P How Cellphone Radiation Affects Your Cells

How Cellphone Radiation Affects Your Cells

Radiation from cell phones is too weak to heat biological tissue or break chemical bonds in cells, but the radio waves they emit may still change cell behavior. Scientists exposed 10 female volunteers to radiation at 900 megahertz from GSM phones to simulate an hour-long phone call. They screened 580 different proteins in their skin cells and found that the numbers of two proteins were altered in all of the volunteers: one protein increased by 89 percent, the other decreased by 32 percent. This study shows that even without heating, molecular level changes take place in response to exposure to cell phone frequency electromagnetic radiation.

It is getting quite difficult to imagine a world without mobile communications. Wireless internet access is set to blanket the planet, just like cell phone networks already do. There has been an explosive development - practically all during the last three decades - that brought mobile to the farthest corners of the earth. But the technology is not without danger. The microwaves that carry bits and packets of data also carry a germ of destruction. Some people as many as 120,000 Californians - and by implication 1 million Americans - are actually unable to work as they suffer from the incapacitating influence that this cacophony in the ether has on them. We might say they are the unlucky ones who have to suffer for progress to continue - but have you ever heard of canaries in the mines? They were the first ones to die when a potentially deadly but otherwise undetectable accumulation of "mine gas" threatened the lives of the miners working underground. What if those 120.000 Californians and the one million Americans and by extension tens of millions of people world wide are in a very real sense our equivalent of deep-mine canaries? Are we not ignoring their plight at our own very imminent peril? Arthur Firstenberg, himself a sufferer of what the Russians call "microwave sickness" has put together the salient facts about the largest biological experiment ever, in a very readable article published in the Eldorado Sun. We cannot call ourselves informed in the wireless debate unless we start looking at its dark side as well as all the positive aspects. Firstenberg's article is as good as any to get us going in this direction ...

--The Largest Biological Experiment Ever by Arthur Firstenberg (original in Eldorado Sun) In 2002, Gro Harlem Brundtland, then head of the World Health Organization, told a Norwegian journalist that cell phones were banned from her office in Geneva because she personally becomes ill if a cell phone is brought within about four meters (13 feet) of her. Mrs. Brundtland is a medical doctor and former Prime Minister of Norway. This sensational news, published March 9, 2002 in Dagbladet, was ignored by every other newspaper in the world. The following week Michael Repacholi, her subordinate in charge of the International EMF (electromagnetic field) Project, responded with a public statement belittling his boss’s concerns. Five months later, for reasons that many suspect were related to these circumstances, Mrs. Brundtland announced she would step down from her leadership post at the WHO after just one term.

Nothing could better illustrate our collective schizophrenia when it comes to thinking about electromagnetic radiation. We respond to those who are worried about its dangers — hence the International EMF Project — but we ignore and marginalize those, like Mrs. Brundtland, who have already succumbed to its effects. As a consultant on the health effects of wireless technology, I receive calls that can be broadly divided into two main groups: those from people who are merely worried, whom I will call A, and those from people who are already sick, whom I will call B. I sometimes wish I could arrange a large conference call and have the two groups talk to each other — there needs to be more mutual understanding so that we are all trying to solve the same problems. Caller A, worried, commonly asks what kind of shield to buy for his cell phone or what kind of headset to wear with it. Sometimes he wants to know what is a safe distance to live from a cell tower. Caller B, sick, wants to know what kind of shielding to put on her house, what kind of medical treatment to get, or, increasingly often, what part of the country she could move to to escape the radiation to save her life. The following is designed as a sort of a primer: first, to help everybody get more or less on the same page, and second, to clear up some of the confusions so that we can make rational decisions toward a healthier world.

Fundamentals The most basic fact about cell phones and cell towers is that they emit microwave radiation; so do Wi-Fi (wireless Internet) antennas, wireless computers, cordless (portable) phones and their base units, and all other wireless devices. If it’s a communication device and it’s not attached to the wall by a wire, it’s emitting radiation. Most Wi-Fi systems and some cordless phones operate at the exact same frequency as a microwave oven, while other devices use a different frequency. Wi-Fi is always on and always radiating. The base units of most cordless phones are always radiating, even when no one is using the phone. A cell phone that is on but not in use is also radiating. And, needless to say, cell towers are always radiating.

Why is this a problem, you might ask? Scientists usually divide the electromagnetic spectrum into “ionizing” and “non-ionizing.” Ionizing radiation, which includes x-rays and atomic radiation, causes cancer. Non-ionizing radiation, which includes microwave radiation, is supposed to be safe. This distinction always reminded me of the propaganda in George Orwell’s Animal Farm: “Four legs good, two legs bad.” “Non-ionizing good, ionizing bad” is as little to be trusted. An astronomer once quipped that if Neil Armstrong had taken a cell phone to the Moon in 1969, it would have appeared to be the third most powerful source of microwave radiation in the universe, next only to the Sun and the Milky Way. He was right. Life evolved with negligible levels of microwave radiation. An increasing number of scientists speculate that our own cells, in fact, use the microwave spectrum to communicate with one another, like children whispering in the dark, and that cell phones, like jackhammers, interfere with their signaling. In any case, it is a fact that we are all being bombarded, day in and day out, whether we use a cell phone or not, by an amount of microwave radiation that is some ten million times as strong as the average natural background. And it is also a fact that most of this radiation is due to technology that has been developed since the 1970s. As far as cell phones themselves are concerned, if you put one up to your head you are damaging your brain in a number of different ways. First, think of a microwave oven. A cell phone, like a microwave oven and unlike a hot shower, heats you from the inside out, not from the outside in. And there are no sensory nerve endings in the brain to warn you of a rise in temperature because we did not evolve with microwave radiation, and this never happens in nature. Worse, the structure of the head and brain is so complex and non-uniform that “hot spots” are produced, where heating can be tens or hundreds of times what it is nearby. Hot spots can occur both close to the surface of the skull and deep within the brain, and also on a molecular level. Cell phones are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission, and you can find, in the packaging of most new phones, a number called the Specific Absorption Rate, or SAR, which is supposed to indicate the rate at which energy is absorbed by the brain from that particular model. One problem, however, is the arbitrary assumption, upon which the FCC’s regulations are based, that the brain can safely dissipate added heat at a rate of up to 1 degree C per hour. Compounding this is the scandalous procedure used to demonstrate compliance with these limits and give each cell phone its SAR rating. The standard way to measure SAR is on a “phantom” consisting, incredibly, of a homogenous fluid encased in Plexiglas in the shape of a head. Presto, no hot spots! But in reality, people who use cell phones for hours per day are chronically heating places in their brain. The FCC’s safety standard, by the way, was developed by electrical engineers, not doctors.

The Blood-Brain Barrier The second effect that I want to focus on, which has been proven in the laboratory, should by itself have been enough to shut down this industry and should be enough to scare away anyone from ever using a cell phone again. I call it the “smoking gun” of cell phone experiments. Like most biological effects of microwave radiation, this has nothing to do with heating.

The brain is protected by tight junctions between adjacent cells of capillary walls, the socalled blood-brain barrier, which, like a border patrol, lets nutrients pass through from the blood to the brain, but keeps toxic substances out. Since 1988, researchers in the laboratory of a Swedish neurosurgeon, Leif Salford, have been running variations on this simple experiment: they expose young laboratory rats to either a cell phone or other source of microwave radiation, and later they sacrifice the animals and look for albumin in their brain tissue. Albumin is a protein that is a normal component of blood but that does not normally cross the blood-brain barrier. The presence of albumin in brain tissue is always a sign that blood vessels have been damaged and that the brain has lost some of its protection. Here is what these researchers have found, consistently for 18 years: Microwave radiation, at doses equal to a cell phone’s emissions, causes albumin to be found in brain tissue. A onetime exposure to an ordinary cell phone for just two minutes causes albumin to leak into the brain. In one set of experiments, reducing the exposure level by a factor of 1,000 actually increased the damage to the blood-brain barrier, showing that this is not a dose-response effect and that reducing the power will not make wireless technology safer. And finally, in research published in June 2003, a single two-hour exposure to a cell phone, just once during its lifetime, permanently damaged the blood-brain barrier and, on autopsy 50 days later, was found to have damaged or destroyed up to 2 percent of an animal’s brain cells, including cells in areas of the brain concerned with learning, memory and movement.1 Reducing the exposure level by a factor of 10 or 100, thereby duplicating the effect of wearing a headset, moving a cell phone further from your body, or standing next to somebody else’s phone, did not appreciably change the results! Even at the lowest exposure, half the animals had a moderate to high number of damaged neurons. The implications for us? Two minutes on a cell phone disrupts the blood-brain barrier, two hours on a cell phone causes permanent brain damage, and secondhand radiation may be almost as bad. The blood-brain barrier is the same in a rat and a human being. These results caused enough of a commotion in Europe that in November 2003 a conference was held, sponsored by the European Union, titled “The Blood-Brain Barrier — Can It Be Influenced by RF [radio frequency]-Field Interactions?” as if to reassure the public: “See, we are doing something about this.” But, predictably, nothing was done about it, as nothing has been done about it for 30 years. America’s Allan Frey, during the 1970s, was the first of many to demonstrate that low-level microwave radiation damages the blood-brain barrier.2 Similar mechanisms protect the eye (the blood-vitreous barrier) and the fetus (the placental barrier), and the work of Frey and others indicates that microwave radiation damages those barriers also.3 The implication: No pregnant woman should ever be using a cell phone. Dr. Salford is quite outspoken about his work. He has called the use of handheld cell phones “the largest human biological experiment ever.” And he has publicly warned that a whole generation of cell-phone-using teenagers may suffer from mental deficits or Alzheimer’s disease by the time they reach middle age.

Radio-Wave Sickness

Unfortunately, cell phone users are not the only ones being injured, nor should we be worried only about the brain. The following brief summary is distilled from a vast scientific literature on the effects of radio waves (a larger spectrum which includes microwaves), together with the experiences of scientists and doctors all over the world with whom I am in contact. Organs that have been shown to be especially susceptible to radio waves include the lungs, nervous system, heart, eyes, testes and thyroid gland. Diseases that have increased remarkably in the last couple of decades, and that there is good reason to connect with the massive increase in radiation in our environment, include asthma, sleep disorders, anxiety disorders, attention deficit disorder, autism, multiple sclerosis, ALS, Alzheimer’s disease, epilepsy, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, cataracts, hypothyroidism, diabetes, malignant melanoma, testicular cancer, and heart attacks and strokes in young people. Radiation from microwave towers has also been associated with forest die-off, reproductive failure and population decline in many species of birds, and ill health and birth deformities in farm animals. The literature showing biological effects of microwave radiation is truly enormous, running to tens of thousands of documents, and I am amazed that industry spokespersons are getting away with saying that wireless technology has been proved safe or — just as ridiculous — that there is no evidence of harm. I have omitted one disease from the above list: the illness that Caller B has, and that I have. A short history is in order here. In the 1950s and 1960s workers who built, tested and repaired radar equipment came down with this disease in large numbers. So did operators of industrial microwave heaters and sealers. The Soviets named it, appropriately, radio wave sickness, and studied it extensively. In the West its existence was denied totally, but workers came down with it anyway. Witness congressional hearings held in 1981, chaired by then Representative Al Gore, on the health effects of radio-frequency heaters and sealers, another episode in “See, we are doing something about this,” while nothing is done. Today, with the mass proliferation of radio towers and personal transmitters, the disease has spread like a plague into the general population. Estimates of its (radio wave sickness) prevalence range up to one-third of the population, but it is rarely recognized for what it is until it has so disabled a person that he or she can no longer participate in society. You may recognize some of its common symptoms: insomnia, dizziness, nausea, headaches, fatigue, memory loss, inability to concentrate, depression, chest discomfort, ringing in the ears. Patients may also develop medical problems such as chronic respiratory infections, heart arrhythmias, sudden fluctuations in blood pressure, uncontrolled blood sugar, dehydration, and even seizures and internal bleeding. What makes this disease so difficult to accept, and even more difficult to cope with, is that no treatment is likely to succeed unless one can also avoid exposure to its cause — and its cause is now everywhere. A 1998 survey by the California Department of Health Services indicated that at that time 120,000 Californians — and by implication 1 million Americans — were unable to work due to electromagnetic pollution.4 The ranks of these so-called electrically sensitive are swelling in almost every country in the world, marginalized, stigmatized and ignored. With the level of radiation everywhere today, they almost never recover and sometimes take their own lives. “They are acting as a warning for all of us,” says Dr. Olle Johansson of people with this illness. “It could be a major mistake to subject the entire world’s population to whole-body irradiation, 24 hours a day.” A neuroscientist at the famous Karolinska Institute in Stockholm,

Dr. Johansson heads a research team that is documenting a significant and permanent worsening of the public health that began precisely when the second-generation, 1800 MHz cell phones were introduced into Sweden in late l997.5,6 After a decade-long decline, the number of Swedish workers on sick leave began to rise in late 1997 and more than doubled during the next five years. During the same period of time, sales of antidepressant drugs also doubled. The number of traffic accidents, after declining for years, began to climb again in 1997. The number of deaths from Alzheimer’s disease, after declining for several years, rose sharply in 1999 and had nearly doubled by 2001. This two-year delay is understandable when one considers that Alzheimer’s disease requires some time to develop.

