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
Monday, 18 May 2009
Brain tumours are the leading cause of childhood cancer deaths in Britain, with half as many more children dying from the illness as from leukaemia. Figures from the Office of National Statistics show that in 2007 there were 47% more deaths from brain tumours among under-15s than from leukaemia. Yet that is not reflected in the money spent on research, say campaigners. This week sees the launch of Brain Tumour Research, a national coalition of 14 charities, which believe that research is "woefully underfunded". It is backed by celebrities including the actress Sheila Hancock, whose grandson survived a tumour, and actor Martin Kemp and opera singer Russell Watson, who were both treated successfully.
Hancock, 76, the widow of actor John Thaw, saw her grandson Jack diagnosed with a rare tumour aged four. "It is terrible to watch a grandchild go through the diagnosis and treatment of a brain tumour. You feel so helpless." Jack was successfully operated on. Kevin O'Neill, a consultant neurosurgeon at Imperial College London, said: "Brain tumours are on the increase, reportedly in the region of 2% per year. But in my unit we have seen the number of cases nearly double in the last year."
Hancock, 76, the widow of actor John Thaw, saw her grandson Jack diagnosed with a rare tumour aged four. "It is terrible to watch a grandchild go through the diagnosis and treatment of a brain tumour. You feel so helpless." Jack was successfully operated on. Kevin O'Neill, a consultant neurosurgeon at Imperial College London, said: "Brain tumours are on the increase, reportedly in the region of 2% per year. But in my unit we have seen the number of cases nearly double in the last year."
Friday, 15 May 2009
CONNECTICUT GOVERNOR PROCLAIMS MAY 2009 AS ELECTROMAGNETIC SENSITIVITY (EMS) AWARENESS MONTHChristiane Tourtet B.A.May 13, 2009Her Excellency M. Jodi Rell, Governor of the State of Connecticut, signeda proclamation declaring May 2009 as Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS)Awareness Month in Connecticut. As stated in the proclamation , people in Connecticut and throughout the world have developed Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS) as a result of global electromagnetic pollution.Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS) is a painful chronic illness of hypersensitivities reactions to electromagnetic radiations for which there is no known cure. The symptoms of EMS include dermal changes, acute numbness and tingling, dermatitis, flushing, arrhythmia, muscular weakness, tinnitus, malaise, gastric problems, nausea, visual disturbances, severe neurological, respiratory, speech problems and numerous other physiological symptoms.It is also stated in the proclamation of Her Excellency M. Jodi Rell, that Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS) is recognized by the Americans with Disabilities Act, the U.S. Access Board , and numerous commissions, and that the health of the general population is at risk from electromagnetic exposures, that can lead to this illness induced by electromagnetic radiations, and that this illness may be preventable through the reduction or avoidance of electromagnetic radiations in both indoor and outdoor environments and by conducting further scientific research, and that people with EMS need the support of the medical establishment, understanding of family, friends, co- workers and society as they struggle with their illness and have to adapt to new lifestyles.
Thursday, 14 May 2009
Jean Gerson School vs. Bouygues Telecom SA Court Order from District Court of Lyon. Next-up organization 14 05 2009
The Tribunal de Grande Instance (TGI-District Court) in Lyon has just issued a court order in response to the request of the parents whose children attend the Jean Gerson School in Lyon to commence judicial proceedings against the limited company Bouygues Telecom. . In doing this, the judges of the TGI are not commenting on the issues in the case, but they acknowledge the urgency and the validity of the demand made by the parents of children at the Jean Gerson nursery and primary school to take Bouygues Telecom to court. For years Lyon City Council have refused to take any action, in spite of the factual evidence of the impact of the beams of artificial HF microwave radiation, not only in the school playground but in all the school buildings.
Court order from TGI- Lyon ZOOM
As a result Bouygues Telecom have ignored the problem and in fact have been acting on the quiet, notably disguising the antennas with a fake chimney, and then raising the level of the beams (provisionally), thus more or less acknowledging that the school is indeed affected by the radiation!
The parents have formed an action group called Rassemblement pour des Ecoles Sans Pollution ÉlectroMagnétique (Campaign for Schools without Electromagnetic Pollution [Example TAIWAN] ), defended by their lawyer Maître Franck Heurtrey. Their main demand is that all the relay antennas that are not compatible with human health should be dismantled. Some parents, who find the health risk intolerable, are even planning to take their children out of the school if positive and rapid progress is not made.. It is time for the phone companies and above all the politicians (who may be ignorant but who can still do major damage) to realise that the day of reckoning is at hand. The delaying tactics and the clever tricks intended to keep the old system on its feet (such as the recent charade of the ministerial Round Table) have missed their mark. Although they do not yet realise it, the public at large are faced with a choice between today's convenience and tomorrow's illness. While most people in ignorance use their mobile phone to the maximum, the growing ranks of those who are aware of the dangers of radiation are well on the way to reaching critical mass.
In truth, the current demand for a limit of 0.6 V/m of artificial HF microwave radiation is only a temporary emergency measure, since now that we are surrounded by this new type of environmental pollution it is becoming clear that we have to abandon altogether the technology that generates it, because even a weak dose of radiation damages all living tissue.
Substitution: there exists a system of land-based mobile telephony that functions perfectly well without any radiation. This is another matter that has to be discussed, but not with the present players, who will have to account for their actions on the issues of excess mortality and the "mortgaged" future of a whole generation of young people.
Upper level playground at the Jean Gerson School ZOOM The fake chimney hiding the relay antennas. ZOOM Graph of non-extrapoladed measurement at the school. ZOOM
As specialists we realise that in mentioning 'land-based mobile telephony' we could be seen to be supporting the status quo where the phone operating companies have everything their own way.
We hope that they understand, keeping in mind that there exist technical solutions [Fr], tried and tested in other countries, that would bring their present business to a complete and sudden stop, and do so without national or European regulations being able to change the situation.
The Tribunal de Grande Instance (TGI-District Court) in Lyon has just issued a court order in response to the request of the parents whose children attend the Jean Gerson School in Lyon to commence judicial proceedings against the limited company Bouygues Telecom. . In doing this, the judges of the TGI are not commenting on the issues in the case, but they acknowledge the urgency and the validity of the demand made by the parents of children at the Jean Gerson nursery and primary school to take Bouygues Telecom to court. For years Lyon City Council have refused to take any action, in spite of the factual evidence of the impact of the beams of artificial HF microwave radiation, not only in the school playground but in all the school buildings.
Court order from TGI- Lyon ZOOM
As a result Bouygues Telecom have ignored the problem and in fact have been acting on the quiet, notably disguising the antennas with a fake chimney, and then raising the level of the beams (provisionally), thus more or less acknowledging that the school is indeed affected by the radiation!
