In January 2009 the administration of the Bavarian Municipality of
Selbitz gathered relevant data from 251 residents as part of a health
survey. Subsequently, the data were assessed based on the exposure
levels of cell phone radiation.
In a next step, the exposure levels based on residential location and
available RF measurements of local cell phone radiation levels were
used to classify participants into exposure groups.
The mean radiation exposure level of the highest exposure group in
Selbitz (1.2 V/m) was substantially higher than that of the study
population in the QUEBEB study (1) of the German Mobile Phone
Programme (mean value 0,07 V/m). For such symptoms as sleep
problems, depressions, cerebral symptoms, joint problems,
infections, skin problems, cardiovascular problems as well as
disorders of the visual and auditory systems and the gastrointestinal
tract, a significant dose-response relationship was observed in
relation to objectively determined exposure levels. The impact of
microwave radiation on the human nervous system serves as an
explanation.
Carried out without outside funds, the study presented here provides
a protocol concept that allows physicians and municipalities to
cooperate and assess the potential human health impact of cell
phone base stations located within residential areas.
Keywords: symptoms, cell phone radiation, wireless technologies, doseresponse
relationship
Participating offices: Dr. Brömel/Pozder, Schulstraße 4, 95197 Schauenstein;
Dr. Jahn, Brunnenstraße 1, 95152 Selbitz; Dr. Müller, Wildenberg 22, 95152
Selbitz.
Deutsche Zusammenfassung
In der bayerischen Stadt Selbitz wurden im Januar 2009 zuerst durch die
Gemeinde im Rahmen einer Gesundheitsbefragung relevante Daten von 251
Einwohnern erfasst und anschließend daran nach Belastungsstärken durch
Mobilfunkwellen ausgewertet.
Die Belastungswerte wurden in einem zweiten Schritt an hand von Wohnort
und vorliegenden Messdaten der örtlichen Mobilfunkstrahlung zur
Stratifizierung der Teilnehmer in Belastungsgruppen verwendet.
Die mittlere Strahlenbelastung der höchstbelasteten Gruppen in Selbitz (1,2
V/m) lag deutlich höher als die untersuchte Studienpopulation der QUEBEBElectromagnetic
Fields Original Scientific Paper
Original German umwelt-medizin-gesellschaft ⏐23⏐2/2010 2
Studie (1) des Deutschen Mobilfunkforschungsprogramms (Mittelwert DMF
O,07V Im). Fürdie Beschwerden Schlafstörung, Depressionen, cerebrale
Symptome, Gelenkbeschwerden, Infekte, Hautveränderungen, Herz-Kreislauf
Störungen sowie Störungen des optischen und akustischen Sensoriums und
des Magen-Darm-Traktes besteht eine signifikante dosiswirkungsabhängige
Korrelation zu objektiv bestimmten Expositionslagen, die mit dem Einfluss
von Mikrowellen auf das Nervensystem des Menschen erklärt wird.
Die vorliegende fremdmittelfrei erstellte Arbeit gibt einen Konzeptentwurf
vor, mit dem Ärzte und Gemeindeverwaltungen gemeinsam den
gesundheitlich relevanten Einfluss von innerörtlichen Mobilfunksendern
abschätzen können.
Introduction
Over the last decades wireless technologies have gained in importance. As a
result, however, TV and radio stations are no longer the broadcasting sources
that cause the highest exposure levels in residential areas; now it is cell
phone base stations. Since 2003 the German Commission on Radiological
Protection (SSK) has explicitly pointed out that there is a lack of knowledge
about the consequences of these technologies on human health (2).
In Upper Franconian Selbitz, the municipality collaborated with local medical
offices1 whereby two separate data sets—a general health survey and
available RF measurements—were used to correlate gathered symptom
scores with independently available RF emission measurements of relevant
cell phone radiation.
Materials and Methods
Selbitz in Upper Franconia is located in the northeast of Bavaria, Germany,
having a total population of 4,644 (2,171 male and 2,473 female) on 31
December 2008 (3).
Cell phone coverage is available across the entire municipality. In the center,
cell phone transmitters of two service providers are located in the street
Feldstraße 28 and the installation of a third telecommunication service
provider is located in the
street Burgstraße 26a (4).
Fig. 1:
Cell Phone Transmitters on
Top of the Multistory
Building at Feldstraße 28,
Selbitz, Upper Franconia
Electromagnetic Fields Original Scientific Paper
Original German umwelt-medizin-gesellschaft ⏐23⏐2/2010 3
As part of a survey in 2009, Selbitz municipality sent standardized health
questionnaires by mail to 1,080 persons within the municipality and
surrounding areas. The participants were aware that they could receive a
questionnaire when they lived within a 400-m radius of the cell phone base
station at Feldstraße 28 or also outside of this radius. There were no personal
interviews. A total of 88 sets of information on health symptoms were
gathered, using a quantitative scale of zero to five. The symptom groups
based on clinical entities were summarized as clusters for the assessment
(Table 1).
Table 1: Summary of Symptom Groups Based on Clinical Entities
The cover letter of the invitation to participate stated that participant
confidentiality is ensured. The questionnaires could be returned or sent back
to Selbitz municipality or the local doctor’s offices. After the questionnaires
were returned, the personal information form was separately filed from the
symptom information form at the doctor’s office of Dr. Eger, Naila. The
anonymously coded symptom information forms were then passed on for
data entry to the administrative staff of Selbitz municipality. The staff of the
IT department entered the anonymized data into an Excel table for analysis.
On the personal information form, the existence of a DECT phone in the
residence was indicated by a simple checkmark, which was also entered into
the data pool.
Symptom Group Symptom Number
1 Sleep disorders 1-5
2 Symptoms of depression 6,7,18-23
3 Headaches 8
4 Cerebral affections 8-12
5 Concentration difficulties 24-29
6 Joint problems 30-34
7 Toothaches 35
8 Infections 36-41
9 Skin problems 42-47
10 Dizziness 55
11 Cardiovascular problems 48-52
12 Auditory system,
Disturbance of equilibrium
56-61
13 Visual problems 62-67
14 Nosebleed 68
15 Hormonal imbalances 70-74
16 Weight gain 75
17 Weight loss 76
18 Gastrointestinal problems 77-81
19 Bedwetting 85
Electromagnetic Fields Original Scientific Paper
Original German umwelt-medizin-gesellschaft ⏐23⏐2/2010 4
All participants who returned their questionnaires were classified into groups
based on their residential address. The circles drawn in Figure 2 show
distances of 100 m, 200 m, 300 m, or 400 m from the two cell transmitters
installed on the building of Feldstraße 28, identifying the groups 1 to 4. One
control group (group 5), which can be classified as low-emission, includes
participants outside the 400-m radius directly in Selbitz and also from
surrounding areas that are further away from the municipality.
According to the elevation map, the landscape around the transmitter is level
toward the west and east, gently rises toward the north, and declines with 7°
to 9° toward the south.
The cell phone facilities of the service providers are located at a height of
19.20 m, 20.20 m, and 23.50 m above ground with the actual transmitters at
19.35 m and 22.70 m. The down tilt of the transmitters is given with 8°. The
frequency ranges used are at about 940 MHz and 1850 MHz (5).
Under these conditions, the area where the main beam touches the ground is
located almost 200 m away from the transmitters. Within the 200-m radius
additional side lobes are to be expected.
Fig. 2: The map from the land title office shows in the center of the
concentric circles the cell transmitters at Feldstraße 28 in Selbitz.
(Source: 5, With kind permission of Selbitz municipality)
Electromagnetic Fields Original Scientific Paper
Original German umwelt-medizin-gesellschaft ⏐23⏐2/2010 5
Testing Situation and Measurement Results
Based on the testing report by the accredited company ECL, mean exposure
values of the cell phone radiation could be assigned to the individual
exposure groups (6). For the groups 1 and 2 the mean value is 1.17 V/m, for
the groups 3 and 4 0.7 V/m.
The testing results for the area outside the 400-m radius were on average at
0.18 V/m and serve as a reference value. Weidesgrün area showed the
lowest measurements with 0.01 V/m.
The analysis is performed by using a two-tailed t-test of two unrelated
samples for a total of 19 symptom scores of the individual groups 1 through
5 to test the null hypothesis that the symptom scores of the compared
groups are evenly distributed and thus independent of the radiation effect
(7).
The comparison of the health-relevant data was carried out based on two
concepts:
A) Comparison of the participant groups 1 to 4 within the 400-m radius of
the transmitter location to the control group outside the 400-m radius in
Selbitz/surrounding areas.
B) Comparison of the participant groups within the 400-m radius of the
transmitter location, comparing the highest-exposure groups 1 and 2 to
the groups 3 and 4 further away.
Results