Uncontrolled Proliferation If cell phones and cell towers are really deadly, have the radio and TV towers that we have been living with for a century been safe? In 2002 Örjan Hallberg and Olle Johansson coauthored a paper titled “Cancer Trends During the 20th Century,” which examined one aspect of that question.7 They found, in the United States, Sweden and dozens of other countries, that mortality rates for skin melanoma and for bladder, prostate, colon, breast and lung cancers closely paralleled the degree of public exposure to radio waves during the past hundred years. When radio broadcasting increased in a given location, so did those forms of cancer; when it decreased, so did those forms of cancer. And, a sensational finding: country by country — and county by county in Sweden — they found, statistically, that exposure to radio waves appears to be as big a factor in causing lung cancer as cigarette smoking! Which brings me to address a widespread misconception. The biggest difference between the cell towers of today and the radio towers of the past is not their safety, but their numbers. The number of ordinary radio stations in the United States today is still less than 14,000. But cell towers and Wi-Fi towers number in the hundreds of thousands, and cell phones, wireless computers, cordless telephones and two-way radios number in the hundreds of millions. Radar facilities and emergency communication networks are also proliferating out of control. Since 1978, when the Environmental Protection Agency last surveyed the radio frequency environment in the United States, the average urban dweller’s exposure to radio waves has increased 1,000-fold, most of this increase occurring in just the last nine years.8 In the same period of time, radio pollution has spread from the cities to rest like a ubiquitous fog over the entire planet. The vast human consequences of all this are being ignored. Since the late 1990s a whole new class of environmental refugees has been created right here in the United States. We have more and more people, sick, dying, seeking relief from our suffering, leaving our homes and our livelihoods, living in cars, trailers and tents in remote places. Unlike victims of hurricanes and earthquakes, we are not the subject of any relief efforts. No one is donating money to help us, to buy us a protected refuge; no one is volunteering to forego their cell phones, their wireless computers and their cordless phones so that we can once more be their neighbors and live among them. The worried and the sick have not yet opened their hearts to each other, but they are asking questions. To answer caller A: No shield or headset will protect you from your cell or portable phone. There is no safe distance from a cell tower. If your cell phone or your wireless computer works where you live, you are being irradiated 24 hours a day.

To caller B: To effectively shield a house is difficult and rarely successful. There are only a few doctors in the United States attempting to treat radio wave sickness, and their success rate is poor — because there are few places left on Earth where one can go to escape this radiation and recover. Yes, radiation comes down from satellites, too; they are part of the problem, not the solution. There is simply no way to make wireless technology safe. Our society has become both socially and economically dependent, in just one short decade, upon a technology that is doing tremendous damage to the fabric of our world. The more entrenched we let ourselves become in it, the more difficult it will become to change our course. The time to extricate ourselves, both individually and collectively — difficult though it is already is — is now. NOTES 1. Leif G. Salford et al., “Nerve Cell Damage in Mammalian Brain After Exposure to Microwaves from GSM Mobile Phones,” Environmental Health Perspectives 111, no. 7 (2003): 881–883. 2. Allan H. Frey, Sondra R. Feld and Barbara Frey, “Neural Function and Behavior,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 247 (1975): 433–439. 3. Allan H. Frey, “Evolution and Results of Biological Research with Low-Intensity Nonionizing Radiation,” in Modern Bioelectricity, ed. Andrew A. Marino (New York: Dekker, 1988), 785–837, at 809–810. 4. California EMF Program, The Risk Evaluation: An Evaluation of the Possible Risks From Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMFs) From Power Lines, Internal Wiring, Electrical Occupations and Appliances (2002), app. 3. 5. Örjan Hallberg and Olle Johansson, “1997 — A Curious Year in Sweden,” European Journal of Cancer Prevention 13, no. 6 (2004): 535–538. 6. Örjan Hallberg and Olle Johansson, “Does GSM 1800 MHz Affect the Public Health in Sweden?” in Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop “Biological Effects of EMFs,” Kos, Greece, October 4-8, 2004, 361–364. 7. Örjan Hallberg and Olle Johansson, “Cancer Trends During the 20th Century,” Journal of Australian College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine 21, no. 1 (2002): 3– 8. 8. David E. Janes Jr., “Radiofrequency Environments in the United States,” in 15th IEEE Conference on Communication, Boston, MA, June 10–14, 1979, vol. 2, 31.4.1–31.4.5.

---

FDA knew more than a decade ago...

In the spring of 1993 at the height of public concern over cell phone-brain tumor risks, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) biologists concluded that the available data "strongly suggest" that microwaves can "accelerate the development of cancer." This assessment is in an internal agency memo recently obtained by Microwave News under the Freedom of Information Act. "Of approximately eight chronic animal experiments known to us, five resulted in increased numbers of malignancies, accelerated progression of tumors, or both," wrote Drs. Mays Swicord and Larry Cress of FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) in Rockville, MD. They also pointed to other evidence from laboratory (in vitro) studies that supported a cancer risk. Yet, in its public statements at that time, the agency played down these findings. For instance, in a Talk Paper issued in early February, the FDA stated that there was "limited evidence that suggests that lower levels [of microwaves] might cause adverse health effects." "A few studies suggest that [microwave] levels [from cellular phones] can accelerate the development of cancer in laboratory animals," the FDA added, "but there is much uncertainty among scientists about whether these results apply to the use of cellular phones." .... the story continues: But in a letter submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives four years later during May 1997, the FDA stated "Little is known about the possible health effects of repeated or longterm exposure to low levels of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) of the types emitted by wireless communications devices." And again in February, 2000, the FDA issued a Nomination reiterating their position, stating "There is currently insufficient scientific basis for concluding either that wireless communication technologies are safe or that they pose a risk to millions of users. A significant research effort, involving large well-planned animal experiments is needed to provide the basis to assess the risk to human health of wireless communications devices." Dr. Swicord joined Motorola after leaving the FDA and is also the Chief Editor on the editorial staff of BEMS (BioElectro-Magnetics Society).

---

See related: Swimming In A Deadly Sea: Awash In Radiation Part One Although most of us are unaware of it, we are literally swimming in sea of radiation. Some of it is natural, like the cosmic rays that bombard our planet from space, trace amounts from elements that occur naturally in the ground, and even microwave radiation from sunspots and solar flares. But increasingly, the radiation we are subjected to comes from man-made

sources, ranging from medical X-rays to leakage from appliances to cell phones. While much has been written about man-made radiation, most of us have little understanding of what it is and how it might affect us. Swimming In A Deadly Sea: Awash In Radiation Part Two

Over 1 in 10 Complain About Cell Sickness By Kim Tae-gyu The Korea Times Mobile operators and governments have claimed cell phones don’t emit enough microwaves harm people, but sensitive Koreans are feeling their negative effects. According to a survey by Rep. Suh Hae-suk at the governing Uri Party, 10.9 percent of 1,034 respondents said that they felt physical disorders due to cell phone usage. --Here are some links from the latest weekly newsletter of Buergerwelle Germany' Citizens Initiative Omega, compiled by Klaus Rudolph. This newsletter deals exclusively with issues of microwave and other emf-wave damage and is a good source for continuous updates. To subscribe, you can send a blank email to [email protected] --Cardiovascular risk in operators under radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation Immunotropic influence of 900 MHz microwave GSM signal on human blood immune cells activated in vitro Effects of intensive and moderate cellular phone use on hearing function Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base stations

--------

Other links:

Do you have Microwave Sickness? Dr. George Carlo, who used to run a multi-million dollar research program for the cell phone industry and went public regarding the dangers posed by cell phones, uses the analogy of putting a frog in water. If you put a frog in boiling water, it will jump out. However, if you put a frog in cold water and gradually heat the water, you can cook the frog because the frog's body will adjust to the slight changes in temperature and it will not notice it is being cooked.

Well, the same thing might be happening to an unsuspecting public - a public that has not been informed about the real dangers of microwave radiation from cell phones, WiFi and other high-frequency-radiation emitting devices and antennas. The truth of the matter, your cell phone and your WiFi might very well indeed be making you and those around you sick! Drowning in a Sea of Microwaves The increasing popularity of wi-fi comes on the heels of the explosive growth in wireless mobile telephones, and amid heightened concerns over the health hazards of saturating levels of electromagnetic radiation. Microwaves at current exposure levels are linked to brain damage, DNA damage, brain tumours, cancers, microwave sickness, impairment of cognitive functions, impairment of reproduction and fertility, affecting humans, rodents, birds, and bees.

Microwave News Radiation Research Safe Wireless Initiative Science and Public Policy Institute Cell phones Invisible hazards of the wireless age Few people would be surprised to hear that cell phones are unhealthy. But how many of us actually know the degree of damage they cause, the extent of the cover-up by the industry, or that there is a viable solution? Dr. George Carlo, a mobile phone industry whistleblower, recently presented a talk in Vancouver about how electropollution from wireless technology can cause brain damage, cancer and an array of mental illnesses. I checked his facts against recent, peer-reviewed scientific papers and the results were startling. Dr. Carlo explained why the industry’s user manuals don’t warn of these health hazards: currently, there are pending class action lawsuits against them, which threaten to expose the entire industry, similar to the cases brought against “Big Tobacco”, and the asbestos and silicone breast implant industries... Australian Research Shows Mobile Phones Affect Brain Function The Health Implications Of Playing With Big Brother's Most Cool Tool - Pt 2 By Amy Worthington The Idaho Observer 6-9-6 Mobile phone emissions and human brain excitability Italian study on brain excitability by GSM mobile phone radiation. The double blind study shows that the brains of volunteers were definitely affected by exposure to the cell phone radiation. Cell Phones - More Damning Evidence The effects of the radiation can produce a wide range of physical symptoms. Some symptoms may take years to show up. Some of the effects can be short-term while other effects can be long-term or permanent. Opening the blood-brain barrier allows toxins into the brain that cause a wide range of ailments - many of which are currently unknown or poorly understood. Do Microwave Technologies Cause Chronic Fatigue?