The parents have formed an action group called Rassemblement pour des Ecoles Sans Pollution ÉlectroMagnétique (Campaign for Schools without Electromagnetic Pollution [Example TAIWAN] ), defended by their lawyer Maître Franck Heurtrey. Their main demand is that all the relay antennas that are not compatible with human health should be dismantled. Some parents, who find the health risk intolerable, are even planning to take their children out of the school if positive and rapid progress is not made.. It is time for the phone companies and above all the politicians (who may be ignorant but who can still do major damage) to realise that the day of reckoning is at hand. The delaying tactics and the clever tricks intended to keep the old system on its feet (such as the recent charade of the ministerial Round Table) have missed their mark. Although they do not yet realise it, the public at large are faced with a choice between today's convenience and tomorrow's illness. While most people in ignorance use their mobile phone to the maximum, the growing ranks of those who are aware of the dangers of radiation are well on the way to reaching critical mass.
In truth, the current demand for a limit of 0.6 V/m of artificial HF microwave radiation is only a temporary emergency measure, since now that we are surrounded by this new type of environmental pollution it is becoming clear that we have to abandon altogether the technology that generates it, because even a weak dose of radiation damages all living tissue.
Substitution: there exists a system of land-based mobile telephony that functions perfectly well without any radiation. This is another matter that has to be discussed, but not with the present players, who will have to account for their actions on the issues of excess mortality and the "mortgaged" future of a whole generation of young people.
Upper level playground at the Jean Gerson School ZOOM The fake chimney hiding the relay antennas. ZOOM Graph of non-extrapoladed measurement at the school. ZOOM
As specialists we realise that in mentioning 'land-based mobile telephony' we could be seen to be supporting the status quo where the phone operating companies have everything their own way.
We hope that they understand, keeping in mind that there exist technical solutions [Fr], tried and tested in other countries, that would bring their present business to a complete and sudden stop, and do so without national or European regulations being able to change the situation.
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, 12 May 2009
Author’s note:
On the website of the National Grid in Northeastern USA, it is mentioned under the
section, “Additional Information”: “If you decide to research EMF, it’s important to check the
credentials of those who provide or produce the information. For example, websites can be
developed by anyone regardless of training or experience and are sometimes created to promote
limited agendas or points of view.”
National Grid then lists a number of EMF websites that “were selected solely on the basis of
the scientific qualifications of the sponsoring organizations. These sites are sponsored by federal
agencies and professional organizations and provide information that reflects the work of many
experienced scientists.”
Included on their list of approved web sites are the locations for the International
Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the World Health
Organization’s International EMF Project, established and headed by Dr. Michael
Repacholi.
The following paper very much supports the National Grid’s call to check the
credentials of those who provide EMF information for limited agendas or points of
view.
Don Maisch
Reference: http://www.nationalgridus.com/non_html/shared_env_emfslink.pdf
1
Conflict of Interest and Bias in Health Advisory Committees:
A case study of the WHO’s EMF Task Group
Maisch Don,
JACNEM, Vol. 21 No. 1, pages 15-17, April 2006
Introduction
The potential problem of conflicts-of-interest biasing outcomes in papers submitted to
bio-medical journals, including papers published in journals by expert advisory bodies,
was an issue addressed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors in
November 3003. To quote from their “Uniform Requirements”:
"Conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author’s institution), reviewer, or editor has
financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence (bias) his or her actions. . . The
potential for conflict of interest can exist whether or not an individual believes that the
relationship affects his or her scientific judgement. Financial relationships . . . are the most easily
identifiable conflicts of interest and the most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal,
the authors, and of science itself." (1)
This paper briefly examines this problem, using recent actions taken by the World
Health Organisation’s (WHO) International EMF Project and the International
Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).
In both organisations the case is presented that maintaining independence from
industry vested interests is essential for maintaining scientific objectivity and credibility
in giving expert advice on public health matters.
************
At the May 2001 Australian Senate Inquiry into Electromagnetic Radiation, Michael
Repacholi, head of the WHO’s International EMF Project, informed the Senate
Committee that the WHO had a firm policy against industry involvement in its
processes. To Quote:
“[T]he world health Organization does not allow industry to participate in either standard
setting or in health risk assessment. The WHO takes the view that there cannot be industry
representation on standard setting working groups. There cannot be someone on the working
group who is having an influence on health effects for an industry when they derive benefit
from that industry.”(2)
ICNIRP clearly states on its website that all commission members are independent
experts in their respective scientific disciplines and do not represent either their
countries or institutes and specifically they cannot be employed by industry. In order to
maintain this independence from industry or other vested interests it is stated:
2
“Members are reminded frequently of the need to declare any interests detrimental to
ICNIRP’s status as an independent advisory body. . . ICNIRP also does not accept funding
from industry.”(3)
So these requirements were established so that ICNIRP’s credibility of its advice and
guidelines cannot be said to be influenced or biased by industry vested interests. Dr.
Ken Joyner, from Motorola, stressed the independence of ICNIRP from industry at the
Australian Senate “Inquiry into Electromagnetic Radiation” in May 2001. Joyner stated:
“If you want to look at one standards body that has specifically excluded any industry
representatives, there is the ICNIRP body. You cannot be a member of the ICNIRP if you are
part of industry. They exclude you from that process.” (4)
The ICNIRP website also explains that the scientific reviews carried out by ICNIRP
members are combined with risk assessments done by WHO International EMF Project
working groups with the resultant being the publication of ICNIRP’s EMF exposure
guidelines. Therefore the claim that ICNIRP’s scientific advice is value-free from
industry influence must also include the same requirement for any WHO risk
assessment task group. That was what Repacholi stated to the Australian Senate
Committee in May 2001 (as quoted previously).
“There cannot be someone on the working group who is having an influence on health effects
for an industry when they derive benefit from that industry”.
The close working relationship between ICNIRP and the WHO’s EMF Task Group
evaluating power frequency research is seen in the make up of the membership of the
Task Group. Out of the 20 members from 17 countries (5), we have Paolo Vecchia, the
current ICNIRP Chairman, Anders Ahlbon, Larry Anderson, Rudiger Matthes as
members of ICNIRP’s main commission, with Ahlbon as also on ICNIRP’s Standing
Committee on Epidemiology. Other ICNIRP Standing Committee members include
Christoffer Johansen, Jukka Juutilainen, Alasdair McKinlay and Zhengping Xu. Eric van
Rongen is a consulting expert for ICNIRP. In addition, Michael Repacholi, head of the
WHO’s International EMF Project, is also Chairman Emeritis of ICNIRP. (6)
Including Repacholi, half of the official members of the WHO task group are also
members of ICNIRP, so it is obvious that there are no secrets between ICNIRP and the
Task Group.
Industry influence endemic in the decision making process
As reported by the New York based publication, Microwave News, on October 1, 2005,
the 20 member WHO Task Group writing a new Environmental Health Criteria (EHC)
document on power frequency EMFs included, at the request of Repacholi,
representatives from the electrical utilities, or organisations with close ties with the
industry. Their task was to both assist in writing the initial draft and review the
completed draft.(7) This is in clear conflict with what Repacholi stated in his testimony
in the May 2001 Australian Senate Inquiry hearings. To quote again: “There cannot be
someone on the working group who is having an influence on health effects for an industry when
they derive benefit from that industry.”