A total of 255 persons above the age of 18 participated in the survey; 4
questionnaires could not be evaluated. This corresponds with a response rate
of 23% from 1,090 questionnaires sent out. In total, the groups 1 to 4 close
to the transmitter had a response rate of 22% and the control group’s rate
was 27%, thus displaying no significant difference in the response rate
(Table 2).
For all participants the gender ratio of 43% male and 57% female applies,
which roughly corresponds with the ratio of the statistically registered
inhabitants of Selbitz with 47% male and 53% female (Table 3).
For groups 1 through 4, the control group 5, and persons in Selbitz from the
age of 18, the average age is 54.5, 52.0, and 53.5 years.
The age distribution in 5-year increments corresponds with the total
population in Selbitz (Table 3, Figure 3a-e). The survey participants, thereby,
represent an age-representative sample of the total population of all
inhabitants of Selbitz from age 18.
Within the 400-m radius around the transmitter, a higher symptom rate
could be documented for 14 out of 19 symptom groups in the highest
exposure groups 1 and 2 close to the transmitter compared to groups 3 and
4 further away from the transmitter (Table 4). The difference is statistically
significant.
Electromagnetic Fields Original Scientific Paper
Original German umwelt-medizin-gesellschaft ⏐23⏐2/2010 6
Mailouts Responses
Number/(Percent)
Nonresponses
Number/(Percent)
Comparison of
Responses/Nonresponses
incl. Control Group 5
(chi-square test)
Groups
1 125 45 (36.0%) 80 (64.0%) n.s.**
2 144 37 (25.7%) 107 (74.3%) n.s.
3 281 60 (21.4%) 221 (78.6%) n.s.
4 273 38 (14.0%) 235 (86.0%9 p < 0.01 (chi2)
Control
Group 5 254 71 (28.0%) 183 (72.0%)
Sum 1077* 251 826
Table 2: Distribution of Questionnaires in Groups 1 to 4 and Control Group 5
according to Responses and Nonresponses.
With the exception of the low response rate in group 4, the
differences between the responders/nonresponders of the individual
groups and the control group 5 are not statistically significant.
*Three persons of the 1,080 surveys sent out could not be
assigned.
** n.s. = not significant
Number Gender
Male/Female
(in %)
Age in
5-year
Increments**
Mean/Median
Distance
from
Transmitter
at
Feldstraße
Mean
Exposure
Levels of Cell
Phone
Radiation
in V/m
Groups
1 45 47/53 57.5/57 0-100 m
2 37 41/59 52.0/52 100-200 m
1.17 V/m
3 60 40/60 55.0/57 200-300 m
4 38 42/57 53.5/52 300-400 m
0.70 V/m
5 71 44/56 52.0/52 > 400 m 0.18 V/m
Selbitz* 4644 47/53 53.5/52
Table 3: Overview of Investigated Groups Based on Gender, Age, Residential
Location, and Exposure Level. Groups 1-4 with a total of 180
participants are located within the 400-m radius of the transmitter.
The 71 participants of control group 5 are further away than 400 m.
Both the gender distribution as well as the comparison of age
groups does not statistically differ from the total population of
Selbitz.
* For the comparison of the mean age only persons above the age
of 18 were chosen from the Selbitz population. Total population of
Selbitz: 4,644; Inhabitants above age 18: 3,890.
** Age values are given within 5-year groups.
Electromagnetic Fields Original Scientific Paper
Original German umwelt-medizin-gesellschaft ⏐23⏐2/2010 7
Group 1 Group 2
Group 3 Group 4
Control Group 5
Fig. 3a-e: Age Distribution in Groups 1-4 and Control Group 5 in 5-year
Increments
Electromagnetic Fields Original Scientific Paper
Original German umwelt-medizin-gesellschaft ⏐23⏐2/2010 8
A
Comparison of
Groups 1 to 4
(0-400 m/n=180)
to control group 5
(> 400 m/n=71)
B
Comparison of
Groups 1 and 2
(0-200m/n=82)
to groups 3 and 4
(200-400 m/n=98)
Symptoms Significance level
p (t-test)
Significance level
p (t-test)
1 Sleep problems 0.001 0.001
2 Symptoms of depression 0.001 0.001
3 Headaches n.s. 0.001
4 Cerebral affections 0.001 0.001
5 Concentration difficulties n.s. 0.001
6 Joint problems 0.01 0.001
7 Toothaches n.s. n.s.
8 Infections 0.01 0.001
9 Skin problems 0.001 0.001
10 Dizziness n.s. 0.01
11 Cardiovascular problems 0.001 0.001
12 Auditory system
Disturbance of equilibrium 0.01 0.001
13 Visual problems 0.01 0.001
14 Nosebleed n.s. 0.01
15 Hormonal imbalances 0.05 n.s.
16 Weight gain n.s. n.s.
17 Weight loss n.s. n.s.
18 Gastrointestinal problems 0.01 0.001
19 Bedwetting n.s. n.s. = not significant
Table 4: Specific Symptoms of Study Participants in Relation to Distance
from Emission Source
A) Comparison of participant groups 1 to 4 around the transmitter to
control group outside 400-m radius in Selbitz/surrounding areas
B) Comparison of participant groups within 400-m radius of
transmitter. Groups 1 and 2 with the highest exposure are
compared to groups 3 and 4 with a lower exposure level further
away from the transmitter. Exposure levels for groups 1 and 2 were
1.17 V/m, for groups 3 and 4 0.7 V/m, and for control group 5 0.18
V/m.
In comparison to the control group, significant (p < 0.01, t-test) differences
were found for the following symptom groups in the four exposure groups 1
to 4 located close to the transmitter: sleep problems, symptoms of
depression, cerebral symptoms, joint problems, infections, skin problems,
Electromagnetic Fields Original Scientific Paper
Original German umwelt-medizin-gesellschaft ⏐23⏐2/2010 9
cardiovascular problems, disorders of the visual and auditory system as well
as hormone system and also gastrointestinal problems. The control
symptoms “toothaches” and “bedwetting” were not significant (Table 4).
An overview of the documented mean values for all 19 symptoms or
symptom scores is shown in Figure 4. The highest mean values are found
mostly in the two highest exposure groups 1 and 2.
Fig. 4: Comparison of Specific Symptoms to Field Strengths
The spatial representation shows the 19 symptom scores on the yaxis
where the mean value of each symptom score is plotted
quantitatively. On the z-axis the exposure groups 1 to 5 are shown.
In Figure 5 and 8, the symptom scores for sleep problems, symptoms of
depression, joint problems and cardiovascular problems are shown with their
mean values and 95% confidence intervals. In a highly visual way, the
significant relationships from Table 4 become obvious here.
Electromagnetic Fields Original Scientific Paper
Original German umwelt-medizin-gesellschaft ⏐23⏐2/2010 10
Fig. 5:
Control Symptom Score 1 for
Sleep Problems for Groups 1-4
and Control Group 5
On the y-axis the mean values
of the symptom scores are
shown; the vertical bars at the
result points represent the
95% confidence intervals.
Fig. 6:
Control Symptom Score 2 for
Symptoms of Depression for
Groups 1-4 and Control Group
5
On the y-axis the mean values
of the symptom scores are
shown; the vertical bars at the
result points represent the
95% confidence intervals.
Fig. 7:
Control Symptom Score 6 for
Joint Problems for Groups 1-4
and Control Group 5
On the y-axis the mean values
of the symptom scores are
shown; the vertical bars at the
result points represent the
95% confidence intervals.
Electromagnetic Fields Original Scientific Paper
Original German umwelt-medizin-gesellschaft ⏐23⏐2/2010 11
Fig. 8:
Control Symptom Score 11 for
Cardiovascular Problems for
Groups 1-4 and Control Group
5
On the y-axis the mean values
of the symptom scores are
shown; the vertical bars at the
result points represent the
95% confidence intervals.
Fig. 9:
Control Symptom Score 7 for
Toothaches for Groups 1-4
and Control Group 5
On the y-axis the mean values
of the symptom scores are
shown; the vertical bars at the
result points represent the
95% confidence intervals.
Fig. 10:
Control Symptom Score 19 for
Bedwetting for Groups 1-4 and
Control Group 5
On the y-axis the mean values
of the symptom scores are
shown; the vertical bars at the
result points represent the
95% confidence intervals.
Electromagnetic Fields Original Scientific Paper
Original German umwelt-medizin-gesellschaft ⏐23⏐2/2010 12
The symptoms “toothaches” and “bedwetting” served as controls in order to
validate with these radiation-independent symptoms the plausibility of the
participants’ responses. There were no significant differences found for
groups 1 and 2 in comparison to groups 3 and 4 or to control group 5,
respectively (Table 4).
In a second step, we investigated if, within the 400-m radius, documented
symptom scores are related to the distance or measured exposure level.
In Figure 11 the mean values are shown, comparing group 1 and 2 (upper
black line) to group 3 and 4 (lower gray line).
Except for the symptoms toothache, hormone imbalance, weight gain, weight
loss, and bedwetting, significant differences were found (p < 0.01; t-test).
Among the study participants a significant dose-response relationship was
found between the theoretically calculated or measured exposure level and
the symptom score levels.
Fig. 11: Comparison of Groups 1 and 2 near the Transmitter to Groups 3 and
4 further away within the 400-m Radius
The numbers a shade lighter represent the nonsignificant symptom
groups.
Electromagnetic Fields Original Scientific Paper
Original German umwelt-medizin-gesellschaft ⏐23⏐2/2010 13
Data Gathering of DECT Phone Use
In the personal information form, participants could checkmark whether they