Scientists develop new terahertz material Researchers at Los Alamos National Laboratory have created a device for manipulating terahertz (THz) radiation. The device could be the basis for novel electronics and photonics applications ranging from new imaging methods to advanced communication technologies. The THz range of the electromagnetic spectrum lies between the infrared and microwave wavelengths. New wireless technology to be developed "The project's goal is basically to create a small, low-power handheld device that combines a spectrum analyzer and a truly powerful communication device," said Ayazi, a Georgia Tech associate professor of electrical and computer engineering. "We are basically looking for orders-of-magnitude improvement in performance, size and cost. The ultimate goal," he added, "is to integrate Analog Spectral Processors with high-speed electronics on a single chip and bring unprecedented capabilities to the wireless world." Health concerns over mobile phone masts prompt review Originally promised three years ago, and then shelved, the review follows articles in The Independent on Sunday about possible effects of the radiation on children and bees. The Government will take account of new scientific and medical evidence, and consult experts and campaigners, as part of a wider review of planning guidelines which ministers send to local authorities. More than 47,000 "base stations", like masts, have already been erected in Britain to service its 50 million mobile phones, often in defiance of intense local public opposition. Successive governments have made extraordinary concessions to the companies to ensure that coverage was rolled out across the country as quickly as possible. World's safest mobile phone on way The Wi-Guard technology works by randomising the field so it becomes more similar to naturally occurring electromagnetic fields that the body can deal with. Lawler said the amount of radiation emitted by man-made electromagnetic fields was one billion times higher than in 1950, due predominantly to the massive rise in the number of mobile phones and wireless laptops being used over the past decade. This is an interesting technology, as randomizing the extra low frequency pattern could indeed make the radiation from cell phones and wireless devices less harmful for biological organisms. Of course it would be more efficient to implement this concept not as a remediation effort but as a basic feature of wireless standards...

Wireless broadband Internet access is all the rage. The noise is drowning out concerns for this technology's risks. In 2004, the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) decided that they would not permit cell phone antennas on firehouses. The decision was made by resolution at the IAFF's annual delegate assembly. The resolution directed the IAFF to review the potential health risks from cell antennas. If the science demonstrated a risk, then the union would oppose the use of fire stations as sites for cell antennas until further science demonstrated that cell antennas are safe. The resolution was passed in August 2004. In April 2005, the union's Health and Safety Department completed the review of the science. They found more than ample evidence to conclude that the union should oppose cell antennas on fire stations. The position paper included 49 references and a bibliography of 40 citations.

New doubts raised over mobile phone safety Prof Seger said: "The real significance of our findings is that cells are not inert to non-thermal mobile phone radiation. "We used radiation power levels that were around 1/10th of those produced by a normal mobile. The changes we observed were clearly not caused by heating." EU watchdog calls for urgent action on Wi-Fi, mobile phone radiation Europe's top environmental watchdog is calling for immediate action to reduce exposure to radiation from Wi-Fi, mobile phones and their masts. It suggests that delay could lead to a health crisis similar to those caused by asbestos, smoking and lead in petrol. The warning, from the EU's European Environment Agency (EEA) follows an international scientific review which concluded that safety limits set for the radiation are "thousands of times too lenient", and an official British report last week which concluded that it could not rule out the development of cancers from using mobile phones. The hidden menace of mobile phones Using a mobile phone for more than 10 years increases the risk of getting brain cancer, according to the most comprehensive study of the risks yet published. The study – which contradicts official pronouncements that there is no danger of getting the disease – found that people who have had the phones for a decade or more are twice as likely to get a malignant tumour on the side of the brain where they hold the handset. The scientists who conducted the research say using a mobile for just an hour every working day during that period is enough to increase the risk – and that the international standard used to protect users from the radiation emitted is "not safe" and "needs to be revised". The Radiation Poisoning Of America The public has no vote, no voice, no choice. Chronic exposure to scientifically indefensible levels of DNA-ravaging radiation is now compulsory for everyone in America. This is why Garcia and Jasso are ill today; this why the industry enjoys unchallenged power to place dangerous transmitters in residential and commercial areas with unsafe setbacks and this is why untold thousands of Americans in buildings with transmitters on the roof are given no safety warnings, though they work and dwell in carcinogenic electromagnetic fields. In the meantime, the radiation industry rakes in $billions in quarterly profits, none of which is set aside for to pay for the national health catastrophe at hand. Birds, Bees and Mobile Microwaves Our natural world is under assault from human activity. The trouble is, to recognise damage to nature reveals also the risk to ourselves. ‘Progress’ is in the hands not of individual people, nor their elected representatives and politicians. It is in the hands of the free market, the large corporates who set the direction of our world through creating profit streams however they can. We don’t have to identify this as evil; rather it is almost inevitable. We are persuaded of the benefits of convenience and consumerism, and we are the source of the profits and the stimulant to corporate behaviour and the setters of social trends. What we must do is to observe, to ask questions, and be honest enough with ourselves to recognise that nothing we do is without consequence. If we are custodians of our children’s futures, we must accept individual and joint responsibility for the condition of our planet.

A presentation of U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Concerns Over Potential Radiation Impacts of Cellular Communication Towers on Migratory Birds and Other Wildlife... (PDF 2.8 MB) Nerve Cell Damage in Mammalian Brain after Exposure to Microwaves from GSM Mobile Phones (PDF) The possible risk of radio-frequency electromagnetic fields for the human body is a growing concern for our society. We have previously shown that weak pulsed microwaves give rise to a significant leakage of albumin through the blood–brain barrier. In this study we investigated whether a pathologic leakage across the blood–brain barrier might be combined with damage to the neurons. Three groups each of eight rats were exposed for 2 hr to Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) mobile phone electromagnetic fields of different strengths. We found highly significant evidence for neuronal damage in the cortex, hippocampus, and basal ganglia in the brains of exposed rats.

posted by Sepp Hasslberger on Thursday April 20 2006 updated on Thursday March 20 2008 Print this article URL of this article: http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2006/04/20/mobile_and_wireless_largest_biological_ experiment.htm

Related Articles GRAVE Cell Phone Dangers Revealed... ..."public health scientist George Carlo found that rare tumors on the outside of the brain are more than doubled among cell phone callers particularly on the right side of the head where `phones are usually held... Here is more support for the earlier post: "Em Fields On Brain Tumor Incidence - Chemicals And Cell Phones" the evidence is so compelling and the

regulatory bodies will continually get usurped by... [read more] February 15, 2005 - Chris Gupta The Cell Phone Experiment: Is Mobile Communication Worth The Risk? Undoubtedly mobile phones and wireless broadband are immensely useful, but there is a persistent question: what are the risks of using these technologies? Many of us asking the "risk" question are - alas - not necessarily informed or even willing to consider the benefits of networking, and those planning the digital and mobile revolution have hardly heard about the risks. Providers are reluctant to discuss the health implications of the... [read more] December 14, 2005 - Sepp Hasslberger Mobile Phones Increase Tumor Risk, Study Says Further to the post: Em Fields On Brain Tumor Incidence - Chemicals And Cell Phones Chris Gupta ---------------------- Mobile Phones Increase Tumor Risk, Study Says Thu Oct 14, 1:38 AM ET STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Ten or more years of mobile phone use increases the risk of developing acoustic neuroma, a benign tumor on the auditory nerve, according to a study released on Wednesday by Sweden's Karolinska Institute. The risk was... [read more] November 03, 2004 - Chris Gupta Children, cell phones and psychiatry Now what does a psychiatrist have to do with cell phones, you may ask. Psychiatrists are the "experts" in mental health - our mental health. So they recognize when you're delusional if you should start to complain about symptoms from radiation overdosing, for example from your cell phone. Here is an exchange of messages forwarded by Jennie Gorman, about this matter. It illustrates the connection and leads us right back... [read more] September 02, 2003 - Sepp Hasslberger Bad News For Cell Phone Users According to a study published in the June issue of "Environmental Health Perspectives", researchers have documented damage to nerve cells in the brains of rats they exposed to the type of radiation cell phone users get when calling their friends or family. The damaging mechanism seems to be a weakening of the blood-brain barrier, a kind of filter which protects the brain from toxic or otherwise unwanted chemicals circulated with... [read more] October 01, 2003 - Sepp Hasslberger Cell phones are not innocuous There is considerable resistance by groups in affected neighbourhoods to the construction of cell-phone relay towers. Their operation close to Schools and other places where children are normally present, is prohibited in several countries. But the phones themselves? They are not as innocuous as the telecoms and the manufacturers would have you believe. Amy Worthington informs us that recent studies confirm that cell and cordless phone microwave can: *Damage nerves... [read more] June 07, 2003 - Sepp Hasslberger

Readers' Comments

A comment received in a recent email: There's no better example of society's "bass-ackwardness" than the fact that so many things we embrace (like technology) are self-destructive to an equal or greater extent than politically correct and hyped concerns (like street drugs). And there is no better example of that contradiction than the wireless revolution. This is a stunning article. The industry IS aware... A recent upshot of the corporate malfeasance and public unawareness (due to lapdog media) was an article (seen in my local paper) about Disney's new promotion of a line of cell phones designed to help parents and kids "keep in touch." Not even a hint in that piece about this extreme threat. And my paper has never presented one thing on microwave danger, is forever grandstanding about drugs, and loves to show 'cute' pictures of kids eating junkfood. "A" for hypocrisy and junk journalism! :-) The title should read "...Uncontrolled Biological Experiment..." PeterT Posted by: Sepp on April 25, 2006 10:39 PM

I've been thinking I must be crazy or something. I've been telling people for awhile now that I can't sit in front of certain computers ( compacs) without all my muscles in my hands and arms stiffening up painfully. I've been joking about getting off the planet to get away from all this technology for quite some time now as well. I've been suffering horrible affects from technology. I've been really scared. I feel " surges" of radiation here and there. When it happens, I literally feel like I am being bombarded by radiation. Sometimes my body feels like it's going to fall right apart and other times I get pain inside my head and feel like I could die from it.While the radiation is going on my whole body stiffens up and it feels like something has me by the back of my neck in a kind of paralysing grip.I've been trying to find out if other people have been going through this, for awhile now. This is the first I've read of other people suffering from this. Posted by: j. keillor on June 7, 2006 10:53 PM

This information was forwarded by Paul Doyon, who researches the effects of electrosmog, mobile and wireless technologies Dear Ms. Levitt,

My son has been having serious ailments over the last 6 months including: Severe and constant headaches, leg pains, poor sleep, and even heart palpitations. Various specialists were at a loss as to why he had these conditions! The only thing that showed up in extensive bloodwork was a low IgA level. I did some research and figured out that it may be the WiFi Wireless Internet I installed in our home exactly 6 months prior. So I quietly unhooked the system, and monitored my son so not to tell him of my changes. Sure enough, within hours his headache that he had without pause for 6 months went away. We're about 2 weeks from when I first disabled the WiFi system and my sons ENTIRE medical symptom list has complete cleared up! No longer does he complain of sore legs or headaches, which is a big relief to us. Most importantly, his blood panel showed that his IgA levels returned to normal. Upon investigation I found that EMF/EMR from Wireless Networks can lower Melatonin, which indirectly lowers IgA - there are studies that confirm this. IgA itself is responsible for fighting a VARIETY of illness. So we can say indirectly that EMF/EMR may be responsible for an extremely wide range of human ailments. I have found some schools and some countries are already removing WiFi systems because of extremely high levels of complaints from teachers and students about ill effects after their installation.. I believe this issue is vastly more dangerous than Cellular towers because of the highly concentrated continuous signal nature of wireless internet. I believe there needs to be some detailed and up to date works to reflect the rapid increase of high powered wireless internet networks being installed in schools, homes, and cities nationwide. Any opinions on this? Kind Regards, Robert McNaughton --Dear Robert, Thanks for this email. I will pass it along to appropriate people in federal regulatory agencies who need to hear this exact kind of information. Just so you know, this is about the 10th such communication within the last year that I have gotten describing pretty much the same symptoms. WiFi is certainly a problem. When I lecture on cell towers, I now say that it never ceases to amaze me that people will fight a cell tower in their neighborhood, then throw in a WiFi system at home which is just like inviting a cell tower indoors. The problem with towers/infrastructure now is that they are using significantly higher frequencies due to the FCC licensing of broadband, i.e. telecom companies can now offer Internet access, TV, text messaging, music downloads, etc. etc. Yesterday's old analog cell tower that could cover a 1015 mile radius morphed into digital PCS that could cover about a 3-mile radius, and now the "next generation" infrastructure requires antennas/towers every 1-2 miles. These are likely all unsafe technologies, it's just a question of degree and exposure parameters. But personal WiFi domestic systems are by far the worst right now due to it's very close proximity to people and the higher frequencies at which they operate. And of course whole cities are going WiFi. Unfortunately the learning curve on this is steep, there are literally NO research funds

available in America, and the FCC, which controls for exposure standards, is a non-health agency. So everyone is learning about this one individual anatomy at a time, literally. Eventually the adage that the "plural of anecdote is data" will come to pass. But someone needs to collect the information and we don't even have that going on. No one wants to monitor this. Everyone just wants it to be fine. People who get into difficulties have no one to tell but a journalist like me. And most MDs are clueless. I am glad that you figured out your son's problems so quickly. That's unfortunately rare. Please let me know how he progresses.