3
One of the central authors of the draft, and member of the EHC Task Group, Leeka
Kheifets, was a former WHO assistant to Michael Repacholi. She disclosed in Sept. 2005
in a letter (declaring any potential conflicts of interest) to the British Medical Journal
that she “works with the Electric Power Research Institute… and consults with utilities.”(8)
Other power industry representatives who assisted Kheifets on preparing the draft
were Gabor Mezei, from the EPRI, Jack Sahl from Southern California Edison, USA, and
Jack Swanson from the National Grid, UK. When Repacholi sent a draft of the EHC out
for review in early July 2005, the reviewers included representatives from the power
industry bodies: The Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan, Pacificorp
(USA), Hydro-Quebec (Canada), the Utility Health Sciences Group (USA) and Exponent
Inc, (USA). (9) The question of liability must have also been on the agenda, as Exponent
has described its business activities as follows:
“Exponent serves clients in automotive, aviation, chemical, construction, energy,
government, health, insurance, manufacturing, technology and other sectors of the economy.
Many of our engagements are initiated by lawyers or insurance companies, whose clients
anticipate, or are engaged in, litigation over an alleged failure of their products, equipment or
services.” (10)
In addition to WHO staff, the only other observers that Repacholi invited to the WHO
Task Group meeting in Geneva on 3 October to recommend exposure limits, were eight
representatives from the power industry. Members of the press were barred from
attending.(11) In addition the meeting was not publicised on either the WHO web site
meetings list or the Bioelectromagnetics Society Newsletter’s conference calendar and
very few members of the EMF scientific community, including important EMF
epidemiologists, were even aware of the meeting. (12) Only industry representatives
received invitations. Why were the epidemiologists who were directly involved in the
research that the WHO’s risk assessment task group would evaluate, not also invited as
observers and reviewers?
The Microwave News article points out that a number of independent researchers were
involved in the preparation and review of the draft, but it was “highly unusual, if not
unprecedented, for a WHO health document to be reviewed by so many with such
strong ties to the affected industry,” (13)
One example of an industry reviewer’s viewpoint, seeking to downplay potential health
hazards, is seen in the comments from Michel Plante, representing Hydro-Quebec:
“The whole section on cancer seems more like a desperate attempt to maintain some positive
statistical association from epidemiological studies alive than a factual and honest
presentation of arguments both, for and against, carcinogenicity.” (14)
Plante’s role as a protector of his employer’s interests in denying a cancer link with
EMFs was amply demonstrated in his involvement, as a Hydro-Quebec representative,
in suppressing potentially damaging cancer data in a 1994 Hydro-Quebec funded
epidemiological study By Dr. Gilles Theriault et al, from McGill University. The initial
analysis of the data collected from three electric utilities found that workers who had
the greatest exposures to magnetic fields had twelve times the expected rate of
astrocytomas, a type of brain tumour, based on a small number of cases. (15)
4
In a later re-analysis of the data (16), this time looking at high frequency transients
(HFT), the McGill University team found up to a 10-fold increased risk of developing
lung cancer amongst highly exposed utility workers, with a “very clear” exposureresponse
relationship. (17)
When Gilles Theriault’s McGill team wanted to further analyse the HFT data for other
associations, Hydro-Quebec, which funded the $3 million study, and therefore owned
the collected data, refused further access to the data. Plant said at the time that “We
have a contract problem that has to be resolved and there will be no new mandate until
it is solved.” Plante argued that by Theriault publishing the findings on HFT he had
violated the contract with the utilities. Many senior EMF researchers and
epidemiologists saw the HFT data as having important implications and needing
further analysis by other researchers. (18) As of October 2005 the Hydro-Quebec HFT
data has continued to be suppressed from any further analysis from the scientific
community – and Plante, as Hydro-Quebec’s man at the centre of that suppression, has
now been asked by Repacholi to review the WHO’s Environmental Health Criteria risk
assessment.
It is not known if Plante was asked at the meetings about the “positive statistical
association” seen in the Hydro-Quebec HFT data but he could have replied that it is not
important because it has not yet been replicated!
The Utility Health Sciences Group, another power industry group that Repacholi asked
to review the EHC draft document, plainly indicated that they considered increased
costs to industry should take precedence over health considerations when they
proposed a change in the chapter on protective measures that stated:
“It should also be pointed out that redirecting facilities or redesigning electrical systems may
be so expensive as to be inconsistent with the low-cost and no-cost steps typically viewed as
prudent avoidance.” (19)
The UHSG also proposed a statement be included in the summary”
“It would be useful for the summary to include a clear statement that the scientific research
does not establish ELF EMF as a cause or contributing factor in any disease or adverse health
effect, including cancer.” (20)
The Myth of not accept funding from industry
It is stated on the ICNIRP web site that in order to protect its status as an independent
advisory body, “ ICNIRP also does not accept funding from industry”.(21) When it comes to
the WHO’s International EMF Project, however, no such restrictions apply. As
Repacholi has stated, the “[EMF]Project can receive funding from any source through Royal
Adelaide Hospital; an agency established through WHO Legal Department agreement to collect
funds for the project.”(22) Questions of a conflict-of-interest and even money laundering
could be raised at this point when it was revealed by “Microwave News” that Repacholi,
as head of the EMF Project, receives $150,000 annually from the cellphone industry. (23)
However, Repacoli could rightfully still claim that he does not receive any direct
5
funding from industry sources since it is funneled through the Royal Adelaide Hospital.
This arrangement may be in violation of current WHO rule against employees and
consultants accepting any “gift or remumeration” from external sources “incompatible”
with their duties to WHO. (24)
A Claytons oversight committee?
According to a fact sheet “New Electromagnetic Fields Exposure Guidelines” published by
the European Commission in December 2005, an “International Advisory Committee”
(IAC) has been set up to provide oversight to the WHO’s International EMF Project.
This committee consists of representatives of international organisations, independent
scientific institutions and national governments who are supporting the Project. (25)
In this case IAC oversight should essentially operate much the same as Judicial
oversight where a judicial branch of the government watches or monitors what is going
on or happening in a case or matter. In the judicial arena it is a form of checks and
balances that operates to keep law officers from abusing their powers. (26) In the case of
the WHO’s EMF Project IAC oversight should operate to prevent WHO officials from
abusing their powers - and this should include preventing the possibility of bias
through conflict-of-interest. It would also be important for the IAC to maintain an
"arms-length" distance from the project activities that it is supposed to monitor.
The question then needs to be asked of the IAC: Why have they failed to intervene in
the case of blatant industry influence on the WHO’s EMF Task Group?
Forgotten lessons: Big Tobacco and
Protecting the Integrity of WHO Decision Making
In July 2000 the WHO Committee of Experts on Tobacco Industry Documents released a
260 page report documenting the tactics used by the tobacco industry’s strategies to
undermine the work of the WHO. (27) At the same time the WHO issued a 15 page
response document listing a detailed response to ensure that the WHO was never
undermined again. Just a few of the 58 recommendations were as follows (To quote):
#6. WHO should urge other UN organisations to investigate possible tobacco company
influences on their decisions and programs, and to report their findings publically.