have a DECT phone in their household. Out of 251 participants, 171 said they
owned such a device and 80 said no. The average age of DECT phone users
was with 50.5 years significantly lower than for those participants without a
DECT phone (t-test, p < 0.001) so that no comparison group existed for
individual relationships.
Discussion
The presented results show a significant relationship between mean exposure
levels of the study participants and reported health symptoms.
For the highest exposure group, the mean microwave exposure is given with
a field intensity of 1.2 V/m. An additional question concerning the use of
DECT phones at home revealed an additional background exposure level in
all participating households.
The graphs show clear trends for decreasing symptom scores in relation to
decreasing mean exposure levels caused by cell phone transmitter emissions.
The comparison with the national and international research to classify these
results provides additional arguments for nonrandom relationships.
Within the framework of the German Mobile Phone Programme (DMF), the
QUEBEB study also investigated if health symptoms in the population could
be associated with cell phone base stations and measured microwave
radiation levels.
This study did not show any significant relationships because the highest
measurement is given with 1 volt per meter, whereby 99% of the
measurements are below 0.34 V/m. The mean exposure level was at 0.07
V/m with a 95% percentile at 0.17 V/m (1).
While less than 1% of the participants of the DMF study were exposed above
0.34 V/m, 82 out of the 251 study participants in Selbitz belonged to a highexposure
group above 0.7 V/m, that is, 32.7%.
High exposure groups as found in Selbitz did basically not occur in the
samples of the German Mobile Phone Programme. To a certain degree, this
has to do with the method of random sampling and leads to a systematic
underestimation of the risk for population groups with higher exposures.
Thus the finding of the QUEBEB study that found no correlation applies only
to low-exposure groups and does in no way contradict the findings in Selbitz.
In Germany where complete cell phone coverage is provided, the Federal
Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) has received highly important
information about the health problems affecting residents living next to cell
phone base stations. In a meeting on 2 August 2006 in Neuherberg, strongly
worded official medical reports were quoted that document problem
situations in particularly highly exposed households (17-19).
Electromagnetic Fields Original Scientific Paper
Original German umwelt-medizin-gesellschaft ⏐23⏐2/2010 14
It has become known to industry that the health of their technicians is
damaged (20,21).
There are already efforts under way to explore possibilities of how the
electromagnetic pollution in wireless networks could be reduced. The
reasoning for a patent filed in 2003 explicitly quotes evidence of damage in
human DNA (22).
Since the 1960s long-term, nonthermal effects on the human central nervous
system have been causally linked to microwaves, ultrashort waves, and
shortwaves in several studies.
As part of a dissertation, Wenzel studied the health status of radio personnel
in East German military forces (NVA) and summarized his results in a report
that was confidential until 1989. In comparison to a nonexposed group, he
observed an increase in headaches, sleep problems, general fatigue, eye
pain, stabbing pain in the chest, declining mental power, irritability,
dizziness, tendency to sweat, and visual problems. As a result of his findings,
the inadequacy of the current exposure limits had already been pointed out
in 1967 (9).
The review of occupational surveys in the Soviet Union between 1960 and
1996, which had been carried out by Prof. Hecht on behalf of the Federal
Office for Telecommunications, revealed causal links for microwave radiation
as a stressor of the central nervous system (26).
In 1960 Iranyi et al. from Hungary reported for the first time in the Munich
Medical Weekly Journal about a substantially increasing number of health
problems in radio personnel of “modern” radio stations that had been
validated by measurements and confirmed by medical doctors, including
headaches, dizziness, tiredness, sleep problems, tremors, and other
symptoms. The symptoms occurred from field intensities above 3.8 V/m.
There was no indication of simulated complaints. Because the symptoms
occurred during their working hours and were associated with the number of
years of employment, the authors concluded that there is a causal link
between symptoms and exposure levels (10).
In 1962 Miro found increasing cases of pain, dizziness, nausea, personality
changes, weight loss, fever attacks with chilling and sweating, and general
fatigue in French radar personnel. The RF radiation exposure was at ca. 5
V/m (8).
In 1996 a study by the Swiss Federal Office of Energy around the shortwave
transmitter at Schwarzenburg in Switzerland documented highly significant
health problems in the civilian population regarding sleep problems,
headaches, joint pain, fatigue, and other symptoms. In a blinded follow-up
study, symptoms started to improve one day after the transmitter was
turned off (11-13).
Electromagnetic Fields Original Scientific Paper
Original German umwelt-medizin-gesellschaft ⏐23⏐2/2010 15
In 2002 Santini et al. had also demonstrated a clear dose-response
relationship for the following symptoms in the vicinity of French cell phone
base stations: sleep problems, tiredness, fatigue, irritability, depression, and
other symptoms. As a conclusion, it was recommended back then to install
this type of transmitter no closer to residences than 300 m (14).
Similar findings were revealed in the work by Navarro et al. with the followup
measurements by Oberfeld (Government of Land Salzburg, Health
Department), in which case the measured exposure levels were highly
significantly correlated with major health problems. Three groups showed the
following field intensity distribution: group 1 – 0.02-0.04 V/m, group 2 –
0.05-0.22 V/m, and group 3 – 0.25-1.29 V/m (15).
In 2007 the paper by Abdel-Rassoul et al. showed significant problems of the
central nervous system (headaches, memory problems, dizziness, tremors,
symptoms of depression, sleep problems) in an exposed population
compared to the control group. The measured field intensity of the group
classified as exposed was 3 V/m (16).
The survey presented here included specific control questions to verify the
credibility of the participants’ responses. From the number of described
symptoms, for example, it was possible to see that the questionnaires had
not been filled out randomly. Thus the control question for “toothaches,” a
disease mainly caused by caries, showed no difference between the exposed
and unexposed groups.
As was to be expected, the control symptom “bedwetting” occurred only in a
very small percentage and also showed no difference between exposed and
unexposed groups.
The relationship between the question “weight gain” and “weight loss”
corresponded with the known clinical reality. The obesity prevalence (body
mass index BMI > 30) in the population is on average at 20%, which
corresponds with a value of 1 (20% of maximum value 5) in our symptom
scores. Underweight is found only in ca. 1-6% of the German population,
which is reflected in the low symptom score for weight loss at 0.2 in our
study (28).
A trend toward voting behavior in terms of symptom aggravation could thus
be ruled out.
The occurrence of the symptom groups sleep problems, depression, cerebral
symptoms, infections, skin problems, cardiovascular problems, problems of
the visual and auditory system as well as the gastrointestinal tract proved to
be consistently and significantly higher in the exposed groups. As can be
seen from the literature review, it has been known since the 1960s that RF
electromagnetic fields and microwaves can trigger these symptoms (8-10).
Electromagnetic Fields Original Scientific Paper
Original German umwelt-medizin-gesellschaft ⏐23⏐2/2010 16
Equally significant were differences for the scores of joint problems, which
again replicated already published findings of the Schwarzenburg study,
Switzerland (11-13).
The results presented here were statistically validated by the t-test (7). The
often stereotypically quoted criticism of too small case numbers for a
validation of an association was mathematically refuted by the application of
this statistical test and its significant results.
Considerably more crucial is the limitation of the gathered data because of
the noticeable self-selection of the participants compared to the total number
of the survey sample, which is reflected in the low response rate to the
questionnaires. However, neither the response rates of the entire 400-m
radius around the transmitter nor the highest exposure area do significantly
differ from the response rate of control area 5, which again suggests a
homogenous response behavior and speaks against an overselection of
allegedly sick persons (Table 2).