Best Regards, Blake Levitt P.S. I wrote about melatonin in my first book on this subject and there is another book called The Melatonin Hypothesis, edited by Stevens, Wilson &Anderson. That latter is mostly about powerline frequencies but it is full of good information. --Paul Raymond Doyon MAT (TESOL), MA Advanced Japanese Studies, BA Psychology "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Posted by: Sepp for Paul D. on March 27, 2007 10:57 AM

I want to get an emergency help. Data about the safety regulations about mounting up a cell phone tower on top of a public humanly inhibited building. Many thanks for any advise or help. Dr Daniel Gad Posted by: Daniel Gad on May 16, 2007 12:38 AM

As with all website such as this nothing is documented or cited. Random names are just thrown around and \"Dr.\" inserted before them. Oh yeah, and insert a few Internet newspaper articles and grossly paraphrase them and hold their findings as dispositive. In the most basic high school research paper a student is required to submit a detailed works cited page. That is, every sentence must be cited to the specific source and page from where the information is derived. Oh yeah, I forgot...the established media and print sources are involved in a conspiracy - they don\'t want us to know about anything. I always forget that. Robin Good, however, he is looking out for us and he knows what he\'s talking about. First, people should

worry about the destructive things they voluntarily do to their bodies each day before they become preoccupied with cell towers and Wi-Fi connections. Posted by: Jim Cornwell on October 5, 2007 08:50 PM

I won\'t argue with you on the cellphones and cordless phones. What about the wireless keyboard and mouse. Are they harmful too ? Posted by: H.T. Oliver on October 5, 2007 11:27 PM

My cell phone contract finally ended and I will never use one again. I would start with a scratchy throat then my whole neck area felt like it was swelling up, my ears would ring and if I talked awhile I would lose my voice. They are great for emergencies but hey, everyone seems to have one so I should be able to get help in an emergency. Posted by: Cindy on October 6, 2007 09:34 AM

Dear Ms. Levitt, Is there any significant difference between the radiation emitted by a CRT display and that emitted by an LCD display? Thanks Tim Posted by: Tim Barringer on October 6, 2007 09:58 AM

An email exchange with a reader on the subject of protection against microwave radiation. (If you do have suggestions/information on this theme, please post here.) On 07/oct/07, at 16:38, Ken wrote: Hi Sepp --I read with great interest your excellent article on microwaves. Thanks for your accurate summary of the research.

In your opinion is there any meaningful protection? As you know, countless devices are marketed that claim to be effective. They seem to range from shielding (likely ineffective) to various active and passive circuits. The active circuits are powered, and their inventors claim they emit \"good\" fields that interfere with the destructive microwave radiations. Passive circuits obtain power from the ambient microwaves (similar to induction?) and then transmit a \"good\" field that somehow negates the bad ones. There are other approaches that use biologically active substances, such as EM (effective microbes), or various forms of \"antennas\", including copper grounding tubes, and use of magnetite or paramagnetic substances. Some companies claim to have proof of principle or effectiveness. I\'m really interested in you opinion on this. Kindest regards, Ken --Hello Ken, protection against microwaves is a difficult field to discuss, as there are several barriers. Any official testing is off, as even the dangers of microwaves are not acknowledged. Since shielding is very difficult and would imply limiting one\'s movements, the only means to protect seem active and passive devices as you mention. These devices, as they do not shield but at best tweak the waves to make them less damaging to the human organism, are outside of the limits of any official tests. Again, other test methods that show human vitality or disturbance of metabolic function aren\'t generally recognized and so it is quite difficult to say anything valid about them. I personally do use a passive system (spiral antenna and rare earth) for protection, but there is little by way of scientific studies one can point to in order to show that this is effective. We are largely on our own in a quest for protection, and anyone has to go through the data that\'s out there to sort out what suits best. Posted by: Sepp on October 8, 2007 06:13 AM

Regarding this excerpt from the article: \"Nothing could better illustrate our collective schizophrenia when it comes to thinking about electromagnetic radiation. We respond to those who are worried about its dangers — hence the International EMF Project — but we ignore and marginalize those, like Mrs. Brundtland,

who have already succumbed to its effects.\" ____ You don\'t want to make broad generalizations like that, lumping everybody into the same category. It\'s just a pet peeve of mine when I see authors lumping the innocent in with the guilty. We have two very clear camps on this planet: The Powers That Be with their sleepwalking zombified sheeple, and then those who are awake and can think and see through things. The author of this article falls into the latter group, as do I, and others I know. So let\'s not use terms such as \"we\" and \"our\" or \"us\" when it\'s clearly \"they\" and \"their\" and \"them.\" So, rewriting the excerpt to more accurately reflect what\'s really going on we have: \"Nothing could better illustrate THEIR collective schizophrenia when it comes to thinking about electromagnetic radiation. THEY respond to those who are worried about its dangers — hence the International EMF Project — but THEY ignore and marginalize those, like Mrs. Brundtland, who have already succumbed to its effects.\" Much better. ;) The problem isn\'t you, or me, or the other awake people. It\'s them. The Powers That Be. And the zombified sheeple who fight for the very system that\'s poisoning and imprisoning them. Other than that, no other constructive criticisms to point out. ;) Posted by: Dani on October 8, 2007 02:15 PM

Ignorant of the danger, we installed a wireless router in our home in June. I spent the past four months trying to solve the mystery of our sudden and inexplicable health problems. Predominant was a debilitating fatigue and lethargy, increasing emotional sensitivity and irritability, and rapidly developing full-fledged depression. We began to talk to each other of how we felt like Posted by: Luucy Stone on October 8, 2007 11:08 PM

Thank you for this post, L~

Only Time, shall reveal the Truth, as it becomes History.

---Luucy Stone---* CROSSWINDS LLC, FORT MORGAN ALABAMA 8 October 2007.* Posted by: Luucy Stone on October 8, 2007 11:11 PM

I\'m sitting in the middle of this discussion being bombarded by microwaves as I write and I wonder- In the larger scope of things and the inescapable likelyhood that cell phones/iphones/wireless phones/wifi computers/cell towers /etc. will be removed from our lives, if this is not a selfimposed Darwinesque evolutionary beginning of a future human being that has not only evolved to withstand radiation but also exist on non-nutritous GM foods. I woefully call this petri dish earth. HoHum. Posted by: BJRose on October 12, 2007 07:00 PM

I\'ve read what you\'ve written but remain highly skeptical of your conclusions. I\'ve looked at the science you cite and frankly your conclusions are more broad than the data would support. I don\'t know if rf and emf in the doses we commonly encounter are harmful. They may be. But, this page repulses me in the way that it is manipulative and requires faith in your veracity rather than simply citing facts. It is a sales pitch rather than just information. When the rhetoric is less emotionally charged, I\'ll be able to listen. Posted by: R PHelps on October 12, 2007 10:42 PM

R Phelps, no one says you cannot do some research on your own. Why stay passive in the face of something that has a high probability of being dangerous? You sound like a reasonable person but you really don\'t need to listen - you need to get out there and research. Then perhaps you can come back and confirm, or perhaps demolish the fears you found to be irrational. But you won\'t get there just sitting back for the rhethoric getting \"less emotionally charged\". Tim Barringer,

the answer to your question is available just for the searching. There are sites that deal specifically with the radiation exposure from CRTs vs. flat panel monitors. just search CRT flat panel radiation and start from there... H.T. Oliver, bluetooth runs on the same microwave band as wifi. Both bluetooth and wifi have weaker emissions than cell phones, but health effects may not be proportional to the strength of the signal. I don\'t think your question has been researched properly yet. Sepp Posted by: Sepp on October 13, 2007 05:32 AM

Ignorant of the danger, we installed a wireless router in our home in June. I spent the past four months trying to solve the mystery of our sudden and inexplicable health problems. Predominant was a debilitating fatigue and lethargy, increasing emotional sensitivity and irritability, and rapidly developing full-fledged depression. We began to talk to each other of how we felt like Posted by: J. Clark on October 14, 2007 01:35 PM

I once heard of two Russian scientist who rubberbanded to communicating cell phones together with a chicken egg between them, It took(poor recollection) maybe 70 minutes to hardboil that egg exemplifying that we are cooking our brains. If I told one person I told 10 but no one seems to care. We are all too week to augment our on will,,, no industry buck fed government is going to seek to protect us so lets all just pray for an asteriod. Forgive them Father, for they KNOW not what they do! Posted by: Daniel on November 26, 2007 11:59 PM

Daniel, that Russian experiment, although widely reported, seems to have been a hoax. It was done by two Russian journalists and I never found any confirmation of the claim that a cell phone, or even two, could actually hard boil an egg.

That is not to say that cell phones can't over time damage your brain. There's plenty of evidence for tumors... Posted by: Sepp on November 27, 2007 04:43 AM

for several years I traveled home from work with a cell phone to my right ear. I ended up with a tumor off of my salivary gland and it pushed against my throat. I was lucky it wasn't cancer. I was told the tumor was hereditary. Funny, no one else, back several generations, ever had one! Posted by: Lisa on February 8, 2008 10:31 PM

Quisiera saber si esta pagina esta en español ya que me interesa mucho el tema, llevo 10 meses realizando un trabajo en el cual estoy todo el día usando un celular y me duele mucho la cabeza y el gerente se niega a habilitar mi telefono fijo con salida a celular que es lo que necesito y estoy muy preocupada por los fuertes dolores de cabeza. Posted by: Jessica Acevedo on February 12, 2008 09:03 AM

A wireless warning Wi-Fi may be useful, but the technology hasn't been around long enough for us to know how safe it really is.

Kate Figes Articles • •

Latest Show all

Profile All Kate Figes articles About Webfeeds December 5, 2006 2:16 PM | Printable version

Wi-Fi may seem like the new wonderdrug because it enables everyone to access the internet wherever they are, but we should be wary of it. The new wireless technologies use pulsed microwaves (radiation) similar to those used in radar, not radio waves as is commonly believed. Some scientists believe that wireless computer networks, along with mobile phones, Dect phones, wireless laptops and Bluetooth affect us biologically. When bare signals are sent there seems to be little biological interference. However, when information packets are sent with these signals, such as text or voice messages, tissue damage has been detected and immune systems can be impaired, according to the Washington-based Science and Public Policy Insititute's Safe Wireless Initiative. As the amount of "electrosmog" that surrounds us rises, more and more people report feeling unwell around this technology. Symptoms include dizziness, a tingling all over the body (which in my case feels like being scrambled) headaches, extreme fatigue and confusion. These symptoms are dismissed as neurotic, or hypochondria by thick-skinned geeks, sceptics and those employed or funded by the wireless telecoms industry, for whom this is big bucks. I am no luddite - this new technology is astounding, exciting and it changes peoples lives. I welcomed it with as much enthusiasm as the next person before I noticed how ill it made me feel. I resisted the urge to get rid of Wi-Fi for nearly a year because it seemed so useful. Whenever the issue of ill-health comes up, these sceptics maintain that there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that this "low-level radiation" could be harmful. Of course not. This technology hasn't been around long enough for us to know how safe it really is and most of the research that has been conducted has been funded by the telecoms industry. But put it this way - if a pharmaceutical company came up with some wonder drug which could eliminate obesity or headaches overnight, would the government allow them to flood our schools and cities (as it is doing with Wi-Fi) before it had been conclusively tested and proved to be safe? I think this should be seen as a fundamental contravention of human rights rather than simply as a health issue. The government and the telecoms industry sit happily in each other's pockets and we have no say, no way to stem the tide or voice objection. It is left to a handful of scientists, such as Dr Johansson from the Karolinska Institute in Sweden who has found skin changes under the effects of low-level microwave exposure to fight for finance for his important research. Without any sense that we have a political party or government prepared to take this issue seriously, ordinary people have no choice but to become activists campaigning against mobile phone masts that have been erected without planning permission in the heart of their communities and lobbying schools not to install Wi-Fi near where their children are supposed to be able to learn.

del.icio.us | Digg it | Tailrank | Reddit | Newsvine | Now Public | Technorati

This entry was tagged with the following keywords: wifi wirelesscomputernetworks technology internet mobilephones

Comments Comments have now been closed on this entry.