# 7. WHO should advocate implementation and consistent enforcement of effective conflict of
interest and ethics policies throughout UN agencies.
#8. WHO should urge Member States to conduct their own investigations of possible tobacco
company influence on national decisions and policies, and to publish reports on their
findings.”
#11: Appoint an ombudsman or other independent offices, outside the standard lines of
reporting authority, with autonomy and clear authority for enforcing ethical rules.
6
#12. Disseminate conflict of interest rules more broadly.# 14. Introduce a formal process for
vetting prospective employees, consultants, advisers, and committee members, to identify
conflicts of interest.
# 19. Prohibit employees, consultants, advisers, and committee members from holding any
substantial financial affiliation with the tobacco industry, including any employee or
consulting relationship. . . “
#20. Disqualify any professional services from performing work on behalf of WHO if the firm
also provides a tobacco company with services likely to be adverse to the interest of public
health. . . “
#21. Prohibit employees, consultants, advisers and committee members from accepting any
item of value from a Tobacco company or its affiliates. . . “
# 35. WHO and IARC should take steps to educate their scientific investigators and
collaborators about tobacco company efforts to undermine research and the need for special
vigilance in protecting the integrity of tobacco-related research.”(28)
Although the above sampling of WHO recommendations were in response to Big
Tobacco’s attempts to undermine WHO integrity, its direct relevance to other large
industrial interests cannot be ignored, be it the power industry or Telecommunications.
Unfortunately it seems that in this case at least, WHO has forgotten the hard lessons
learnt with its previous experiences with Big Tobacco. In the case of WHO’s Task Group
writing the new Environmental Health Criteria (EHC) for power frequency EMFs, a
violation of the above recommendations urgently calls for an independent evaluation to
protect both public health and WHO’s public credibility.
In Conclusion
It is acknowledged that in an ever increasingly globalized world the reliance on
international organisations to set standards to protect public health is an irrefutable fact
of modern life. It is also a fact that international organizations charged with this task
need to be “eternally vigilant” to ensure that their organisations are not co-opted by
vested interests groups – as exampled by Big Tobacco and WHO.
However when it comes to non-ionizing radiation issues ( in this case for power
frequency health risk assessment) the evidence is clear that Michael Repacholi has used
his standing in both WHO and ICNIRP to stack the WHO’s Environmental Health
Criteria Task Group for power frequency exposures with representatives of the power
industry in contravention of WHO policy. This can only be to the detriment of the
group’s ability to evaluate the scientific literature in an unbiased way. This action can
only be construed as being aimed at ensuring that industry involvement in determining
the WHO Environmental Health Criteria will bias ICNIRP’s risk assessment for power
frequency exposure limits for years to come. This will conveniently provide economic
protection for the industry against the need to spend enormous sums of money on
upgrading distribution systems as well as risks of litigation. Such a blatant disregard for
the fundamental principles of credible science as well as WHO’s mission on protecting
7
world health speaks of a desperation to bury independent science at all costs, even if
that cost is at the integrity of WHO.
References
1) Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and
Editing for Biomedical Publication, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors,
http://wwwicmje.org/index.html#peer, page 8, November 2003
2) Inquiry into Electromagnetic Radiation, Report of the Senate Environment,
Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee, Section
4.115, page 151, May 2001
3) http://www.icnirp.de/what.htm Accessed August 22, 2005.
4) Inquiry into Electromagnetic Radiation, (as above), Section 4.68, page 137, May 2001
5) As listed in Microwave News, WHO Welcomes Electric Utility Industry To Key EMF
Meeting, Bars the Press, Sept. 22, 2005
http://www.microwavenews.com/fromthefield.html#partners Accessed October 10,
2005.
6) As listed on the ICNIRP website: http://www.icnirp.de Accessed October 12, 2005.
7) Microwave News, From the Field, WHO and Electric Utilities: A Partnership on
EMFs, October 1, 2005.
http://www.microwavenews.com/fromthefield.html#partners Accessed October 10,
2005.
8) Letters, Childhood cancer and power lines, British Medical Journal, Vol. 331, pp. 634-
638, Sept.17, 2005.
9) Microwave News, WHO and Electric Utilities… (as above).
10) Bohme, SR, et al, Maximizing Profit and Endangering Health: Corporate Strategies
to Aviod Litigation and Regulation, Int J Occup Environ Health, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp.338-
348, Oct/Dec 2005.
11) Microwave News, WHO Welcomes Electric Utility Industry To Key EMF Meeting,
Bars the Press, Sept. 22, 2005
http://www.microwavenews.com/fromthefield.html#partners Accessed October 10,
2005.
12) ibid.
13) ibid.
14) ibid.
8
15)Theriault G, et al, “Cancer Risks Associated with Occupational Exposure to magnetic
Fields Among Electric Utility Workers in Ontario and Quebec, Canada, and France:
1970-1989, American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 139, pp. 550-572, 1994.
16) Armstrong B et al, “Association Between Exposure to Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields
and Cancer in Electric Utility Workers in Quebec, Canada, and France”, American
Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 140, pp. 805-820, 1994.
17) Microwave News, “Transients and Lung Cancer: A “Strong” Association and a
“Remarkable” Exposure-Response”, Vol. XIV, No. 6, Nov/Dec 1994.
18) ibid
19) Microwave News, WHO and Electric Utilities… (as above)
20) ibid.
21) http://www.icnirp.de/what.htm (as above)
22) Welcoming speech by Michael Repacholi, 9th International Advisory Committee
(IAC) meeting, Istanbul Turkey, June 7, 2004.
23) Communication with Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News, November 21, 2005.
Also see: http://www.microwavenews.com/fromthefield.html#whoottawa
24) “Response of WHO to the Report of the Committee of Experts on Tobacco Industry
Documents”, WHO, June 10, 2000.
25) Science for Environment Policy, New Electromagnetic Fields Exposure Guidelines,
European Commission DG ENV, News Alert Issue 3, December 2005.
26) Wikipedia definition, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_oversight, Accessed February
25, 2006.
27) Tobacco Company Strategies to Undermine Tobacco Control Activities at the World
Health Organization, Report of the Committee of Experts on Tobacco Industry
Documents, July 2000.
28) Response of WHO to the Report of the Committee of Experts on Tobacco Industry
Documents, WHO document, June 10, 2000.
On the website of the National Grid in Northeastern USA, it is mentioned under the
section, “Additional Information”: “If you decide to research EMF, it’s important to check the
credentials of those who provide or produce the information. For example, websites can be
developed by anyone regardless of training or experience and are sometimes created to promote
limited agendas or points of view.”
National Grid then lists a number of EMF websites that “were selected solely on the basis of
the scientific qualifications of the sponsoring organizations. These sites are sponsored by federal
agencies and professional organizations and provide information that reflects the work of many
experienced scientists.”
Included on their list of approved web sites are the locations for the International
Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the World Health
Organization’s International EMF Project, established and headed by Dr. Michael
Repacholi.