The approached participants, including persons from the 400-m radius
around the cell phone transmitter at the Feldstraße as well as Selbitz
residents from further away, did not know that they would be classified into
groups based on their residential location and exposure level. Thus it was not
possible for the participants to classify themselves into groups 1 to 5.
In follow-up studies one should try to increase the response rate by phone
calls or personal interviews instead of relying on a single mailout as was done
in this study.
In Selbitz municipality, there are proponents as well as critics of wireless
technologies and also persons who are indifferent to it so that each group
had the same opportunity to respond. The number of study participants who
considered their health affected by cell phone radiation was 12% in Selbitz
and, therefore, falls below the participation rate of 23%. This corresponds
with a percentage of 9% as found in the DMF. Thus a selection bias was not
detected.
The participating individual groups did not differ based on age or gender,
respectively; the plausibility of the responses was validated within the study.
It is therefore assumed that the documented results reflect the actual
distribution of the health problems.
International definitions stipulate that adverse health effects caused by
microwave radiation can only be regarded as verified if the explanation for a
plausible effect mechanism is provided, studies are independently replicated
several times, and no contradictions exist in other studies (23).
With the paper presented here, these conditions are met so that the ongoing
demand for evidence has been met once again. When taking the low
exposure levels into account, the negative results of the German Mobile
Phone Programme are consistent.
Electromagnetic Fields Original Scientific Paper
Original German umwelt-medizin-gesellschaft ⏐23⏐2/2010 17
Conclusions
Until 2009 the official protocol for the investigation of health problems in
residents living next to transmitters amounted to nothing more than
measuring exposure levels in affected households instead of on-site
monitoring with transmitter shutdowns to investigate causal links.
From the compliance with the currently valid exposure limits, it was
concluded without any further investigation—using the logic of
reductionism—that below these exposure limits no health effects could occur
because, first, the exposure limits have already been met and, second, no
scientifically accepted studies are available. The latter statement is not up to
the current state of science.
According to the Federal Immission Control Act (§ 22 BlmSchG) as well as
the German constitution (art. 2, para. 2 GG), during the operation of
technical facilities health hazards to a third party must indisputably be ruled
out.
With the Federal Immission Control Ordinance (26. BlmSchV), the federal
regulation maker establishes exposure limit regulations for electromagnetic
fields whose specifications are required by acts and the constitution. But as
the presented paper shows once more, a clearly increasing incidence of
disease is already taking place far below legally binding exposure guideline
limits.
Even if in legal terms, this is not yet proof for an individual-specific evidence
of damage, the presented investigations make it clear that the conclusions
drawn by the federal regulation maker from the results of the German Mobile
Phone Programme, according to which no health risk is to be expected below
the exposure limits of the 26. BlmSchV, are scientifically and legally
unjustifiable.
From a legal perspective, it should be noted here that the current exposure
limit regulations basically do not provide sufficient protection against health
risks. Insofar as official agencies still suggest that the exposure limits of the
26. BlmSchV would be precautionary limits, these limits are now disproven—
among others—through our investigation, as it showed a significantly
increased health risk in the vicinity of cell phone base stations.
As has already been demanded by the European Parliament, current
exposure guidelines need to be urgently reviewed. Because of the
documented relationship between exposure and health symptoms, there is
also an urgent need for further research to elucidate the detailed
relationships of health symptoms.
It is a physician’s responsibility—not bound by directives—to work towards
the preservation of the natural basis of life regarding human health (24).
As representatives of public health agencies, state offices such as the Public
Health Department, the State Office for the Environment, and the Bavarian
Ministry of the Environment as well as higher-ranking government levels
Electromagnetic Fields Original Scientific Paper
Original German umwelt-medizin-gesellschaft ⏐23⏐2/2010 18
such as the Federal Ministry of the Environment and the European Union are
invited to specify the cause of this possible slow poisoning.
After shutting down the respective transmitters for half a year, a portion of
the health symptoms reported by the study participants in Selbitz should
become normalized. The significant clinical relevance of the observed results
has been discussed.
Contact
Dr.med. Horst Eger (correspondence)
Marktplatz 16
95119 Naila
Phone: 09282/1304
E-mail: horst-eger@acormail.de
Medical Quality Assurance Working Group “Electromagnetic Fields in Medicine—
Diagnostics, Therapy, Environment” Code No. 65143 (KVB), recognized by the
Bavarian Medical Association
Dr. med Manfred Jahn
Brunnenstr. 1
95152 Selbitz
Acknowledgement
Beside the people of Selbitz, we especially thank Mayor Klaus Adelt, Sabine
Bodenschatz, Tanja Wohlfahrt, and Udo Wohlfahrt because without their
help this paper would never have been possible.
We owe Christina Panchyrz our gratitude for the record keeping.
Translation
Performed by Katharina Gustavs and authorized by the authors and publisher
Original publication:
EGER, H., JAHN, M., Spezifische Symptome und Mobilfunkstrahlung in Selbitz
(Bayern) – Evidenz für eine Dosiswirkungsbeziehung,
umwelt·medizin·gesellschaft, 23, 2 (2010), 130-139.
Note:
Upon request, the anonymized raw data can be provided by Selbitz
municipality to scientific institutions.
Submitted: 12 November 2009
Revised version accepted: 3 May 2010
Electromagnetic Fields Original Scientific Paper
Original German umwelt-medizin-gesellschaft ⏐23⏐2/2010 19
Editor’s Note
The above paper is identified as an original scientific paper and it was
subject to a special peer-review process in cooperation with the Scientific
Advisory Board.
References
(1) BERG G., BRECKENKAMP, J., KOWALL B. et al. (2007):
Querschnittsstudie zur Erfassung und Bewertung möglicher gesundheitlicher
Beeinträchtigung durch die Felder von Mobilfunkbasisstationen (Quebeb)) im
Auftrag des BMU, Projekt Abschlussbericht, 22.05.2007, http://www.emfforschungsprogramm.
de/forschung/epidemiologie/epidemiologie_abges/epi_
020_epi_035_AB.pdf [last accessed: 3.5.2010].
(2) STRAHLENSCHUTZKOMMISSION - SSK (2003), Forschungsbedarf im
Sonderforschungsprogramm "Mobilfunk", 3./4.7.2003.
(3) STADT SELBITZ (2008a): Mitteilung des Einwohnermeldeamtes, Stand
31.12.2008.
(4) STADT SELBITZ (2008b): Mobilfunkanlagen in Selbitz, Schreiben von M.
MUNZERT, 14.10.2008.
(5) STADT SELBITZ (2009): Lageplan der 02 - Sendeanlage (seit September
2000 mit Umstellung derTechnik im August 2008), e-Plus - Anlage seit
Oktober 2003, Kataster Kartenwerk, Gemarkung Selbitz, Flurstück 1017 /1
Maßstab 1:1000, erstellt am 16.05.2008.
(6) EUROPEAN COMPLIANCE LABORATORY - ECL(2008): Belastung durch
elektromagnetische Felder, Messungen Selbitz 12.07.2006 sowie Messungen
18.09.2008, Prüfbericht, ECL, Nordostpark 51,90411 Nürnberg, Tel.:
0911/5983591, DAR-Registriernummer: DAT - P - 231 192 - 03, ECL - EMF.
(7) MOLL, 1., REINERS, C. (1980): Grundbegriffe der medizinischen
Statistik,Abteilung für Nuklearmedizin der Universität Würzburg, Würzburg.
(8) MIRO, L. (1962): Modifications hernatoloqiques et troubles cliniques
observes chez le personnel ex pose aux ondes emises par les Radars, Revue
de Medicine Aeronautique, N° 4. (9) WENZEL, K.-I' (1967): Zur Problematik
des Einfiusses von Mikrowellen auf den Gesundheitszustand des
Funkmesspersonals der Nationalen Volksarmee, Inaugural-Dissertation der
Militärmedizinischen Sektion an den Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität
Greifswald.
(10) IRANYI, J., OROVECZ, B., SOMOGYI, E. (1960): Störungen des
vegetativen Nervensystems bei Arbeitern von Rundfunksendern, Soziale
Medizin und Hygiene, MMW 3/1960: 140-144. (11) ABELlN, T., ALTPETER,
E.5., PFLUGER, D.H., KREBS, T., KÄNEL, J.V., STÄRK K., GRIOT, C. (1995):
Gesundheitliche Auswirkungen des Kurzwellensenders Schwarzenburg, BEW
Schriftenreihe Studie Nr. 56, Bundesamt für Energiewirtschaft, Bern.
(12) ABELlN, T., ALTPETER, E., RÖÖSLI, M. (2005): Sieep Disturbances in
the Vicinity of the Short-Wave Broadcast Transmitter Schwarzenburg,
Somnologie 9: 203-209.
(13) ALTPETER, E. S., RÖÖSLI, M., BATTAGLIA, M., PFLUGER, D., MINDER,
C.E., ABELlN, T. (2006):
Electromagnetic Fields Original Scientific Paper
Original German umwelt-medizin-gesellschaft ⏐23⏐2/2010 20