All Comments (139) Most Recommended Comments (0) Blenkinsop Comment No. 323446 December 5 14:27 GBR Kate, I'm perfectly prepared to believe that it *could* have harmful effects, but not without evidence. the Guardian technology blog has put up a post that says you can't probably can't pass a double blind test as to whether or not wi-fi is in a particular room. Arrange a test, take it and pass it. then we can take this seriously. incidentally, in my house there are five of my neighbour's wi-fi connections signals present at varying strengths as well as my own network, can you feel these as well? perhaps another test to establish that if you pass the first one? [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? johnband Comment No. 323454 December 5 14:30 Worth noting three things here: a) SPPI is not an impartial think-tank, so much as a lobby group on the most extreme fringes of the debate. b) Mobile phones use radio waves, although they are at the top of the radio wave range and close to the microwave boundary. c) The claim that "When bare signals are sent there seems to be little biological interference. However, when information packets are sent with these signals, such as text or voice messages, tissue damage has been detected and immune systems can be impaired" is impossible given the laws of physics as we currently know them. While the laws of physics as we currently know them *may* be wrong, it seems reasonable to assume that they aren't until we have evidence otherwise. This is what invalidates Ms Figes' comparison with a magic wonder-drug... Now, where's Ben Goldacre when you need him? [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? WoollyMindedLiberal

Comment No. 323491 December 5 14:48 GBR Kate Figes : "I welcomed it with as much enthusiasm as the next person before I noticed how ill it made me feel." Frankly I don't believe your WiFi really made you ill. I think you're symptoms were real and you have my deepest sympathy, and if you are no longer experiencing them then I'm very pleased for you. I suggest you avoid reading up on the placebo effect because then you won't believe in magic cures and they'll stop working for you. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? MartynQuimlater Comment No. 323493 December 5 14:49 GBR I'm not exactly a technological whizz, so I had to rely on some help from Jeremy, one of the young turks on the darts team in the Pheasant, for help setting up my online wireless home. Jeremy helped me get one of these wireless systems set up in every room of the house. (And he kindly sold me 10 of the little things for the price of nine!) I'm not entirely convinced about how they all work, but it seems that I now have the World Wide Internet at home, for which I am very grateful. He tells me that if I ever buy a "laptop" computer, it will help with that, too. For anyone reading this who isn't up to speed, and perhaps doesn't even know what the Internet is, I strongly recommend it.

Thanks Martyn Q www.askmartynandmike.blogspot.com [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? CommanderKeen Comment No. 323494 December 5 14:50

GBR To be fair there is very little peer reviewed research published on this. There is a study saying it affects PKC activity in the brains of rats and there is another study saying is does not affect gene expression in a cell line. Given the almost complete lack of evidence in either direction the analogy with a "wonder drug" is a fair one. Having said that Televisions have never been thoughly investigated to determine if they have any affect on human health so it is not just modern technology which can stand accused of being potentially harmful. However, it is practically impossible to prove that any one thing is safe it is easier to prove it does no harm. So far there is no evidence supporting either the safety or dangers of wireless networks. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? gmabarrett Comment No. 323503 December 5 14:54 USA Hold two quartz crystals, hum a manttra and call me in the morning. What tree hugging nonsense. Wi-Fi may seem like the new wonderdrug because it enables everyone to access the internet wherever they are, but we should be wary of it No-one can cinfuse an accesable technology with a drug - wonder or no. Unless of course you are smoking something at the time. When bare signals are sent there seems to be little biological interference. However, when information packets are sent with these signals, such as text or voice messages, tissue damage has been detected and immune systems can be impaired, according to the Washington-based Science and Public Policy Insititute's Safe Wireless Initiative Re the earlier posting. This is an organisation that uses its website to show a moviue called "The Cell Phone War'. and has quotes such as:One in 10 Canadians would rather lose their mother-in-law than their cell phones, according to a poll released earlier this month. Do I hear credibility being questioned? [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? tomga Comment No. 323514 December 5 15:01

GBR I'm less than convinced. If Wi-Fi is bad then I'd imagine telephone, television and radio signals are bad too. Better get rid of them all to be sage. Probably all that cosmic radiation is bad too. Better get shot of that as well. Maybe we should all live in lead lined boxes for our own safety. Anti science, Luddite nonsense. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? MikeWigglesworth Comment No. 323522 December 5 15:06 GBR I suffered from terrible dizziness and nausea about a year ago. It was extremely unpleasant lasted for four months. At one stage it did occur to me that my wireless internet signal might be behind it. Ironically, the thought came to me after reading an article on the internet, transmitted wirelessly to my PC. However, on further examination I turned out to have an inner-ear infection, which produces symptoms of vertigo. I am now fine. Best, Mike. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? LordSummerisle Comment No. 323540 December 5 15:15 GBR "The new wireless technologies use pulsed microwaves (radiation) similar to those used in radar, not radio waves as is commonly believed." Kate, appreciate where you're trying to say and that your intentions are good and honest, but ..... Microwaves and radio waves are both part of the electromagnetic spectrum of radiation. Microwaves are more energetic than radio waves but all are less energetic than visible light. Throwing words like 'RADIATION' in with regard to one but not the other is not good science. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Recommend? beingjdc Comment No. 323557 December 5 15:23 GBR Fluorescent light bulbs make my skin itchy. I had never considered the possibility that my human rights were being violated, cheers! [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? onthefence Comment No. 323573 December 5 15:29 GBR Kate, "The new wireless technologies use pulsed microwaves radiation) similar to those used in radar, not radio waves as is commonly believed. " Both radio waves and microwaves are electromagnetic radiation. The two terms are just different words used to describe different wavelengths of electromagnetic waves. "Radio waves" go down to about 50cm wavelength (for UHF), whereas microwaves have wavelengths of about 12cm (for WiFi). That's the only difference between them. "When bare signals are sent there seems to be little biological interference. However, when information packets are sent with these signals, such as text or voice messages, tissue damage has been detected and immune systems can be impaired, according to the Washington-based Science and Public Policy Insititute's Safe Wireless Initiative." The "information packets" stuff is simply nonsensical, and the grandly titled "Science and Public Policy Institute" is just a quack outfit running Daily Mail-style health scares. "Symptoms include dizziness, a tingling all over the body (which in my case feels like being scrambled) headaches, extreme fatigue and confusion." I would urge you to consult a doctor about these symptoms, rather than self-diagnose. The symptoms you describe are very unlikely to have been caused by the WiFi. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? NathanPCoombs

Comment No. 323575 December 5 15:29 GBR "When bare signals are sent there seems to be little biological interference. However, when information packets are sent with these signals, such as text or voice messages, tissue damage has been detected and immune systems can be impaired, " If this was true it would be momentous, far beyond any health related issues. That digital encoding could interefere with celullar process would imply covergence between digital signals and cellular signals. Othwerise the effect would be no different to natural background radiation. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? sanecyclist Comment No. 323580 December 5 15:31 GBR Plenty of cranks will of course latch on to this issue and blame all kinds of real or imagined ailments on evil microwaves, yet nevertheless this needs to be researched with proper funding and an open mind. Microwave heating is based on molecular dipole rotation, which works best with liquid water, but also with fats and sugars, and thus it will heat a human brain as efficiently as a bowl of soup. Now of course transmitter power in wireless networks is few orders of magnitude lower and distances are usually quite a bit bigger than in a microwave oven. Yet the brain is an awfully complex and incompletely understood electrochemical machine, and its signal levels are pretty low, so one could well imagine that low-level microwave radiation might have an effect on it. Not actually cooking the brain of course, but influencing thoughts and feelings. And it's also plausible that pulsed and modulated microwave signals might have stronger effects from constant ones. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? johnband Comment No. 323591 December 5 15:36

Sanecyclist - the biggest difference between telephones/wifi and ovens is not about power or distance - it's about wavelength. A microwave oven works because the microwaves within have the same frequency as the resonant frequency of water, making the water molecules waggle around with greater and greater energy (like a swing being pushed at exactly the right point each time and going faster and faster). A mobile phone or wifi network does not have the same frequency and therefore does not have the same heating effects (like a swing being pushed in lots of different directions at lots of different parts of its cycle). [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? twopenny Comment No. 323593 December 5 15:36 GBR I was just going to add a comment similar to LordSummerisle's: radio is radiation. There's a clue there.... Also, I'm puzzled by the suggestion that 'pulsed' radiation is worse then 'un-pulsed' and that any possible harm from WiFi is by virtue of this pulsed aspect. While it's true that WiFi transmissions are 'bursty', all this means is that the transmission is not always on. It seems odd to me that 'always on' is harmless, while 'on-and-off' is harmful. Also, if the technology is like radar systems - and this could be argued - then surely it has been around long enough to determine harm? [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? CommanderKeen Comment No. 323619 December 5 15:50 GBR twopenny: At the risk of lobbing petrol on the flames I should point out that there is evidence radar can harm (albeit indirectly) marine mammals which also use it. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? LordSummerisle Comment No. 323627

December 5 15:57 GBR I think that's sonar, rather than radar, CommanderKeen. Acoustic disruption rather than electromagnetic. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? ArmchairPundit Comment No. 323636 December 5 16:01 IRL onthefence: the frequency of electromagnetic radiation is very important however, as it determines how, or even if, it interects with different types of matter. Which is why you can see through someone with x-rays, but not the light from a torch. This article is cobblers though. It's giving me extreme fatigue and confusion. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? ArmchairPundit Comment No. 323640 December 5 16:02 IRL onthefence: the frequency of electromagnetic radiation is very important however, as it determines how, or even if, it interects with different types of matter. Which is why you can see through someone with x-rays, but not the light from a torch. This article is cobblers though. It's giving me extreme fatigue and confusion. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? ArmchairPundit Comment No. 323641 December 5 16:03 IRL Oh, and Kate, RADAR uses RAdio waves. The clue is in the name.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? xyzzy Comment No. 323644 December 5 16:04 Arguing with idiots is like wrestling pigs: you get dirty, and there's always the risk that the pig will enjoy it. That said, ``At the risk of lobbing petrol on the flames I should point out that there is evidence radar can harm (albeit indirectly) marine mammals which also use it.'' is pretty silly. There are no animals that use radar. There are, of course, animals that use echo-location, and there is ample evidence that they are confused by sonar (aka asdic). The cold war sonar curtains used in the Atlantic to track submarines are especially problematic in this regard. The difference between sonar and radar is the difference between a radio transmitter and a loudspeaker. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? ArmchairPundit Comment No. 323654 December 5 16:11 IRL And look what Dr. George Carlo is also endorsing: http://www.bioprotechnology.com/BIOPROventionProgram.aspx What would happen if a technology company came up with some wonder solution which could eliminate dizziness, a tingling all over the body,headaches, extreme fatigue and confusion overnight? [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? LibertyCentral Comment No. 323679 December 5 16:24 GBR @ ArmchairPundit That website is brilliant! I managed to get as far as this:

"The BIOPROvention Program � named after combining the term �BIOPRO� with the term �Intervention� provides these tools for intervention." And then just cracked up completely - who writes their PR Shill, Spinal Tap? [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? coracle Comment No. 323680 December 5 16:27 USA Actually, I don't think the pharmaceutical comparison is fair. Legal requirements weren't introduced until it had been demonstrated that pharmaceutical products could be harmful. This hasn't been demonstrated for wireless technology. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? CommanderKeen Comment No. 323682 December 5 16:28 GBR Oops silly me, getting Sonar and Radar confused thats what no sleep does for you. I've also got headaches, fatigue and numb fingers. Incidently regarding my comments about TV is anyone else kept awake by a high pitched whine from TVs when they are on a few rooms away or is mine broken? [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? twopenny Comment No. 323691 December 5 16:37 GBR CommanderKeen, yes I can hear it too. I think that what you are hearing is the line-rate which is about 15KHz, or so I seem to remember. Come to think of it I can't hear it as much as I used to, but this could be age related. Or more LCD displays, etc. Yes that's it: more LCDs/plasmas.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? sanecyclist Comment No. 323705 December 5 16:43 GBR johnband, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth do actually use the same frequency as most microwave ovens: 2.4GHz. Also, microwave heating does not rely on resonance but just on the movement induced on molecular dipoles. There actually are industrial microwave ovens operating at 915MHz (which also happens to be one of the mobile phone frequencies). MaiJulia, your position is no less ignorant than that of the hysterics and might eventually be compared to that of people who ridiculed the ill effects caused by smoking or leaded petrol. So far there's just a bit of anecdotal evidence and some possible explanations. Unfortunately though there's the old problem of proving a negative, so we'll have to wait for a few years of experience and properly funded research before the concerns of people like Kate Figes can be dismissed with any confidence. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? xyzzy Comment No. 323716 December 5 16:49 `` is anyone else kept awake by a high pitched whine from TVs'' Flyback transformer. 15625Hz in the UK and Europe, 15750Hz in the USA and Japan. If you're young, or you've looked after your hearing, that's well within the limits of audibility. I can recall hearing it as I walked down the street well into my teens, but now it's lost to me. If it annoys you in your own house, get an LCD TV, which obviously doesn't have any HT circuitry. There's more than you could ever want to know at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyback_transformer. There are two fundamental question I ask all the ``oh, my life is being destroyed by WiFi/GSM/whatever'' nutters. The first is why they never seem to worry about DECT phones: they operate in precisely the same frequency band as WiFi, they are about 350mW ERP which is comparable to WiFi, and the sort of people who witter on about WiFi are the sort of people who witter on the phone all night. Why is WiFi harmful, while DECT isn't? And the other question is something for which we have a good longtitudinal study. There's never been the slightest suggestion that Sutton Coldfield is the cancer, ME, fuzzy headaches

or anything else capital of the midlands. And yet there's a quarter of a megawatt ERP of FM Radio (~100MHz) slap next to it, along with a megawatt ERP of analogue TV (~450MHz). And just up the road there's a further megawatt ERP at Tamworth/Lichfield. So while our friend the poster (and she may be mad, but doesn't she look cute?) is worrying about ~1W ERP from WiFi, there's a large urban area that's been exposed to 2 metawatts ERP for fifty years. Now yes, I know about the inverse square law, but nutters don't: why does analogue TV get a free pass? [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? Delivsavocado Comment No. 323717 December 5 16:50 USA "When bare signals are sent there seems to be little biological interference. However, when information packets are sent with these signals, such as text or voice messages, tissue damage has been detected and immune systems can be impaired, according to the Washington-based Science and Public Policy Insititute's Safe Wireless Initiative." It is absolutely incredible how human tissue can distinguish between a "bare" signal and a carrier signal onto which information has been modulated. The writer is probably aware of the paper, "Information can impair your health," IEEE Trans Ireproduc. Theory, Vol 44, No. 7 pp. 1576-1578, 2006, by Schmoozer and Schockemuller in which it is shown that Tom Cruise movies modulated onto the carrier frequency showed a marked deterioration of human tissue, much more so than say Jurassic Park. This has been attributed to the "long term memory" processes of Tom Cruise movies where scenes are correlated, due to Tom's inferior acting, with Hurst parameter, H>0.5 , and efficient modeling using Levy-stable processes. The effect was noted to be similar to how James Bond's martinis retained a memory of whether they were shaken or stirred, and modulated their taste in an appropriate manner. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? ArmchairPundit Comment No. 323740 December 5 17:00 IRL sanecyclist: Movement of molecular dipoles is induced because the microwave frequency is tuned to the rotational frequency of water molecules. In classical terms this is the same as resonance but it's actually a quantum mechanical effect whereby energy can only be transferred to the water molecules if the incident radiation is exactly the same frequency as

the difference in rotational energy states. I'd say it's a reasonable analogy to call it "resonance". [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? sanecyclist Comment No. 323780 December 5 17:21 GBR From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_heating "Microwave heating is sometimes explained as a rotational resonance of water molecules, but this is incorrect: such resonance only occurs in water vapour at much higher frequencies, at about 20 gigahertz. Moreover, large industrial/commercial microwave ovens operating at 915 MHz also heat water and food perfectly well." ArmchairPundit, better edit it if you're qualified enough to be sure that it's wrong. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? aquilla Comment No. 323782 December 5 17:22 The new pollonium 210. Little pockets of pulsating microwaves, in your trousers, in your ears, by your heart. Mmm could be the solution to overpopulation, and rapacious consumerism. Then we'll have more space for asylum seekers. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? xyzzy Comment No. 323799 December 5 17:32 ``The effect was noted to be similar to how James Bond's martinis retained a memory of whether they were shaken or stirred, and modulated their taste in an appropriate manner.'' It doesn't need weird homeopathy theories. President Bartlett, whom God Preserve, has it right:

``Shaken, not stirred, will get you cold water with a dash of gin and dry vermouth. The reason you stir it with a special spoon is so not to chip the ice. James is ordering a weak martini and being snooty about it.'' Actually, my theory is that Fleming moves on from the `Vesper' in Casino Royale (``I'm a man who names his own drink'') to Vodka Martinis shaken not stirred to show how transgressive Bond is: ``everyone'' knows that Martinis should be (a) Gin (I'm a Bombay Saphire man, but I accept the world is large enough for alternatives) and (b) stirred. It's like his taste for Walther PPKs in 9x17 (aka 9mm Kurz, .380ACP): ``everyone'' knows that's a lady's gun, in a sub-leathal calibre. But Bond knows better. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? twopenny Comment No. 323801 December 5 17:33 GBR xyzzy: "...why does analogue TV get a free pass?". Yes, I've often wondered about this. What's more is that, for some reason, the 'pulsing' due to the frame and line flyback periods is unnoticed. Instead we get nonsense along the lines of: analogue is continuous-time and digital isn't. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? ArmchairPundit Comment No. 323818 December 5 17:44 IRL sanecyclist: After doing a bit of reading (but being too lazy to do the calculations for myself) I'm starting to think you're right. Although even if it appears to be a classical effect it should still be explainable with a quantum description. I'm guessing the condensed nature of water means there are bands of absorption frequencies that are absent for isolated molecules. I might do a proper literature search tomorrow. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? Delivsavocado Comment No. 323825 December 5 17:55

USA " xyzzy: "...why does analogue TV get a free pass?". Yes, I've often wondered about this. What's more is that, for some reason, the 'pulsing' due to the frame and line flyback periods is unnoticed. Instead we get nonsense along the lines of: analogue is continuous-time and digital isn't. "

Mr/Ms Twopenny, Analogue TV should not get a free pass and a quick perusal of Ms Figes web-site tells me that she is preparing another learned article which absolutely takes to task the TV industry for not considering the detrimental health effects of their money-grubbing signals. However, help is at hand, at least in the US, and maybe some knowledgeable UK poster can help me out with the situation in the UK. Ms Figes has lobbied the US Congress and the FCC has agreed to stop all transmission of analogue signals, they will bbe phased out by the year 200* (Wikipedia the exact year if you are really interested.) The Govt will take back the spectrum taken up by analogue signals and TV stations will transmit only digital signals. The US uses a modulation system called 8-VSB and I believe in Europe the transmission system is COFDM which stands for "coded orthogonal frequency domain modulation". This was previously known as COFDLM which stood for "coded orthogonal frequency domain lethal modulation". Note the cunning omission of the word "lethal" in the official industry standard acronym. For COFDLM modulation, see Paulnabar, Goreraj, and Rajpaul, Intro to Space Time Wireless Communications, Cambridge Univ Press, 2003. I believe that Ms Figes and concerned Guardianistas need to get the bottom of this mystery. Why did the word "lethal" get discarded from the acronym for your digital TV standard. Could those TV manufacturers be covering something up? [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? EvilGenius Comment No. 323841 December 5 18:07 GBR Dear Kate, I'm pretty thik. Soz. Could you answer the following questions: Do you have an A-level in physics? If not, do you have a GCSE in physics? What was the last physics TEXTBOOK you read?

Could you describe the electromagnetic spectrum please? Could you describe background radiation? Did you discuss the symptoms you experienced with a Doctor? Do you know if your neighbours have wi-fi? Have you tried covering yourself with tin-foil? Do you think you are in any way qualified to write the article you have written? Do you write similar articles for the Mail? Thanks [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? mojo100 Comment No. 323851 December 5 18:16 GBR As I understand it the only research taken seriously by government when looking into the safety issues of mobile phone emissions, looked at the heating effect on tissues only (nematode worms). This is something of a red herring, the human body is a dynamic system; utilising chemical and electrical systems of amazing complexity. There is no way anyone can confidently say WiFi is 'safe', or that using a mobile phone several times a day is 'safe', or that living within several hundred yards of a base station is 'safe'. Again, as I understand it, it is the pulsed nature of such radiations that make them potentially harmful, and the way in which the human brain is subject to 'entrainment', in which the natural cycle of electrical rythms within the brain can be disrupted, and slowed or speeded up, possibly resulting in at the very least, mood and sleep disorders. The unfortunate fact is that it will take time for ill effects to make themselves known, in a similar way maybe to that of passive smoking. So what we can say is that we don't know yet if radiations of this type, whether WiFi or from mobiles or base stations are reallyt safe enough for us to consider the risks worth taking. The most important issue here is one for me of choice. I can choose to use a mobile; I can choose to use WiFi; but there are situations in which I cannot choose to be exposed or not. This would be my objection - I choose to use a mobile very occasionally, I choose to use a corded phone, I choose to not have a WiFi system installed - but I cannot choose NOT to be irradiated by someone else's system, or a base station in the locality. I saw my step-father die of a brain tumour a couple of years ago. He had worked for years in the RAF as an electrical engineer working on missile systems, and later for Marconi on ship based electrical systems. He would have been exposed to high levels of microwave radiation via radar systems a times. For me there might have been a connection. I myself suffer from a form of epilepsy, so am especially keen to not stress my poor brain out any more than it already is.