The following paper very much supports the National Grid’s call to check the
credentials of those who provide EMF information for limited agendas or points of
view.
Don Maisch
Reference: http://www.nationalgridus.com/non_html/shared_env_emfslink.pdf
1
Conflict of Interest and Bias in Health Advisory Committees:
A case study of the WHO’s EMF Task Group
Maisch Don,
JACNEM, Vol. 21 No. 1, pages 15-17, April 2006
Introduction
The potential problem of conflicts-of-interest biasing outcomes in papers submitted to
bio-medical journals, including papers published in journals by expert advisory bodies,
was an issue addressed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors in
November 3003. To quote from their “Uniform Requirements”:
"Conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author’s institution), reviewer, or editor has
financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence (bias) his or her actions. . . The
potential for conflict of interest can exist whether or not an individual believes that the
relationship affects his or her scientific judgement. Financial relationships . . . are the most easily
identifiable conflicts of interest and the most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal,
the authors, and of science itself." (1)
This paper briefly examines this problem, using recent actions taken by the World
Health Organisation’s (WHO) International EMF Project and the International
Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).
In both organisations the case is presented that maintaining independence from
industry vested interests is essential for maintaining scientific objectivity and credibility
in giving expert advice on public health matters.
************
At the May 2001 Australian Senate Inquiry into Electromagnetic Radiation, Michael
Repacholi, head of the WHO’s International EMF Project, informed the Senate
Committee that the WHO had a firm policy against industry involvement in its
processes. To Quote:
“[T]he world health Organization does not allow industry to participate in either standard
setting or in health risk assessment. The WHO takes the view that there cannot be industry
representation on standard setting working groups. There cannot be someone on the working
group who is having an influence on health effects for an industry when they derive benefit
from that industry.”(2)
ICNIRP clearly states on its website that all commission members are independent
experts in their respective scientific disciplines and do not represent either their
countries or institutes and specifically they cannot be employed by industry. In order to
maintain this independence from industry or other vested interests it is stated:
2
“Members are reminded frequently of the need to declare any interests detrimental to
ICNIRP’s status as an independent advisory body. . . ICNIRP also does not accept funding
from industry.”(3)
So these requirements were established so that ICNIRP’s credibility of its advice and
guidelines cannot be said to be influenced or biased by industry vested interests. Dr.
Ken Joyner, from Motorola, stressed the independence of ICNIRP from industry at the
Australian Senate “Inquiry into Electromagnetic Radiation” in May 2001. Joyner stated:
“If you want to look at one standards body that has specifically excluded any industry
representatives, there is the ICNIRP body. You cannot be a member of the ICNIRP if you are
part of industry. They exclude you from that process.” (4)
The ICNIRP website also explains that the scientific reviews carried out by ICNIRP
members are combined with risk assessments done by WHO International EMF Project
working groups with the resultant being the publication of ICNIRP’s EMF exposure
guidelines. Therefore the claim that ICNIRP’s scientific advice is value-free from
industry influence must also include the same requirement for any WHO risk
assessment task group. That was what Repacholi stated to the Australian Senate
Committee in May 2001 (as quoted previously).
“There cannot be someone on the working group who is having an influence on health effects
for an industry when they derive benefit from that industry”.
The close working relationship between ICNIRP and the WHO’s EMF Task Group
evaluating power frequency research is seen in the make up of the membership of the
Task Group. Out of the 20 members from 17 countries (5), we have Paolo Vecchia, the
current ICNIRP Chairman, Anders Ahlbon, Larry Anderson, Rudiger Matthes as
members of ICNIRP’s main commission, with Ahlbon as also on ICNIRP’s Standing
Committee on Epidemiology. Other ICNIRP Standing Committee members include
Christoffer Johansen, Jukka Juutilainen, Alasdair McKinlay and Zhengping Xu. Eric van
Rongen is a consulting expert for ICNIRP. In addition, Michael Repacholi, head of the
WHO’s International EMF Project, is also Chairman Emeritis of ICNIRP. (6)
Including Repacholi, half of the official members of the WHO task group are also
members of ICNIRP, so it is obvious that there are no secrets between ICNIRP and the
Task Group.
Industry influence endemic in the decision making process
As reported by the New York based publication, Microwave News, on October 1, 2005,
the 20 member WHO Task Group writing a new Environmental Health Criteria (EHC)
document on power frequency EMFs included, at the request of Repacholi,
representatives from the electrical utilities, or organisations with close ties with the
industry. Their task was to both assist in writing the initial draft and review the
completed draft.(7) This is in clear conflict with what Repacholi stated in his testimony
in the May 2001 Australian Senate Inquiry hearings. To quote again: “There cannot be
someone on the working group who is having an influence on health effects for an industry when
they derive benefit from that industry.”
3
One of the central authors of the draft, and member of the EHC Task Group, Leeka
Kheifets, was a former WHO assistant to Michael Repacholi. She disclosed in Sept. 2005
in a letter (declaring any potential conflicts of interest) to the British Medical Journal
that she “works with the Electric Power Research Institute… and consults with utilities.”(8)
Other power industry representatives who assisted Kheifets on preparing the draft
were Gabor Mezei, from the EPRI, Jack Sahl from Southern California Edison, USA, and
Jack Swanson from the National Grid, UK. When Repacholi sent a draft of the EHC out
for review in early July 2005, the reviewers included representatives from the power
industry bodies: The Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan, Pacificorp
(USA), Hydro-Quebec (Canada), the Utility Health Sciences Group (USA) and Exponent
Inc, (USA). (9) The question of liability must have also been on the agenda, as Exponent
has described its business activities as follows:
“Exponent serves clients in automotive, aviation, chemical, construction, energy,
government, health, insurance, manufacturing, technology and other sectors of the economy.
Many of our engagements are initiated by lawyers or insurance companies, whose clients
anticipate, or are engaged in, litigation over an alleged failure of their products, equipment or
services.” (10)
In addition to WHO staff, the only other observers that Repacholi invited to the WHO
Task Group meeting in Geneva on 3 October to recommend exposure limits, were eight
representatives from the power industry. Members of the press were barred from
attending.(11) In addition the meeting was not publicised on either the WHO web site
meetings list or the Bioelectromagnetics Society Newsletter’s conference calendar and
very few members of the EMF scientific community, including important EMF
epidemiologists, were even aware of the meeting. (12) Only industry representatives
received invitations. Why were the epidemiologists who were directly involved in the
research that the WHO’s risk assessment task group would evaluate, not also invited as
observers and reviewers?