A LETTER TO CONGRESS

Dear Mr. Martin:
I write in reference to the Federal Communication Commission's vote on the authorization of
new unlicensed "White Spaces" devices for wireless communications in the TV Broadcast
Bands, scheduled for its November 4th meeting. FCC adoption of rules to authorize use of White
Spaces spectrum for wireless devices operating in the home will lead to the repeated, chronic,
long-term exposure of individuals, at all age levels, and to more frequencies and quantities of
radiofrequency (RF) radiation at very close range than is currently the case. Whether these
exposures pose human health risks is under investigation by members of the scientific and public
health research communities. I am writing to remind FCC to consider the potential for serious
human health effects that could result from the proliferation of these devices in the home, before
allowing the proliferation of such devices.
By design, the White Spaces devices rule will increase the bandwidth available for wireless
devices operating at close range, for general use in the home and elsewhere. As a result, it is
expected that the number of transmitters in the broadcast frequency range will increase
exponentially with the roll out of White Spaces devices and infrastructure. The Commission has
classified unlicensed broadband White Spaces devices to be used in the TV bands into two
general functional categories. The first category consists of lower power "personal/ portable"
unlicensed devices, such as Wi-Fi cards in laptop computers or wireless in-home local area
networks (LANs). The second category consists of higher power "fixed/access" unlicensed
devices that are generally operated from a fixed location and may be used to provide a
commercial service such as wireless broadband Internet access. Whereas high-powered analog
broadcast transmitter sites have traditionally been found at locations somewhat removed from
business centers and residential neighborhoods, the new White Spaces devices that will also
transmit in the digital broadcast frequencies are designed to operate at close range to members of
Mr. Kevin J. Martin
November 3,2008
,Page2
the public who choose to use them as well as to their colleagues and neighbors who may choose
not to use them.
This proliferation of RF exposure follows the September 25,2008 hearing before the
Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee on
"Tumors and Cell Phone Use-'What the Science Says," at which witnesses raised serious
concems about the potential public health implications of RF exposures through cell phones.
Some specific concerns were raised about FCC RF radiation exposure limits. Namely, they may
not be adequate to protect humans from adverse biological effects; may not provide protection
from long-term exposure; are only based on tissue heating reactions on a non-representative
sample of the total population (a six-feet tall male); do not address the current state of scientif,rc
research establishing non-thermal biological effects; and do not err on the side of precaution.
While RF exposures from cell phones are different than the RF exposures that will be
generated through the White Spaces auction, there is much that is unknown about the health
effects of these exposures that corresponds with concerns raised in the hearing. In its 2005 Fact
Sheet entitled, "Studies on Radiofrequency Radiation Emitted by Cellular Phones," the National
Toxicology Program (NTP) at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences states:
Over 100 million Americans curuently use wireless communication devices with over 50
thousand new users daily. This translates into a potentially significant public health
problem should the use ofthese devices even slightly increase the risk ofadverse health
effects. Cellular phones and other wireless communication devices are required to meet
the radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure guidelines of the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC, August 1996). The existing exposure guidelines are based on
protectionfrom acute injuryfrom thermal fficts of RFR exposure. Cunent datq are
insfficient to draw definitive conclusions concerning the adequacy of these guidelines to
be protective against any non-thermal fficts of chronic exposures.
In January 2008 the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a report entitled:
Identification of Research Needs Relating to Potential Biological or Adverse Health Effects of
Wireless Communication Devices. The following excerpts from the NAS Report support the
NTP's conclusion that the research record upon which FCC's RF Safety Guidelines are based
does not adequately safeguard the public from non-thermal chronic exposures:
Research Needs
l. There is a need to characterize exposure ofjuveniles, children, pregnant women,
andfetuses, bothfor personal wireless devices (e.g., cell phones, wireless
personal computers, tPcsl) and for RF fields from base station antennqs
including gradients and variability of exposures, the environment in which
devices are used, and exposures from other sources, multilateral exposures, and
multiple frequencies.
Mr. Kevin J. Martin
November 3, 2008
Page 3
2. Wireless networlcs are being built very rapidly, and many more base station
antennas are being installed. A crucial research need is to characterize radiated
electromagnetic fields for typical multiple-element bqse station antennas andfor
the highest radiated power conditions with measurements conducted during peak
hours of the day at locations close to the antennas as well as at ground level . . .
3. The use of evolving types of antennas for hand-held cell phones and text
messaging devices need to be characterizedfor the Specffic Absorption Rates
(SARÐ that they deliver to dffirent parts of the body so that this data is available
for use infuture epidemiologic studies.
4. RF exposure of the operational personnel close to multi-element newer base
station antennas is unlcnown and could be high, These exposures need to be
characterized. Also needed are dosimetric absorbed power calculations using
realistic anatomic models for both men and women of dffirent heights.
(P.s)
Most of the reported studies to date have involved one base station antenna and
have used mostly homogeneous models, often of simplified circular or rectangular
cross sections of the exposed human . . . In other words, the studies to date do not
pertain to the commonly used multiple-element base station radiators. Also,
unlike highly localized cell phone RF energt deposition, the base station
exposures involve much, if not all, of the body and would have slightly dffirent
radiator origins (for multiple-element base stqtions) and may be multi-frequency
as well, particularly if several dffirent-frequency base stcttion antennas are colocated.
Furthermore, because of the whole-body resonance phenomenon, the
SIR is likely to be higher for shorter individuals due to the closeness of the
fr e quency/fr e qu enc i e s of exp o s ur e t o the w hol e -b o dy r e s onanc e fr e que ncy.
(P.1s)
FCC has committed detailed and thorough analysis of what this White Spaces technology
might do to cause interference with other commercial uses. I call upon the Commission to match
its concern for commercial interests with concern for human health of the future consumers of
this technology. To that end, I hereby request that the Commission stay its November 4,2008
vote pertaining to "White Spaces" devices. In the interim, I urge you to immediately take
appropriate agency action to consider what RF human exposure guidelines FCC should set to
protect the health and safety of the American public before authorizing this technology to be
licensed or deployed. I also request that the Commission provide my Subcommittee with a
detailed description of the measures FCC has taken to date to ensure public health will not be
jeopardized by the auctioning of the White Spaces spectrum, given the scientific concerns and
unknowns about RF exposure and the proliferation of new RF exposures that will result.
Mr. Kevin J. Martin
November 3, 2008
Page 4
The Oversight and Government Reform Committee is the principal oversight committee in
the House of Representatives and has broad oversight jurisdiction as set forth in House Rule X.
An attachment to this letter provides information on how to respond to the Subcommittee's
request. W'e request that you provide these documents as soon as possible, but in no case later
than 5:00 p.m. on Monday, November 17,2008.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact Jaron Bourke, Staff Director,
at (202) 225-6427.
Sincerely,
ù,u^;- ù,\ü^-;cL Dennis J. Kucinich
Chairman
Domestic Policy Subcommittee

iBurst blamed for 'nightmare'

by Kanina Foss

The Star, Johannesburg, Tuesday October 6 2009

Tracey-Lee and Dave McGregor spent nine years building their dream home. Tracey-Lee planted lavender bushes to attract bees and butterflies. In August, the bees upped and left. Then the dream turned into a nightmare.

The McGregors are among Craigavon residents in Joburg objecting to the erection of a broadband tower metres from their homes by service provider iBurst.

It went up 50m from the McGregors' bedroom in August. A few days later, the bees left. Last month the symptoms started.

Tracey-Lee has a painful rash all over her body. "It starts as a hot spot, which looks like ringworm. The next thing you're itching and burning. You get so itchy you want to scratch your flesh off your bones," she says.

The worst part is the nausea. Their 10-year-old son Keegan, who also has rashes, has been off school six days in the past month because of retching. Tracey-Lee is constantly nauseous.

They also get heart palpitations and headaches.

"Keegan has never had headaches in his life. Now he's waking up in the middle of the night with headaches. He's had three episodes of heart palpitations."

Tracey-Lee and Keegan are spending alternate nights at her mother's house to get some relief. "When I'm off the property, the symptoms subside," she says.

Dave adds: "I want to phone the CEO of iBurst and say: 'If this were to happen to your wife and child, what would you do?' He's welcome to move in here for a month and see how he feels."

The McGregors are not alone. Residents of nearby complexes have been getting headaches, insomnia, rashes, fatigue, upset stomachs and tinnitus (ringing in the ears) -- all symptoms mentioned in scientific studies on electrohypersensitivity.

Sabine Hark says: "I've noted that ever since the tower has been up, I battle to fall asleep. I doesn't matter how tired I am. I also wake up in-between."

Betty Ngwenya, who sleeps in a room facing the tower, has had headaches, difficulty breathing and a rash all over her body for three weeks. "My body is itchy. I can't stand in one place, it's very sore."

Just after the tower was erected, Melinda Treki's Alsatian went through a stage of throwing up once a day. The vet couldn't find anything wrong with the dog.

iBurst CEO Jannie van Zyl says he's commissioned an independent company to test electromagnetic radiation levels in the area. If they are found to be above World Health Organisation (WHO) regulations, action will be taken.

But in some countries, WHO regulations have been deemed insufficient. Russia insists on a 2km buffer between towers and residential properties, and New Zealand requires a 500m distance.

Van Zyl says it's necessary to stick to scientific fact.

"I'm not saying science has proved that radiation doesn't have an impact on living tissue, but every study I've read says it's a very complex environment and further studies should be done."

iBurst followed the necessary steps to get the erection of the R2 million tower approved, including notifying all residents living in close proximity, he says -- despite claims by the McGregors and others that they were never informed.

Van Zyl questions why the Craigavon tower is the only one of about 15,000 in South Africa to spark an outcry, and says service providers are being put in a difficult position by consumers wanting better access.

Tracey-Lee sent photographs of her rash to Professor Olle Johansson, a Swedish neuroscientist and electrohypersensitivity expert, and Eileen O'Connor, of the UK Radiation Research Trust. Both say the family's symptoms are consistent with those of others living near electromagnetic radiation.

The McGregors have considered selling the house they planned to retire in. "It's like a nightmare and you don't know if you're ever going to wake up," says Dave.

On 8 April 2009, 50 doctors presented an appeal to Dutch political leaders and government health authorities at The Hague. On the basis of their experience and observations, they call for measures to be taken to minimise exposure to artificial radiation from electromagnetic fields. The signatories note a general increase in serious medical conditions of unidentified origin. This increase in health problems and illness parallels the explosive increase in exposure to radiation from electromagnetic fields in the environment.