I believe that if there is no risk, then the burden of proof should lie with the proponents of such systems to demonstrate the fact, but to do so with a clear awareness that we are discovering more every day about human body systems, and that our knowledge is likely to never be complete. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? twopenny Comment No. 323858 December 5 18:23 GBR Anyway, enough of the technology issues. Surely this is more a question of what "..conclusively tested and proved to be safe.." actually means? What does it mean? I dunno. It seems that all of the studies and meta-studies draw the conclusion that no ill-health effects can be determined. This doesn't mean that there are no illhealth effects, of course, but perhaps the right experiment just hasn't been performed yet. How do we know when to stop, though? If the right experiment doesn't exist, how would we know until we know we've performed them all? I'm more inclined to believe that the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that these radio emissions are harmless. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? i2Brain Comment No. 323870 December 5 18:36 DEU "Science" is being quoted at us by the WiFi fans in a way which seems to me to be arrogant, incorrect and sadly misled. Scientists through the ages have been wrong. Agreed? Otherwise later discoveries couldn't have been made and WE WOULD KNOW EVERYTHING. Do WiFi fans think current science is omniscient? How foolish if they do. We are taught science wrongly at school. They tell us how things are and not how to "do science", i.e. to question what we experience, to take other people's experiences seriously, and then to come to our own conclusions. (BTW in my undergraduate Physics course we learned nothing that was discovered in the previous 50 years; so obviously no real science was expected or delivered.) All those of you who quote "science" at us are probably disgusted by Galileo's treatment at the hands of the catholic church who ignored him and called him a heretic.

Which role are many "scientists" playing nowadays? [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? MrSid Comment No. 323882 December 5 18:49 GBR All the same, I believe we should be cautious. In that vein I have installed a hard wired network into my house, and also to my office which is down the garden. However I do use cordless phones! and recently a mobile! Perhaps we should be more wary of the prolific use of MDF throughout our homes and schools - I believe this will be far more damaging than WiFi. A reaction to MDF dust can include light headedness, dizziness, lethargy etc. Just think of those MDF based laminate floors, shelves from IKEA etc. You have been warned. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? Delivsavocado Comment No. 323884 December 5 18:51 USA As mojo100 states: "Again, as I understand it, it is the pulsed nature of such radiations that make them potentially harmful, and the way in which the human brain is subject to 'entrainment', in which the natural cycle of electrical rythms within the brain can be disrupted, and slowed or speeded up, possibly resulting in at the very least, mood and sleep disorders." The "pulsed" (packetized? , I don't know?) nature of such radiation does subject the human brain to "entrainment", as described in many scientific books on Chaos theory, and the like. The entrainment effect is not just confined to mood and sleep disorders, as described in an paper published in "Annals of Homeopath. Med.", Vol 17, No 3, Sept. 2006, pp987-999. In this paper the pulsed nature of WiFi (and not just WiFi, but also the IEEE standards 802.11a,b,d,e) is shown to induce entrainment in the EEG activity detected in Brodman's area 4, which is associated with movement. Also Brodman's area 6 and SMA of the premotor cortex were shown to be affected.

Intrigued by this paper, my wife and I set up an experiment (with our dog also), whereby my wife would "click" on a new website (such as the Grauniad's Comment is Free site) while I was standing in the room, between the laptop and the (so-called) wireless router. Entrainment was set up in my premotor cortex and I could not stop from raising my arm and batting at my own ear, as if scratching like a dog. Further intrigued, we put the dog between the laptop and router and the same effect was observed - our dog (Mr. Squiggy) was seen to scratch his own ear. We attribued this effect to the entrainment described in the aforementioned paper. Do any other readers have any similar experiences? My wife and I are currently writing this research up for publication. If it is rejected by the more scholarly journals (Nature, Science, Annals of Homeopath. Med.) we will submit to the Guardian for publication. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? tangsonghe Comment No. 323885 December 5 18:53 GBR Stating for the record that I'm a professional chemical physicist and my area of experise is in matter field interactions and spectroscopy of biological systems, from X-Ray down to radio frequencies. I currently apply my work to proteins at Imperial College London. Never have much need to post on an article comment list, especially once they've filled up with rants. Most rants on this list are knee jerk and both amusing and sad at the same time because they are written by people writing about a matter they know very little about. The author of the original article doesn't really know much either and to be honest neither do I. If you want me to justify my position I will, but there is nothing I can see that rules out low energy microwaves or radio waves altering our physiological state. It is just not currently possible to make any physical measuremtents but there are a number of possibilities where EM radiation such as microwaves or radio could weaken our functioning. Having said that I think a more urgent issue is the stinking carcinogens and irritants that cars give out. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? greensox Comment No. 323887 December 5 18:55 USA i2Brain,

It is very easy to write a scare story whenever a new technology arrives. Sometimes it is indeed a good idea to rely on the precautionary priciple but I don't think this is one such case. A few headaches is not global warming. It is nothing to do with the arrogance of scientists. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? WoollyMindedLiberal Comment No. 323889 December 5 19:00 GBR i2Brain : ""Science" is being quoted at us by the WiFi fans in a way which seems to me to be arrogant, incorrect and sadly misled. Scientists through the ages have been wrong. Agreed?" They've been right about an awful lot more than they've been wrong. And when exactly was the last time there a strong scientific consensus that turned out to be wrong? Even with continental drift the consensus was justified in rejecting the original hypothesis as the underlying mechanism would not work, and was wrong. My money is on the consensus being right yet again and the anti-science brigade being wrong as usual. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? MrPikeBishop Comment No. 323891 December 5 19:01 Damn, wish I'd seen this earlier. While I can see a posibility that radiation in the 2.4GHz range *could* damage tissues - microwaves certainly can, after all - it's all about intensity. A home or office wifi network is a feeble feeble beast - my own, for instance, is stomped all over by our baby monitor and the AV extender; I had to change the frequencies on both. Why wory about wifi if you're not going to worry about baby monitors? Especially as the latter is generally put right next to baby... But in any event, I can't see any way at all in which the carrier could be biologically inert, while the signal is harmful. Would that apply to analogue as well as digital signals? 802.11g and 11b? Bizarre idea. I'd need a great deal of convincing. Oh, and as anotther poster mentioned, in any urban area odds are you're touched by half a dozen networks. I get four here without even trying, six at work, four of which are wide open, but then that's a different issue...

I'm more worried by antiperspirants than I am wifi. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? twopenny Comment No. 323910 December 5 19:16 GBR Tangsonghe. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that your position is this: You are a scientist who may work in a related field. You never needed to post a comment before, but you do now. Everybody is ranting. Nobody knows what they are on about. Including you. An effect on animal tissues can't be ruled out. I don't think anybody said it could be ruled out, did they? If physical measurements can't be made, how can safety be assured? Isn't this the question? If we can't measure harm, when do we conclude that it isn't there? Or do we conclude that it is there because we can show that it isn't? Or is there a third alternative? [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? Yak40 Comment No. 323934 December 5 19:34 USA April 1 came early it seems. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? tangsonghe Comment No. 323936 December 5 19:34 GBR Two penny:

There were quite a few posts claiming or implying there can be no interaction between radio waves/microwaves of mobile phone/TV transmitter strength and a biological organism. So I think alot of people 'ruled it out'. Many measurements and scientific concensus takes decades, not years. There is a third alternative. Everybody is doing it every day, some in ignorance and some not - that third alternative is 'to hell with safety, I the individual make my own mind up'. The author of the original article says that this affects others but so far the correlation between appliance/transmitter radiation and illness is weak (if at all existant) so far so she has a long battle ahead. It took decades for us to have a ban on smoking in public places, despite the link between passive smoking and cancer. Lead in petrol and greenhouse gases are other areas where progress is slow. Damn, my baby boy just pissed on the floor...... [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? LemonGrass Comment No. 323943 December 5 19:40 GBR "Do you write similar articles for the Mail?" Close, Evening Substandard: http://tinyurl.com/yd5w9c The article says wi-fi produces electro-magnetic waves - is this true? She lives in the same area as me; maybe I should suggest getting wi-fi installed in my local to keep her out. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? DanSmith Comment No. 323945 December 5 19:41 GBR A lot of people are trying to drop scientific knowledge in here, but some basic facts would be nice. Like how much extra radiation does wi-fi expose us to? Should be pretty simple to calculate. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Recommend? sanecyclist Comment No. 323949 December 5 19:44 GBR The 2.4 GHz used in WiFi and Bluetooth is well above the frequencies used in radio and TV transmissions, so evidence based on those isn't necessarily applicable. Pulsing should make little difference to any heat damage caused by microwaves, but wireless signals are to weak for that anyway. But it might well make a difference to how it influences nerve signals in the brain. For a bad analogy, if you connect a battery to a loudspeaker you won't hear anything except an initial crack, because the membrane will move to a position proportional to the battery voltage and then stay there. But if you keep on connecting and disconnecting the battery (i.e. pulse it) you'll get a crack every time. Similarly, WiFi packets might induce small nerve pulses, which might well alter the results you get from the complex and still quite mysterious computing machine that is the brain.

"My money is on the consensus being right yet again" What consensus? There just hasn't been enough research into this, partly because scientists don't like to do a study where the likely result is "not proven" (rather than "proven wrong"), which on its own isn't very significant and also won't help much with funding applications. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? twopenny Comment No. 323968 December 5 19:59 GBR tangsonghe. Agreed, though in my clumsy way this is what I've been suggesting. It's not a question of "to hell with safety", because non-safety hasn't been shown. My gripe is the desire to avoid these technologies because their safety hasn't been proved. As you say the correlation is small, and it may take a long time to show conclusively that harm is done. If harm is not done, then we will wait forever for evidence that shows that it is. What level of proof does Ms Figes need, and does she not recognise that the burden to prove that something doesn't happen may not be bearable?

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? Lelia Comment No. 323973 December 5 20:08 USA Martyn said: "If anybody reading this does not know what the Internet is...." I might be laughed at for this question. But how could anyone reading this not know about the Internet?

Does this mean that our comments appear in the print paper or something? If so, I might be more careful what I write from now on. I don't know why with more people reading news from the net than print these days. There is still the stigma for me that to have your comments printed is more intimidating Weird isn't it? [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? Delivsavocado Comment No. 323985 December 5 20:19 USA Lelia, that was Martyn's idea of a joke. He possesses a droll British wit. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? Waltz Comment No. 323991 December 5 20:27

If you want something to worry about, check out the health effects of car pollution. Almost completely ignored because a) the car industry is mega and b) most people will hear no evil about cars. The only time I've ever heard it discussed was on Radio 4 several years ago, when a top lung cancer specialist said that the primary cause of lung cancer in non-smokers was not secondhand smoke but rather the carcinogens we inhale every day of our lives because car exhausts saturate our environment with them. And no I'm not a smoker, don't work in the tobacco industry, and I do have a car. No drum to beat here except that this is an issue I think we should be told rather more about. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? Agog Comment No. 323993 December 5 20:31 MrPikeBishop Hair dye is worse. Did you know that hairdressing is one of the most dangerous occupations? Wifi is surely low in the list of occupational hazards. Mind you, I suppose more people use antiperspirants than hair dye. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? AlbertTeddy Comment No. 323995 December 5 20:33 Tree Hugging Nonsense!!!! Its the word "Radiation" that is the problem.When medical imageing was in its infancy it was always called "Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imageing".It came into wide public acceptance when the word "Nuclear" was dropped. Now "Electromagnetic Radation" covers low energy long waves ,like Radio4 on 198 Khz ,Short waves up to 30 Mhz with a wavelength of some 30 feet.Then up to microwave, infra red,visible light,UV,then it really does get dangerous with X rays and higher. Now the more "hazardous" frequencies are where ones body "resonates" at a half or full wavelength which is 80 to 150 Mhz where currents could be induced, however only on the outer 1/4 inch, due to the skin effect.VHF Radio is here , and transmits with tens of Kilowatts Analog TV broadcasts from 470 to 860 Mhz Typically at a power of 30 Kw rms ( Or 500 Kw Peak ) PER CHANNEL !