The Microwave News article points out that a number of independent researchers were
involved in the preparation and review of the draft, but it was “highly unusual, if not
unprecedented, for a WHO health document to be reviewed by so many with such
strong ties to the affected industry,” (13)
One example of an industry reviewer’s viewpoint, seeking to downplay potential health
hazards, is seen in the comments from Michel Plante, representing Hydro-Quebec:
“The whole section on cancer seems more like a desperate attempt to maintain some positive
statistical association from epidemiological studies alive than a factual and honest
presentation of arguments both, for and against, carcinogenicity.” (14)
Plante’s role as a protector of his employer’s interests in denying a cancer link with
EMFs was amply demonstrated in his involvement, as a Hydro-Quebec representative,
in suppressing potentially damaging cancer data in a 1994 Hydro-Quebec funded
epidemiological study By Dr. Gilles Theriault et al, from McGill University. The initial
analysis of the data collected from three electric utilities found that workers who had
the greatest exposures to magnetic fields had twelve times the expected rate of
astrocytomas, a type of brain tumour, based on a small number of cases. (15)
4
In a later re-analysis of the data (16), this time looking at high frequency transients
(HFT), the McGill University team found up to a 10-fold increased risk of developing
lung cancer amongst highly exposed utility workers, with a “very clear” exposureresponse
relationship. (17)
When Gilles Theriault’s McGill team wanted to further analyse the HFT data for other
associations, Hydro-Quebec, which funded the $3 million study, and therefore owned
the collected data, refused further access to the data. Plant said at the time that “We
have a contract problem that has to be resolved and there will be no new mandate until
it is solved.” Plante argued that by Theriault publishing the findings on HFT he had
violated the contract with the utilities. Many senior EMF researchers and
epidemiologists saw the HFT data as having important implications and needing
further analysis by other researchers. (18) As of October 2005 the Hydro-Quebec HFT
data has continued to be suppressed from any further analysis from the scientific
community – and Plante, as Hydro-Quebec’s man at the centre of that suppression, has
now been asked by Repacholi to review the WHO’s Environmental Health Criteria risk
assessment.
It is not known if Plante was asked at the meetings about the “positive statistical
association” seen in the Hydro-Quebec HFT data but he could have replied that it is not
important because it has not yet been replicated!
The Utility Health Sciences Group, another power industry group that Repacholi asked
to review the EHC draft document, plainly indicated that they considered increased
costs to industry should take precedence over health considerations when they
proposed a change in the chapter on protective measures that stated:
“It should also be pointed out that redirecting facilities or redesigning electrical systems may
be so expensive as to be inconsistent with the low-cost and no-cost steps typically viewed as
prudent avoidance.” (19)
The UHSG also proposed a statement be included in the summary”
“It would be useful for the summary to include a clear statement that the scientific research
does not establish ELF EMF as a cause or contributing factor in any disease or adverse health
effect, including cancer.” (20)
The Myth of not accept funding from industry
It is stated on the ICNIRP web site that in order to protect its status as an independent
advisory body, “ ICNIRP also does not accept funding from industry”.(21) When it comes to
the WHO’s International EMF Project, however, no such restrictions apply. As
Repacholi has stated, the “[EMF]Project can receive funding from any source through Royal
Adelaide Hospital; an agency established through WHO Legal Department agreement to collect
funds for the project.”(22) Questions of a conflict-of-interest and even money laundering
could be raised at this point when it was revealed by “Microwave News” that Repacholi,
as head of the EMF Project, receives $150,000 annually from the cellphone industry. (23)
However, Repacoli could rightfully still claim that he does not receive any direct
5
funding from industry sources since it is funneled through the Royal Adelaide Hospital.
This arrangement may be in violation of current WHO rule against employees and
consultants accepting any “gift or remumeration” from external sources “incompatible”
with their duties to WHO. (24)
A Claytons oversight committee?
According to a fact sheet “New Electromagnetic Fields Exposure Guidelines” published by
the European Commission in December 2005, an “International Advisory Committee”
(IAC) has been set up to provide oversight to the WHO’s International EMF Project.
This committee consists of representatives of international organisations, independent
scientific institutions and national governments who are supporting the Project. (25)
In this case IAC oversight should essentially operate much the same as Judicial
oversight where a judicial branch of the government watches or monitors what is going
on or happening in a case or matter. In the judicial arena it is a form of checks and
balances that operates to keep law officers from abusing their powers. (26) In the case of
the WHO’s EMF Project IAC oversight should operate to prevent WHO officials from
abusing their powers - and this should include preventing the possibility of bias
through conflict-of-interest. It would also be important for the IAC to maintain an
"arms-length" distance from the project activities that it is supposed to monitor.
The question then needs to be asked of the IAC: Why have they failed to intervene in
the case of blatant industry influence on the WHO’s EMF Task Group?
Forgotten lessons: Big Tobacco and
Protecting the Integrity of WHO Decision Making
In July 2000 the WHO Committee of Experts on Tobacco Industry Documents released a
260 page report documenting the tactics used by the tobacco industry’s strategies to
undermine the work of the WHO. (27) At the same time the WHO issued a 15 page
response document listing a detailed response to ensure that the WHO was never
undermined again. Just a few of the 58 recommendations were as follows (To quote):
#6. WHO should urge other UN organisations to investigate possible tobacco company
influences on their decisions and programs, and to report their findings publically.
# 7. WHO should advocate implementation and consistent enforcement of effective conflict of
interest and ethics policies throughout UN agencies.
#8. WHO should urge Member States to conduct their own investigations of possible tobacco
company influence on national decisions and policies, and to publish reports on their
findings.”
#11: Appoint an ombudsman or other independent offices, outside the standard lines of
reporting authority, with autonomy and clear authority for enforcing ethical rules.
6
#12. Disseminate conflict of interest rules more broadly.# 14. Introduce a formal process for
vetting prospective employees, consultants, advisers, and committee members, to identify
conflicts of interest.
# 19. Prohibit employees, consultants, advisers, and committee members from holding any
substantial financial affiliation with the tobacco industry, including any employee or
consulting relationship. . . “
#20. Disqualify any professional services from performing work on behalf of WHO if the firm
also provides a tobacco company with services likely to be adverse to the interest of public
health. . . “
#21. Prohibit employees, consultants, advisers and committee members from accepting any
item of value from a Tobacco company or its affiliates. . . “
# 35. WHO and IARC should take steps to educate their scientific investigators and
collaborators about tobacco company efforts to undermine research and the need for special
vigilance in protecting the integrity of tobacco-related research.”(28)
Although the above sampling of WHO recommendations were in response to Big
Tobacco’s attempts to undermine WHO integrity, its direct relevance to other large
industrial interests cannot be ignored, be it the power industry or Telecommunications.
Unfortunately it seems that in this case at least, WHO has forgotten the hard lessons
learnt with its previous experiences with Big Tobacco. In the case of WHO’s Task Group
writing the new Environmental Health Criteria (EHC) for power frequency EMFs, a
violation of the above recommendations urgently calls for an independent evaluation to
protect both public health and WHO’s public credibility.
In Conclusion
It is acknowledged that in an ever increasingly globalized world the reliance on
international organisations to set standards to protect public health is an irrefutable fact
of modern life. It is also a fact that international organizations charged with this task
need to be “eternally vigilant” to ensure that their organisations are not co-opted by
vested interests groups – as exampled by Big Tobacco and WHO.