I am a retired lecturer in Biology from Imperial College London.
There is no doubt that prolonged exposure to mobile phone radiation does cause DNA damage in some cell lines. We cannot expect all cell lines to behave in the same way because of natural biological variability. We are all the products of thousands of genes that interact in countless ways so that each one of us is both physically and biochemically unique. We do not all get the same side effects from taking a medicinal drug and we cannot therefore expect to respond in the same way to electromagnetic insults.
Also, it is not a valid argument to say that because we do not understand the mechanism by which the DNA damage occurs, then it cannot happen. However, if you want a plausible mechanism visit http://tinyurl.com/5ru6e6 . In essence it says that the loss of structurally important calcium ions weakens cell membranes and makes them more inclined to develop temporary pores and leak. When this happens to lysosome membranes, they leak digestive enzymes that then damage the cell's DNA.
Having said that, most of the severely damaged cells will die naturally, but others may remain as clones of aberrant but benign cells that increase in number with increasing exposure to the radiation. However, we would expect some to be genetically unstable and mutate, with natural selection favoring the more rapidly growing and aggressive ones until we get a full-blown cancer. But even then, the immune system should be able to nip it in the bud; that is until the immune system fails due to old age or is compromised in some way. Consequently, the likelihood of developing mobile phone-related cancer will depend on genotype, duration of exposure and the state of the immune system.
However, the reported effects of living within a few hundred metres of a base station cannot be explained so easily. The low signal strength at this distance demands an exquisitely sensitive mechanism to detect the radiation. Unfortunately (for us) there is such a mechanism. It lies in the magnetically sensitive pigment cryptochrome. The cryptochromes are a family of pigments present in virtually all animals, plants and some bacteria. They are used to sense the presence of light, or the direction of the Earth's magnetic field in animals that use it for navigation. They also form an integral part of the biological clock that controls their circadian rhythms.
Put very simply, cryptochromes can measure magnetic fields because they absorb light and use its energy to drive an electron between two parts of the molecule to form a pair of magnetic free radicals. The electron then finds its way back, but the process is delayed by any external magnetic field, so that the amount of pigment in the free radical form at any one time is a measure of the field. Much of the cryptochrome is in the eye, where its different orientations in the curve of the retina probably enables migratory animals to "see" the field possibly, as an extra colour superimposed on their fields of vision.
Ritz et al. demonstrated this very clearly, when they showed that robins were able to orient in the geomagnetic field when given light of the wavelengths absorbed by cryptochrome. However, even more significantly, they found that oscillating electromagnetic fields within the range 0.1-10MHz at 0.085 microtesla (about 500 times weaker than the Earth's steady field) completely disrupted the system and the birds were unable to orient. (Ritz et al. Nature. Vol. 249 13th May 2004). It may be significant that this range of frequencies includes the bit-rates (rates of transmission of individual digital pulses) of many forms of digital wireless communications, including mobile phones, DECT cordless phones and Wifi. It seems likely that these forms of low level radiation may also interfere with the birds' ability to navigate.
We humans have no natural ability to navigate using the Earth's magnetic field, and we sense light to synchronise our circadian rhythms using melanopsin. But we still have cryptochromes, much of it concentrated in the pineal gland, where, in conjunction with the suprachiasmatic nucleus, it appears to regulate the biological clock that leads to the rhythmic production of melatonin. Much of the work on the biological clock has been done on mutants of the fruit fly Drosophila, and this too appears to be affected by magnetic fields (see Yoshii et al. 2009 http://tinyurl.com/cx7xaa ). They did not test oscillating fields, but a 300microtesla steady field could alter the rhythm of the clock or even stop it altogether.
The main significance of the biological clock for humans is that it controls our natural circadian rhythms, which enable us to anticipate the coming of dawn and dusk and diverts our body's resources to meet the demands of the new conditions. Many aspects of metabolism are controlled in this way; for example, during the day they are diverted to physical activity, but at night they are diverted more to the immune system and repair. If the rhythm were to fail or become weakened in amplitude, no process controlled by the clock would ever be able to function with maximum power. In particular, the immune system may never be able to summon the overwhelming power that is sometimes needed to overcome infection or cancer cells before they get out of control.
There is considerable anecdotal evidence for a weakened circadian rhythm in people living close to mobile phone masts, which include tiredness and loss of concentration during the day and poor sleep at night. The disruption of melatonin production during prolonged exposure to power line fields has been reviewed by Henshaw and Reiter (Bioelectromagnetics Supplement 7S86-S97 (2005)) and they argue that the effect on the rhythm may be similar to light.
The notion that weak electromagnetic fields have an effect similar to light is disturbing to say the least. In a paper reviewing the disruption of circadian rhythms in shift workers and others exposed to nighttime illumination Navara and Nelson. (J Pineal Research 2007 (http://tinyurl.com/afgLjr)) report an increased risk of breast and other cancers and a whole range of other health effects including insulin resistance, coronary heart disease, hypertension and myocardial infarction.
This clearly needs further investigation, but on present evidence, people living, and in particular sleeping, near a mobile phone base station may be at far greater risk of developing cancer than someone who just makes the occasional brief mobile phone call.
(for full context see http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2008/07/25/do-mobile-phones-cause-cancer/)
Next >
[ Back ]
© 2009 Mast Sanity…Calling for Environmentally and Biologically safe communications networks and radio frequency devicesHead Office: 16 CHIPSTEAD ROAD, BIRMINGHAM, B23 5HARegistered UK charity no. 1109757

Andrew Goldsworthy responds calmly coolly and accurately to those at Cancer Research UK who’s dubious (to say the least) motivation is leading them to lead the masses into a false sense of security regarding mobiles and cancer. One has to wonder what could possibly make a charity that purports to want to protect the public from cancer to promote without care what many believe to be the most dangerous invention known to man as a safe technology.
Andrew Goldsworthy Says: May 12, 2009 at 3:47 pm
I am a retired lecturer in Biology from Imperial College London.
There is no doubt that prolonged exposure to mobile phone radiation does cause DNA damage in some cell lines. We cannot expect all cell lines to behave in the same way because of natural biological variability. We are all the products of thousands of genes that interact in countless ways so that each one of us is both physically and biochemically unique. We do not all get the same side effects from taking a medicinal drug and we cannot therefore expect to respond in the same way to electromagnetic insults.
Also, it is not a valid argument to say that because we do not understand the mechanism by which the DNA damage occurs, then it cannot happen. However, if you want a plausible mechanism visit http://tinyurl.com/5ru6e6 . In essence it says that the loss of structurally important calcium ions weakens cell membranes and makes them more inclined to develop temporary pores and leak. When this happens to lysosome membranes, they leak digestive enzymes that then damage the cell’s DNA.
Having said that, most of the severely damaged cells will die naturally, but others may remain as clones of aberrant but benign cells that increase in number with increasing exposure to the radiation. However, we would expect some to be genetically unstable and mutate, with natural selection favoring the more rapidly growing and aggressive ones until we get a full-blown cancer. But even then, the immune system should be able to nip it in the bud; that is until the immune system fails due to old age or is compromised in some way. Consequently, the likelihood of developing mobile phone-related cancer will depend on genotype, duration of exposure and the state of the immune system.
However, the reported effects of living within a few hundred metres of a base station cannot be explained so easily. The low signal strength at this distance demands an exquisitely sensitive mechanism to detect the radiation. Unfortunately (for us) there is such a mechanism. It lies in the magnetically sensitive pigment cryptochrome. The cryptochromes are a family of pigments present in virtually all animals, plants and some bacteria. They are used to sense the presence of light, or the direction of the Earth’s magnetic field in animals that use it for navigation. They also form an integral part of the biological clock that controls their circadian rhythms.
Put very simply, cryptochromes can measure magnetic fields because they absorb light and use its energy to drive an electron between two parts of the molecule to form a pair of magnetic free radicals. The electron then finds its way back, but the process is delayed by any external magnetic field, so that the amount of pigment in the free radical form at any one time is a measure of the field. Much of the cryptochrome is in the eye, where its different orientations in the curve of the retina probably enables migratory animals to “see” the field possibly, as an extra colour superimposed on their fields of vision.
Ritz et al. demonstrated this very clearly, when they showed that robins were able to orient in the geomagnetic field when given light of the wavelengths absorbed by cryptochrome. However, even more significantly, they found that oscillating electromagnetic fields within the range 0.1-10MHz at 0.085 microtesla (about 500 times weaker than the Earth’s steady field) completely disrupted the system and the birds were unable to orient. (Ritz et al. Nature. Vol. 249 13th May 2004). It may be significant that this range of frequencies includes the bit-rates (rates of transmission of individual digital pulses) of many forms of digital wireless communications, including mobile phones, DECT cordless phones and Wifi. It seems likely that these forms of low level radiation may also interfere with the birds’ ability to navigate.
We humans have no natural ability to navigate using the Earth’s magnetic field, and we sense light to synchronise our circadian rhythms using melanopsin. But we still have cryptochromes, much of it concentrated in the pineal gland, where, in conjunction with the suprachiasmatic nucleus, it appears to regulate the biological clock that leads to the rhythmic production of melatonin. Much of the work on the biological clock has been done on mutants of the fruit fly Drosophila, and this too appears to be affected by magnetic fields (see Yoshii et al. 2009 http://tinyurl.com/cx7xaa ). They did not test oscillating fields, but a 300microtesla steady field could alter the rhythm of the clock or even stop it altogether.
The main significance of the biological clock for humans is that it controls our natural circadian rhythms, which enable us to anticipate the coming of dawn and dusk and diverts our body’s resources to meet the demands of the new conditions. Many aspects of metabolism are controlled in this way; for example, during the day they are diverted to physical activity, but at night they are diverted more to the immune system and repair. If the rhythm were to fail or become weakened in amplitude, no process controlled by the clock would ever be able to function with maximum power. In particular, the immune system may never be able to summon the overwhelming power that is sometimes needed to overcome infection or cancer cells before they get out of control.
There is considerable anecdotal evidence for a weakened circadian rhythm in people living close to mobile phone masts, which include tiredness and loss of concentration during the day and poor sleep at night. The disruption of melatonin production during prolonged exposure to power line fields has been reviewed by Henshaw and Reiter (Bioelectromagnetics Supplement 7S86-S97 (2005)) and they argue that the effect on the rhythm may be similar to light.
The notion that weak electromagnetic fields have an effect similar to light is disturbing to say the least. In a paper reviewing the disruption of circadian rhythms in shift workers and others exposed to nighttime illumination Navara and Nelson. (J Pineal Research 2007 (http://tinyurl.com/afgLjr)) report an increased risk of breast and other cancers and a whole range of other health effects including insulin resistance, coronary heart disease, hypertension and myocardial infarction.
This clearly needs further investigation, but on present evidence, people living, and in particular sleeping, near a mobile phone base station may be at far greater risk of developing cancer than someone who just makes the occasional brief mobile phone call.

