
these problems—which is, again, not true. It
apparently took seven years to develop, but
there is no mention of low-frequency pulses.