However when it comes to non-ionizing radiation issues ( in this case for power
frequency health risk assessment) the evidence is clear that Michael Repacholi has used
his standing in both WHO and ICNIRP to stack the WHO’s Environmental Health
Criteria Task Group for power frequency exposures with representatives of the power
industry in contravention of WHO policy. This can only be to the detriment of the
group’s ability to evaluate the scientific literature in an unbiased way. This action can
only be construed as being aimed at ensuring that industry involvement in determining
the WHO Environmental Health Criteria will bias ICNIRP’s risk assessment for power
frequency exposure limits for years to come. This will conveniently provide economic
protection for the industry against the need to spend enormous sums of money on
upgrading distribution systems as well as risks of litigation. Such a blatant disregard for
the fundamental principles of credible science as well as WHO’s mission on protecting
7
world health speaks of a desperation to bury independent science at all costs, even if
that cost is at the integrity of WHO.
References
1) Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and
Editing for Biomedical Publication, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors,
http://wwwicmje.org/index.html#peer, page 8, November 2003
2) Inquiry into Electromagnetic Radiation, Report of the Senate Environment,
Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee, Section
4.115, page 151, May 2001
3) http://www.icnirp.de/what.htm Accessed August 22, 2005.
4) Inquiry into Electromagnetic Radiation, (as above), Section 4.68, page 137, May 2001
5) As listed in Microwave News, WHO Welcomes Electric Utility Industry To Key EMF
Meeting, Bars the Press, Sept. 22, 2005
http://www.microwavenews.com/fromthefield.html#partners Accessed October 10,
2005.
6) As listed on the ICNIRP website: http://www.icnirp.de Accessed October 12, 2005.
7) Microwave News, From the Field, WHO and Electric Utilities: A Partnership on
EMFs, October 1, 2005.
http://www.microwavenews.com/fromthefield.html#partners Accessed October 10,
2005.
8) Letters, Childhood cancer and power lines, British Medical Journal, Vol. 331, pp. 634-
638, Sept.17, 2005.
9) Microwave News, WHO and Electric Utilities… (as above).
10) Bohme, SR, et al, Maximizing Profit and Endangering Health: Corporate Strategies
to Aviod Litigation and Regulation, Int J Occup Environ Health, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp.338-
348, Oct/Dec 2005.
11) Microwave News, WHO Welcomes Electric Utility Industry To Key EMF Meeting,
Bars the Press, Sept. 22, 2005
http://www.microwavenews.com/fromthefield.html#partners Accessed October 10,
2005.
12) ibid.
13) ibid.
14) ibid.
8
15)Theriault G, et al, “Cancer Risks Associated with Occupational Exposure to magnetic
Fields Among Electric Utility Workers in Ontario and Quebec, Canada, and France:
1970-1989, American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 139, pp. 550-572, 1994.
16) Armstrong B et al, “Association Between Exposure to Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields
and Cancer in Electric Utility Workers in Quebec, Canada, and France”, American
Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 140, pp. 805-820, 1994.
17) Microwave News, “Transients and Lung Cancer: A “Strong” Association and a
“Remarkable” Exposure-Response”, Vol. XIV, No. 6, Nov/Dec 1994.
18) ibid
19) Microwave News, WHO and Electric Utilities… (as above)
20) ibid.
21) http://www.icnirp.de/what.htm (as above)
22) Welcoming speech by Michael Repacholi, 9th International Advisory Committee
(IAC) meeting, Istanbul Turkey, June 7, 2004.
23) Communication with Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News, November 21, 2005.
Also see: http://www.microwavenews.com/fromthefield.html#whoottawa
24) “Response of WHO to the Report of the Committee of Experts on Tobacco Industry
Documents”, WHO, June 10, 2000.
25) Science for Environment Policy, New Electromagnetic Fields Exposure Guidelines,
European Commission DG ENV, News Alert Issue 3, December 2005.
26) Wikipedia definition, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_oversight, Accessed February
25, 2006.
27) Tobacco Company Strategies to Undermine Tobacco Control Activities at the World
Health Organization, Report of the Committee of Experts on Tobacco Industry
Documents, July 2000.
28) Response of WHO to the Report of the Committee of Experts on Tobacco Industry
Documents, WHO document, June 10, 2000.
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
"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.
"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.
Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt is well known for his successful treatment of neurological illness, chronic pain, and autistic children with Integrative Medicine. Here he explains how electromagnetic fields (EMF) interfere not only with your biology, but with that of your unborn child as well, and how it contributes to the creation of autism.
Rates of autism have increased nearly 60-fold since the late 1970s, with the most significant increases occurring in the past decade. It now affects about one in 150 U.S. children, but some sources claim it may be even higher than that. For example, researchers in Great Britain believe that one in 58 children may have some form of the condition!
Preconception healthcare may be one of the most important, yet largely ignored aspects of medicine to halt this alarming trend.
Why You Need to Beware of EMF Exposure During Pregnancy
According to Dr. Klinghardt, one of the most important preconception health considerations is your level of electromagnetic field exposure, particularly where you sleep and work on a daily basis.
Dr. Klinghardt performed a small study showing that autism can actually be predicted based on the EMF levels of your sleeping quarters while pregnant!
He found that if you sleep in strong electromagnetic fields during pregnancy, your child will likely begin to exhibit neurological abnormalities within the first two years of life, such as:
Neurological dysfunction
Hyperactivity
Learning disorders
I’ve previously written about the many dangers of EMF’s, and information-carrying radio waves from cell phones in particular, which have been found to:
Damage your cell membranes
Decrease your intracellular communication by disrupting microtubular connections that allow biophotons to communicate between cells
Increase deposits of heavy metals into your cells, which increases intracellular production of free radicals and can radically decrease cellular production of energy -- thus making you incredibly fatigued
Getting your bedroom and work space measured for EMF’s and changing the position of your bed may be one of the best things you can do for the future health of your baby. I am absolutely convinced that the explosion in cell phone and Wi-Fi usage is one of the primary contributing factors to the rising autism rates as it further increases the dangers of vaccines and other heavy metal exposure. It also potentiates the production of toxic microbes and endotoxins.
One of Dr. Klinghardt’s European colleagues did an experiment on microbial cultures, comparing the growth and endotoxin production between microbes shielded in faraday cages, compared to cultures subjected to typical EMF exposure without protection. The proliferation and endotoxin production went up 600 percent when subjected to ambient EMFs.
For this reason, Dr. Klinghardt suggests:
Turning off all the fuses at night
Shield your bed with a special metalized fabric, to protect yourself from harmful frequencies that can disrupt cellular communication
If you are constructing a new home or renovating one and the walls are being rebuilt you can install radiant barrier which is a tough type of aluminum foil which will also very effectively screen out the EMF. This is what I did for my own bedroom.
We are discovering more about the detrimental health impact of EMF on a regular basis. In addition to searching my site for previous articles on this issue, two good sources for more information about how and why you should protect yourself and your family members from electromagnetic fields are abcEMF.com and ElectroMagneticHealth.org.
Beware that cell phones and wireless internet features are not the only sources you need to be cautious of. Essentially, most all electronics will generate EMF’s, including the wiring in your home, electric alarm clocks, electric blankets, computers and lamps, just to mention a few.