"The Wireless Dilemma: An Inconvenient Truth about a Convenient Technology"
"With such a seismic global shift in technology occuring at such a quantum pace, should we be concerned about health risks for children, our grandchildren, for ourselves and our planet ?" This is a question that many researchers are now poundering over the vast erections of WiFi hotspots, monstrous power lines and cell towers. Does radio frequency exposure from thousands of minutes a month of cell phone/cordless phone pose any health risks? What about the hot spots, cell towers, antennas, or all those power lines and transformers being erected ,even piggybacking in residential, hospital and school ereas? Where is the research to prove that they are safe? Oh, they are quick to say that there is NO proof showing that they are hazardous so they win....at our expense. One only need to look around and see that the modern wireless age has truly revolutionized our world and transformed the physical and cultural landscapes. I applaud the Green Movement and the Global Warning enviromentalists, but we also need to take a serious look at what is not seen to the naked eye. The hidden dangers of EMF (electromagnetic frequencies) have become THE toxin of the 21st century. Gone are the days of blowing a fuse in your fuse box when more than one item is plugged in the same outlet. We cannot see, feel or smell this intruder, yet thousands of studies worldwide are now documenting the damage on human and animal DNA as well as effects on plantlife. These studies can no longer be ingnored.
At the risk of shaking the corporate industries, we do need to expose the risks behind all of this wounderful technology that we all have grown to love - myself included. Our efforts of creating awareness on this subject is being ridiculed by our government and these companies. Why is it that our government is not requiring their Carbon Footprint on the environment? Many big companies are mandated to show their Carbon Footprint, so why are these companies except from this? Why should they not have to show us (the puplic) exactly what is at risk with all of the radiation we are exposed to? I want to know....don't you? The governemt is still taking a back seat in this matter and it is not for the lack of information. Global studies have been made available for decades, yet Canada remains firm to the fact that no such studies exist or that they do not pose any health risk to us at all. The wireless/cellphone industries and governmental agencies continue to ensure the public the safety of cell phones towers and power lines. Just ask the city or your local MP and see for yourself what kind of answer will be given on this matter "we are within Canadian guidelines" Now, that is comforting. Never before has the human race been exposed to such a massive amount of electromagnetic frequency/radation. They themselves have no clue the remafications of it all. Our schools are now going wireless!! I empathize with all teachers having to stand in front of a Smartboard, but most of all, it enrages me to no end to know that innocent children are bathing in a soup of the electromagnetic frequencies at the tender age of 5. Hundreds of studies do exist and have shown the harmful effects of EMF's on the immune system, enzyme systhesis, endocrine system, nervous system, learning, moods and behavioral patterns. All aspect of life at the molecular, cellular, biochemical and physical levels can potentially be damaged be EMF's and we still choose to look the other way. Isn't it self evident when we see a rise in cancer especially in the brain, eye and ear as well as a rise in childhood leukemia, ADD, Autism, MS, Alzeihmers, chronic fatigue, chronic sinusitis, depression, hormonal disfunction...and the list goes on. Dr Howard Fisher, world renoun speaker and author of "The Invisible Threat" and also wrote numerous papers on the dangers of electro-pollution and says "EMFs are a ubiquitous universal genotoxic carcinogen!". With that said, how can so many countries have warnings on cell phones and have legal limits to where power lines and towers are erected, while we as a nation are not even discussing the possibility that it is even a health risks? All I am looking for is a government to start looking into how radiation/high frequencies may potentially be a health risk and/or an eco hazard. I am not saying that they are, I just want them to look into it and have the studies available......like in Europe. This is why we are decades behind Europe. Are we too proud to accept their studies? Must we reinvent the wheel at our end? Can we not share and continue the work done thus far? Just asking......
In the meantime, it always comes down to us. We need to educate ourselves, we need to pole our offices, we need to get petitions signed and maybe, just maybe, if we have enough voices we shall a governement look into the potential hazards and effects of EMF's.

Join the Class Action Suit Against CLEAR WI-MAX. Technology Threatens Health of Everyone
author: jailbush
Could Dow Chemical set up a plant in downtown Portland? Well, Wi-Max technology is wi fi on steroids that will blast every portlander in our homes whether we subscribe to it or not and this technology is at least 3x's as harsh as the average cell tower. They must be stopped or the genetic integrity of our children may be at risk. Thousands of studies worldwide (not one ongoing study in the u.s.!!) confirm that this unregulated technology poses a devastating health risk that some scientists predict will overtake tobacco and asbestos combined. Check out Bioinitiative Report and www.wirelesswatchblog.com

If you would like to know more about this, write to oregonskywatch@gmail.com and check out the site: www.wirelesswatchblog.com We are organizing a class action suit against the company and the Mayor and City Council for allowing this to be set up here. Wi-fi faces health concerns Print All Articles Letter to the editor Podcast Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com on 11 December 2003, 22:00 by staff The mobile telephone industry spent many years - and millions of dollars - fighting charges that wireless handsets could cause brain cancer. Now it looks like the budding wi-fi movement could face its own legal crisis with lawsuits alleging that 802.11 networks can cause similar physical problems. A few families in the Chicago suburb of Oak Park, Illinois, have filed a class-action lawsuit against Oak Park Elementary School's District 97. They assert that wireless local-area networks (WLAN) in the school buildings expose their children to potential harm. Their suit points to a "substantial body of evidence that high frequency electro-magnetic radiation poses substantial and serious health risks, particularly to growing children." The suit does not seek financial damages, but an end to the use of wi-fi in the neighborhood's schools. The Wi-Fi Alliance, an industry group with members including Intel, Microsoft, Philips, and IBM, is aware of the suit, and says it will continue to pay attention to developments. "It's natural when you hear about litigation for people to take notice," says Alliance chairman Dennis Eaton. "Members are sensitive to the amount of time and effort that might have to be spent defending themselves." The small suit could have big ramifications, particularly with wi-fi vendors. Global sales of 802.11 networks reached almost $1.3 billion through the first three quarters of this year, according to market research firm Dell'Oro Group. Tens of millions of people use the technology now, and the company predicts that the number will grow to 707 million by 2008, says Pyramid Research. Furthermore, as public hotspots invade hotels, airports, and coffee shops, an enormous number of people could claim to be adversely and unknowingly affected by WLANs. That is a key point of the lawsuit. "We have not established a level that can be considered safe or even tolerably safe," says Ron Baiman, one of the parents who filed the lawsuit. "Our thinking is that it is certainly prudent at this point not to use these in public schools." Collaborative on Health and the Environment (CHE), October 10, 2006 CONSENSUS STATEMENT ON ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION -- DRAFT [Rachel's introduction: The Collaborative on Health and the Environment (CHE) has been building consensus on the need for precautionary measures to avert harm from electromagnetic radiation. Here is their draft statement.] We, the undersigned, are members of the CHE-EMF Working Group within the Collaborative on Health and the Environment (CHE), together with like-minded colleagues from science, medicine and environmental health. We believe there are legitimate health concerns regarding exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (EMR), which has rapidly become one of the most pervasive environmental exposures in modern life. These concerns are based on the weight of evidence spanning decades of scientific research on radiofrequency (RF) radiation from countries around the world. The radiofrequency radiation sources addressed in this Consensus Statement are those from newer wireless technologies such as cell phones and cordless phones, cell towers/antennas, WI-FI networks, WI-MAX, as well as Broadband Radiofrequency Internet over electrical power lines (BPL). We recognize that there are significant uncertainties about the long- term health effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation. However, prudent policy requires acting on the best available scientific evidence. Then, based on the Precautionary Principle, which is an overarching guide for decision making when dealing with credible threats of harm and scientific uncertainty, policies to protect public health can be adopted. As a way of implementing the Precautionary Principle, there should be an ongoing investment in research, as well as funding for a transparent, participatory policy analysis of alternatives, when there is reason to believe that there may be a significant risk from current or proposed technologies. The principle states that "when an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically." These precautionary measures may include but are not necessarily limited to making investments in research and policy analysis. We are deeply concerned that there is insufficient non-industry funding support for critical research, given the potential public health consequences of involuntary and chronic exposure to radiofrequency radiation. The following four examples show how the Precautionary Principle has been implemented. * Scientists in the United Kingdom recommend that no child under the age of 8 years old use a cell phone. Research evidence shows that children are more vulnerable than adults to harm from other environmental exposures (such as chemicals), and the same may be true of radiofrequency radiation exposures. * The International Association of Fire Fighters passed a resolution in 2004, calling for a moratorium on new cell phone antennas on fire stations and a study of the health effects of these installations. The Chairman of the Russian National Committee for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (RNCNIRP), Yuri Grigoriev, advised that cellular communication is strongly contraindicated for children and teenagers. The Canadian Public Health Officer, David Butler-Jones, advised Canadians to limit their and their children's use of cell phones until science resolves uncertainties about long-term health effects. * More research is needed on the health/biological effects, the level of current and future exposure, and the feasibility, cost and exposure implications of these technologies, as well as alternatives and modifications to current technology. * While research continues, we believe there is sufficient evidence to recommend precautionary measures that people can take to protect their health, and the health of their families, co-workers and communities. We recommend the following measures: Use a corded phone/land line if possible, which does not involve RF exposure. Emergency use of cell phones is not discouraged but land lines should be used for normal day-to-day communication needs. If you use a cell phone, use an earpiece/headset or the "speaker phone" setting, which greatly reduces the RF exposure because the phone is not held next to your head and brain. Using text messaging is also a good way to reduce RF exposure. Be aware that the cell phone radiates to some degree even when in "standby" mode. You can avoid this radiation by either keeping the phone off (using it as an answering machine), or away from your body. Using a cordless phone outdoors to alert you to an incoming call is handy, but returning inside to use a corded phone/land line to conduct the conversation is advisable. Before adopting WI-FI wireless networks in workplaces, schools and cities, the extent of exposure and possible health effects should be publicly discussed. Although convenient, WI-FI wireless networks create pervasive, continuous, involuntary exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Preferable alternatives to wireless technology for voice and data transmission, including cable and fiber-optic technologies (that produce no radiofrequency radiation), should be considered, given the uncertainties about health, cost, liability, and inequity of impact. There needs to be substantial community involvement in decisions about the placement and operation of cell towers (also called antennas or masts). Where possible, siting of these facilities should avoid residential areas and schools, day-care centers, hospitals and other buildings that house populations more vulnerable to the effects of radiation exposure. Periodic information on levels of exposure should be provided to the public. Cell towers produce radiofrequency radiation exposure in communities that is constant and involuntary. While acknowledging that this technology enables voice and data transmission via a cell phone that is important to many people in every community, those who live, work or go to school in the vicinity of wireless facilities will be disproportionately exposed. Not enough research has been done to determine the safety or risk of chronic exposure to low-intensity RF radiation from cell towers and some studies suggest there may be harm. Broadband Radiofrequency Internet transmitted over electrical power lines (BPL) needs to be thoroughly researched and the findings publicly disclosed and discussed before full deployment of this new technology. Discussion should include comparison of exposures and potential health effects of BPL technology versus cable and fiber optics. BPL technology uses electrical wiring as the vehicle for carrying RF radiation into and throughout all electrified buildings in a community, including every home. Therefore, BPL has the potential to expose entire communities to a new, continuous, involuntary source of RF radiation. The RF signal will be carried on everyone's home wiring, even in the homes of those who do not wish to subscribe to this new Internet service. People will have no chance to "opt out" or turn off the signal. In summary, we recommend caution in the further deployment of wireless technologies, and deployment of safer, wired alternatives until further study allows better definition of the risks of wireless. Signed by: Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, Member, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, Corte Madera, CA James B. Beal, EMF Interface Consulting, Wimberley, TX Martin Blank, PhD, Columbia University, New York, NY Roger Coghill, Coghill Research Labs, UK Andy Davidson, HESE-UK, Worthing, UK Cynthia Drasler, MBA, President, Organic Excellence Chemical Free Products; Host, Chemical Free Living Radio Show, Phoenix, AZ Nancy Evans, Health Science Consultant, San Francisco, CA David Fancy, Canadian SWEEP Initiative (Safe Wireless Electric and Electromagnetic Policy), St. Catherines, Ontario, Canada Marne Glaser, Chicago, IL Reba Goodman, PhD, Columbia University, New York, NY Leonore Gordon, Coordinator, New York State Coalition to Regulate Antenna Siting, Brooklyn, NY Elizabeth A. ("Libby") Kelley, Executive Director, Council on Wireless Technology Impacts, Novato, CA Michael Kundi, PhD, Institute of Environmental Health, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria Henry Lai, PhD, University of Washington, Seattle, WA Michael Lerner, PhD, Commonweal, Bolinas, CA Samuel Milham, MD, MPH, Indio, CA Lloyd Morgan, Berkeley, CA Lisa Nagy, MD, Member, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, and Environmental Health Research Foundation, Vineyard Haven, MA Elihu Richter, MD, MPH, Hebrew University, Hadassah School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Jerusalem, Israel Joan M. Ripple, Treasurer, Council on Wireless Technology Impacts and health and disability researcher, Novato, CA Jeanne Rizzo, RN, Executive Director, Breast Cancer Fund, San Francisco, CA Ted Schettler, MD, MPH, Science and Environmental Health Network, Ann Arbor, MI Cindy Sage, Sage Associates, Santa Barbara, CA Lavinia Gene Weissman, Managing Director, WorkEcology, Jamaica Plain, MA Patricia Wood, Executive Director, Grassroots Environmental Education, Port Washington, NY