At minimum, move your bed so that your head is at least 3-6 feet from all electrical outlets. If you are constructing the walls you can put the wires inside pipes which will virtually eliminate the fields that are generated in the room when the current runs through the wire. Also, turn off everything electrical in your sleeping area, including your WI-FI, cell and portable phones.
Additionally, whenever possible, try to avoid holding a non-corded phone to your head, and avoid using your cell phone when in a car with a child or pregnant woman. If you absolutely need to use your cell phone, crack your window so the radiation can dissipate quicker.
Final ThoughtsI agree with Dr. Klinghardt when he says that no society can go successfully forward without preconception healthcare, and I think it will become the main issue for any modern society to thrive and to evolve.
Currently there are only two countries that have strict standards in regards to protecting their children from environmental hazards such as EMF’s, and that’s Iran and Russia.
We don’t do anything as a society to protect the coming generation of children and it’s heartbreaking, considering everything we know about the dangers of EMF’s and information-carrying radio waves. Part of the problem is that most of the public health decisions are made by attorneys and politicians, not physicians and scientists.
Last year I became an active participant, along with Dr Klinghardt, in the THRiiiVE Consensus Creation Summits, organized by autism educator and activist Dana Gorman. Back in October of last year, at the most recent summit, we created the Top 10 Prioritized To Do List for what you and your children need to thrive, and become optimally healthy. I recommend reviewing this list in its entirety, if you missed it.
Rates of autism have increased nearly 60-fold since the late 1970s, with the most significant increases occurring in the past decade. It now affects about one in 150 U.S. children, but some sources claim it may be even higher than that. For example, researchers in Great Britain believe that one in 58 children may have some form of the condition!
Preconception healthcare may be one of the most important, yet largely ignored aspects of medicine to halt this alarming trend.
Why You Need to Beware of EMF Exposure During Pregnancy
According to Dr. Klinghardt, one of the most important preconception health considerations is your level of electromagnetic field exposure, particularly where you sleep and work on a daily basis.
Dr. Klinghardt performed a small study showing that autism can actually be predicted based on the EMF levels of your sleeping quarters while pregnant!
He found that if you sleep in strong electromagnetic fields during pregnancy, your child will likely begin to exhibit neurological abnormalities within the first two years of life, such as:
Neurological dysfunction
Hyperactivity
Learning disorders
I’ve previously written about the many dangers of EMF’s, and information-carrying radio waves from cell phones in particular, which have been found to:
Damage your cell membranes
Decrease your intracellular communication by disrupting microtubular connections that allow biophotons to communicate between cells
Increase deposits of heavy metals into your cells, which increases intracellular production of free radicals and can radically decrease cellular production of energy -- thus making you incredibly fatigued
Getting your bedroom and work space measured for EMF’s and changing the position of your bed may be one of the best things you can do for the future health of your baby. I am absolutely convinced that the explosion in cell phone and Wi-Fi usage is one of the primary contributing factors to the rising autism rates as it further increases the dangers of vaccines and other heavy metal exposure. It also potentiates the production of toxic microbes and endotoxins.
One of Dr. Klinghardt’s European colleagues did an experiment on microbial cultures, comparing the growth and endotoxin production between microbes shielded in faraday cages, compared to cultures subjected to typical EMF exposure without protection. The proliferation and endotoxin production went up 600 percent when subjected to ambient EMFs.
For this reason, Dr. Klinghardt suggests:
Turning off all the fuses at night
Shield your bed with a special metalized fabric, to protect yourself from harmful frequencies that can disrupt cellular communication
If you are constructing a new home or renovating one and the walls are being rebuilt you can install radiant barrier which is a tough type of aluminum foil which will also very effectively screen out the EMF. This is what I did for my own bedroom.
We are discovering more about the detrimental health impact of EMF on a regular basis. In addition to searching my site for previous articles on this issue, two good sources for more information about how and why you should protect yourself and your family members from electromagnetic fields are abcEMF.com and ElectroMagneticHealth.org.
Beware that cell phones and wireless internet features are not the only sources you need to be cautious of. Essentially, most all electronics will generate EMF’s, including the wiring in your home, electric alarm clocks, electric blankets, computers and lamps, just to mention a few.
At minimum, move your bed so that your head is at least 3-6 feet from all electrical outlets. If you are constructing the walls you can put the wires inside pipes which will virtually eliminate the fields that are generated in the room when the current runs through the wire. Also, turn off everything electrical in your sleeping area, including your WI-FI, cell and portable phones.
Additionally, whenever possible, try to avoid holding a non-corded phone to your head, and avoid using your cell phone when in a car with a child or pregnant woman. If you absolutely need to use your cell phone, crack your window so the radiation can dissipate quicker.
Final ThoughtsI agree with Dr. Klinghardt when he says that no society can go successfully forward without preconception healthcare, and I think it will become the main issue for any modern society to thrive and to evolve.
Currently there are only two countries that have strict standards in regards to protecting their children from environmental hazards such as EMF’s, and that’s Iran and Russia.
We don’t do anything as a society to protect the coming generation of children and it’s heartbreaking, considering everything we know about the dangers of EMF’s and information-carrying radio waves. Part of the problem is that most of the public health decisions are made by attorneys and politicians, not physicians and scientists.
Last year I became an active participant, along with Dr Klinghardt, in the THRiiiVE Consensus Creation Summits, organized by autism educator and activist Dana Gorman. Back in October of last year, at the most recent summit, we created the Top 10 Prioritized To Do List for what you and your children need to thrive, and become optimally healthy. I recommend reviewing this list in its entirety, if you missed it.
Irradiated Food Causes Brain Damage
A company testing the effects of irradiated food on growth and development reported that some cats fed such a diet developed severe neurological dysfunction, including movement disorders, vision loss and paralysis.The cats developed the symptoms, which appeared to be the result of a demyelinating disease, after being on the diet for three to four months. Myelin is a fatty insulator of nerve fibers that degrades in a host of human central nervous system disorders, such as multiple sclerosis.The afflicted cats were shown to have severe and widely distributed demyelination of the central nervous system. In cats removed from the diet, demyelinated axons slowly became remyelinated, but the restored myelin sheaths were still not as thick as healthy myelin.The exact cause of the neurological affliction in the cats on the experimental diet is unknown.
A company testing the effects of irradiated food on growth and development reported that some cats fed such a diet developed severe neurological dysfunction, including movement disorders, vision loss and paralysis.The cats developed the symptoms, which appeared to be the result of a demyelinating disease, after being on the diet for three to four months. Myelin is a fatty insulator of nerve fibers that degrades in a host of human central nervous system disorders, such as multiple sclerosis.The afflicted cats were shown to have severe and widely distributed demyelination of the central nervous system. In cats removed from the diet, demyelinated axons slowly became remyelinated, but the restored myelin sheaths were still not as thick as healthy myelin.The exact cause of the neurological affliction in the cats on the experimental diet is unknown.
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)