In Conclusion...

In Conclusion...
Scandalously despite undeniable evidence of ill health caused by pulsed microwave radiation....
Precautionary Approach In 2000
Sir William Stewart, now chairman of the Health Protection Agency, headed the government's inquiry into the safety of mobile phone masts and health. He felt the scientific research was sufficient to apply a precautionary approach when siting masts near schools. During that same year, the government sold off the 3G licences for £22.5bn. Sir William recalls: "We recommended, because we were sensitive about children... that masts should not necessarily impact directly on areas where children were exposed, like playgrounds and that." But what about Wi-Fi? The technology is similar to mobile phone masts and in use in 70 percent of secondary schools and 50 percent of primary schools. Panorama visited a school in Norwich, with more than 1,000 pupils, to compare the level of radiation from a typical mobile phone mast with that of Wi-Fi in the classroom. Radiation readings taken during a radiation survey taken for the programme showed the height of signal strength to be three times higher in the school classroom using Wi-Fi than the main beam of radiation intensity from a mobile phone mast. The findings are particularly significant because children's skulls are thinner and still forming and tests have shown they absorb more radiation than adults.
Safety Limits
The readings were well beneath the government's safety limits - as much as 600 times below - but some scientists suspect the whole basis of our safety limits may be wrong. Panorama spoke to a number of scientists who questioned the safety limits and were concerned about the possible health effects of such radiation. "If you look in the literature, you have a large number of various effects like chromosome damage, you have impact on the concentration capacity and decrease in short term memory, increases in the number of cancer incidences," said Professor Olle Johansson of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. Another scientist, Dr Gerd Oberfeld, from Salzburg is now calling for Wi-Fi to be removed from schools. He said: "If you go into the data you can see a very very clear picture - it is like a puzzle and everything fits together from DNA break ups to the animal studies and up to the epidemiological evidence; that shows for example increased symptoms as well as increased cancer rates." The clear advice from Sir William Stewart to the government on mobile phone masts was that the beam of greatest intensity should not fall on any part of the school grounds, unless the school and parents agreed to it. Yet the levels tested in the classroom from Wi-Fi were much higher - three times the highest level of the mast. Panorama contacted 50 schools at random - and found only one had been warned of possible health effects. Philip Parkin, general secretary of the Professional Association of Teachers said: "I think schools and parents will be very worried about it..” "I am asking schools to consider very seriously whether they should be installing Wi-Fi networks now and this will make them think twice or three times before they do it.” "I think the precautionary approach doesn't seem to have worked because it is being rolled out so rapidly...” "It's a bit like King Canute. We can't stop the tide and I am afraid if schools are told that there is a serious health implication for having these networks in schools, it is going to be a very serious matter to say to schools, you have to switch them off."
Low Power
At Washington State University, Professor Henry Lai, a biologist respected by both sides of the argument says he has found health effects at similar levels of radiation to Wi-Fi. He estimates that of the two to three thousand studies carried out over the last 30 years, there is a 50-50 split - half finding an effect with the other half finding no effect at all. But the Health Protection Agency has said Wi-Fi devices are of very low power - much lower than mobile phones. The Government says there is no risk and is backed up by the World Health Organisation which is robust in its language saying there are "no adverse health effects from low level, long-term exposure". The scientist responsible for WHO's position is Dr Mike Repacholi, who headed up the health organisation's research programme into radio frequency radiation. He was also the founder of the International Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). He said the statement of "no adverse health effects" was based on the weight of evidence. In order for a health effect to be established it must mean it has been repeated in a number of laboratories using very good study techniques. The findings of any published studies had been put in the mix before reaching a conclusion, he said. "It is called a weight of evidence approach - and if that weight of evidence is not for there being an effect or not being an effect that is the only way you can tell whether there really is an adverse health effect," he said.
In Conclusion
You can believe Repacholi is genuine and that the mobile operators wouldn’t lie cheat and sanction the slow murdering of innocent children for the sake of profit You can believe that Governments around the world wouldn’t allow themselves to be hoodwinked by the operators or worse procrastinate due to the inevitable economic consequences of owning up to the problem This site is not here as an educational resource or a campaigning protest body it is here to offer you products to detect and protect you and yours from Electrosmog and some safer alternatives to Wifi for those addicted to wireless gadgets .

The Approach of Other Countries...

World governments are not sure what to say or do anymore
Let’s take a quick world tour and see what governments are doing.
GERMANYA study encouraged by the German Federal Agency for Radiation Protection by Eger, Hagen, Lucas, Vogel & Voit, examined whether people living within 400 metres of a mobile phone mast were more at risk of developing cancer than those who lived further away. Case histories of 1,000 patients between 1994 and 2004 were evaluated for the study. Newly diagnosed cancers were significantly higher among those who had lived for 10 years within 400 metres of the mast, in operation since 1993, compared with those living further away, and the patients had fallen ill on average 8 years earlier. People living within 400 metres of the mast in Naila had three times the risk of developing cancer than those living further away. This seems to be an undeniable clustering of cancer cases. The project in Germany is to continue in the form of a register. In other words the study they encouraged came back with the wrong answers.
SWEDENIn Sweden people suffering from Electrosensitivity (susceptibility to radio frequency radiation and other forms of electrical pollution known now in Europe as electrosmog) are recognized and treated by their doctors on the National Health Service.
UNITED KINGDOMWell generally speaking in this country we are in denial but lets look at some of the thoughts and comments from one of this country’s most respected media outlets Panorama on the subject. Their program in May 2007 focused on wireless networks in Schools. The Government insists Wi-Fi is safe, but a Panorama investigation shows that radio frequency radiation levels in some schools are up to three times the level found in the main beam of intensity from mobile phone masts. There have been no studies on the health effects of Wi-Fi equipment, but thousands on mobile phones and masts. The radiation Wi-Fi emits is similar to that from mobile phone masts. It is an unavoidable by-product of going wireless. In the last 18 months another two million of us in the UK have begun using Wi-Fi. Entire cities have become what are known as wireless hotspots.