THis "radiation" has been flooding areas of Croydon,Sutton Coldfield,Emley,and many other places for 35 Years with NO ILL EFFECTS. The NRPB limits exposure to humans in time and a value of 10 Milliwatts per cm2. The above refers to "NON IONISING RADIATION" that is below the energy required to "Knock electrons out" on material.That is below about 2 electron volts. We are looking forward to summer , we will go out in the SUNSHINE an expose ourselves to 100 Mw per cm2 , and a little of this radiation will be "Ionizing" producing vitamins, and photosynthesis in plants. Kate ,please withdraw your scaremongering rubbish,and get a proper job helping Ben Goldacre. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? joepublik Comment No. 323996 December 5 20:35 USA This is utter twaddle. Does Ms Figes actually get paid for inflicting this on us? All, or most of the "radiations" referred to in this thread are electromagnetic. They differ only in frequency. The higher the frequency the more energetic the photon. All of these "radiations" are, without exception, dangerous to us if we receive sufficient exposure. Sunlight is an obvious example of a "radiation" which is normally benign but which is dangerous with over exposure. Does this mean sunlight infringes our human rights? The bit that really cracks me up is the learned discourse on the differences between "bare signals" and what I presume are "clothed" ones. I do wish the author would enlighten us a little more as to what it feels like to be "scrambled". This must surely be a new illness. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? Esco Comment No. 324017 December 5 20:52 GBR WiFi makes me ill - because the bloody thing never works properly. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? flaneuse Comment No. 324020

December 5 20:58 IRL MaiJulia ("She should stick to writing ladies novels") and xyzzy ("and she may be mad, but doesn't she look cute?"), I'm coming down firmly on the side of "there appear to be much greater threats to our health than WiFi, though that's not to say that no research should be carried out", but if you could stick to criticising the article without the side-order of sexism, that would be *splendid*. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? Delivsavocado Comment No. 324032 December 5 21:15 USA Ooooh, flaneuse, at 8:58pm, who has had too high a dose of IEEE 802.11e, a "clothed" (as in, not "bare") spread spectrum signal, which induces irritation in the "irritation centers" (Brodman 1 and 2) of the brain. On this note, no Grauniadista has commented on the danger of spread spectrum signals - for those of you, like Ms. Figes herself, who are keeping up here, this is a way of "spreading" the energy out over a wider range of frequencies than are actually required to transmit the signal. Hence the signal can hide beneath the "noise floor" and be picked out by -- well, yes, by despreading, by being convolved (multiplied to Ms Figes) by the exact same spreading code. And for real trivia buffs, the German actress Hedy Lamar (sp?) is supposed to hold the patent, although Qualcomm probably has an angle on this. Now, again, after extensive experimeting in our living room, my wife and I determined that I (my body, myself, all that I am) possess a natural spreading code, (it could be similar to a natural resonant frequency, like when you put your ear against the window of the No. 31 bus to Fairwater, or like the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapsing when "struck" (by wind) at its natural resonant frequency - hey this is creative science, right) and you've guessed it - it happens to coincide with a Gold code used in the 802.11e standard. Consequently, whenever my wife downloads a new web page, I am despread (perhaps this could be that tingly feeling that Ms figes is feeling (or whatever she called it)). But perhaps there is another explanation. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? DJCeres Comment No. 324034 December 5 21:17

GBR Radiation of high-frequency light causes cancer because the wavelength is so small that it is ionizing. As in, the radiation is actually capable of changing the chemical composition of molecules (specifically, your DNA). Change DNA in the right way and you have cancer. Microwaves (Wi-Fi) don't do this. They aren't ionizing. They don't cause cancer in the same way as X-rays or Gamma-rays would. Microwaves have a lower frequency than visible light. The only thing significant about them is that they are able to vibrate water quickly. Unless our understanding of the very basics of electromagnetism and physics as a whole is fundamentally and completely wrong, Wi-Fi CANNOT cause any damage to cells. We do not need experimental evidence to be certain of this. Random people claiming to feel ill around Wi-Fi is not evidence of anything, cannot ever be evidence of anything and should be completely ignored by anyone that is not a moron. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? tangsonghe Comment No. 324043 December 5 21:23 GBR I just got back from a mad passionate session with a tree to find AlbertTeddy and joepublik quoting basic physics in order to rubbish the possibility that sub optical EM fields at as yet unspecified power densities have a negative impact on human functioning. Sorry guys, your musings are as unpublishable scientifically as Ms Figes. You're just stating some basic facts that don't connect with the thing you are trying to scientifically disprove. There are a few possibilities how RF fields and Microwaves might interact with the conductive and polarisable media in cells, not necessarily to produce heating but to influence the motions of and activity of various components. Sanecyclist also mentioned this. I reckon that if such an interaction does occur, it might cause a cells to expend slightly more energy to maintain equilibrium (given that there have been no obvious consequences of EM pollution so far other than anecdotal evidence). The consequences

of that......better to spot an interaction first. Better do some experiments first but as Sanecyclist pointed out, this is not a fashionable area. Still, if we could prove an effect it would be very interesting and if we could dispove it we wouldn't have to use inferior arguments to bash uninformed but well meaning articles in the Guardian. A basic niggle: the skin effect applies best to metals. How else do you think MRI scans are possible? Those are RF fields that are being coherently emmited from INSIDE the body. BTW what made MRI popular was its ability to spot nasty tumours and other disease states but the medical industry likes their patients not to worry excessively, though I'm not too thrilled about the idea of being immersed in a 5 Tesla clinical NMR machine. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? Delivsavocado Comment No. 324071 December 5 22:00 USA Mr. tangsonghe, Can you propose a mechanism whereby a carrier frequency which has information modulated onto it can cause illness, whereas a carrier frequency which has no information modulated onto it does not cause illness? This was the particular part of Ms. Figes article which was very interesting, and great fun to consider. So you have an 8.5MHz (or whatever) signal with data modulated onto it, which can presumably be viewed as a "random jitter" around the carrier, and that makes you sick. But just the 8.5MHz carrier (or whatever it is) doesn't make you feel sick, or "all-of-a-tingle." After figuring out the mechanism, we can consider whether when you download a video clip from "The Daily Show", does this cause "more-of-a-tingle" than if you download a pdf document from Imperial College (or some such esteemed establishment of higher learning, like what Ms. Figes attended.) Next we can compare the movies of Tom Cruise to the movies of Tom Hanks, in download. Which data is more "bursty", which shows "long range dependence" (as I hear those network guys talking about) and is this good for you, or bad for you (less-of-a-tingle versus more-of-a-tingle.)

It's going to be great, we can be funded by the Grauniadista Institute of Science in the Public Interest for the rest of our lives. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? i2Brain Comment No. 324119 December 5 22:52 DEU WoollMindedLiberal: "They [scientists] have been right about an awful lot more than they've been wrong. And when exactly was the last time there a strong scientific consensus that turned out to be wrong?" Um, well, Newton's view of gravity, the speed of light (pre-Einstein), thalidomide, smoking, "thunder is the wrath of the gods", pi is the square root of 10, bees can't fly (proven!), the Earth is the centre of everything... I could go on, but you see my point? Bill Bryson's "A Short History..." describes so wonderfully that all science is wrong at all times. (Although it is generally approximately right for a while.) Let me turn it around - when has science been right. I mean really, totally and unchangeably right? Never, as far as we can ever know. So putting the inconclusive, inexact and insufficiently researched "views" of "scientists" above anybody's personal experience of WiFi or anything else is, as I said, in my view arrogant and highly unscientific. The "scio" of the observer is being ignored, which is by definition unscientific. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? WoollyMindedLiberal Comment No. 324121 December 5 22:56 GBR sanecyclist : "What consensus? There just hasn't been enough research into this, partly because scientists don't like to do a study where the likely result is "not proven" (rather than "proven wrong"), which on its own isn't very significant and also won't help much with funding applications."

How about this? http://iddd.de/umtsno/emfkrebs/rubin2005emf.pdf Thats quite enough for me. As a taxpayer I'm glad that my money isn't be wasted on trying to disprove highly improbable claims of electromagnetic hypersensitivity. You should read the good Ben Goldacre (he dislikes being called Dr in his journalistic aspect) more often. http://www.badscience.net/ [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? WoollyMindedLiberal Comment No. 324126 December 5 23:00 GBR i2Brain : "Um, well, Newton's view of gravity, the speed of light (pre-Einstein), thalidomide, smoking, "thunder is the wrath of the gods", pi is the square root of 10, bees can't fly (proven!), the Earth is the centre of everything... I could go on, but you see my point?" Yes. You are an idiot. Find me the peer reviewed paper published in a respectable journal and replicated claiming that bees cannot fly. I dare you. I double dare you. I know it doesn't exist and that story is a myth that only very, very foolish people repeat. I could correct you on the speed of light and how that was measured before Einstein but what would be the point? If you cared in facts or reality you'd have looked that up for yourself. Still, nice to see you making such a laughing-stock of yourself in public. Keep it up! [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? tangsonghe Comment No. 324130 December 5 23:03 GBR "Mr. tangsonghe, Can you propose a mechanism whereby a carrier frequency which has information modulated onto it can cause illness, whereas a carrier frequency which has no information modulated onto it does not cause illness?" No Delivsavocado I'm not going to bother myself with that! [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend?

ernoleadpencil Comment No. 324137 December 5 23:12 GBR Bare signals ... that is so cool. I shall now fill up the rest of this post with zeros. What the heck -- they are harmless. 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 See? Can't feel a thing. Have some more. 000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Perhaps it is a good idea to pad out your posts with zeros. It will give the kiddies' bodies time to rest in-between bursts of radioactive prose.000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 It's the responsible thing to do.0000000000000000000000000 ... [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? climbpaddlehike Comment No. 324150 December 5 23:28 USA "The new wireless technologies use pulsed microwaves (radiation) similar to those used in radar, not radio waves as is commonly believed." WiFi operates in the 2.4 to 2.5GHz range, identical to radar used by terminal air traffic control, long range weather, marine radar. In which case, if this type of radiation were a problem, you'd expect to see air traffic controllers, meteorologists and maritime radar operators experiencing "dizziness, a tingling all over the body (which in my case feels like being scrambled) headaches, extreme fatigue and confusion" - but you don't. Not only that, the epidemiology doesn't support such a scenario either. WiFi is now so pervasive that if you live in a decent city you can't avoid it, there is virtually no where within

my city where you can't find a wireless connection. In which case where are the droves of dizzy, tingling, confused patients with extreme fatigue and confusion? This is just more of the same old power-lines / cell phones nonsense. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? TheNuclearOption Comment No. 324163 December 5 23:51 GBR Everytime you walk past an unshielded cable carrying AC current you are subject to electro magnetic radiation. Perhaps Kate got her Wi-Fi confused with her hairdryer. Use of both will subject her to radiation. The thing I find funny is people who are against cell phone masts near schools. The energy of the radiation reduces as a square of the distance from the source. The energy from a cell phone mast drops away in a relatively short distance. However, the further you are from a cellphone mast the greater the energy of the signal your mobile phone must output to be received by the distant cellphone mast. So if you have no cellphone mast near a school or on the edge of reception the phone of every child in the class is going to be pumping out their maximum energy level. So what is more dangerous, one cellphone mast or 30 cell phones at close range all blasting out radiation at their maximum energy level? Sorry, just couldn't resist tweaking the tail of the those who are frightened of their own shadow which is of course caused by the absorption of high energy (compared to a mobile phone mast) radiation from the sun. Funny how people are paranoid about low energy radio waves but they are quite happy to sit in a park on a summers day and absorb radiation that is many times more powerful. When did you last hear of someone getting a suntan from their local mobile phone mast? [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? heavyrail Comment No. 324217 December 6 1:55 AUS

[xyzzy] Beware full stops! Thanks for the URL you posted, but it should've been http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyback_transformer (without the trailing . ) LCDs are usually better, but you still need to check. I once had a laptop with an LCD that screeched worse than a normal CRT (albeit nowhere near as bad as the worst CRTs). The problem was the backlight inverter. The sooner we move to LEDs, the better! As for James Bond's martinis, I was under the impression he originally preferred them stirred not shaken (like in You Only Live Twice) but Sean Connery decided "shaken not stirred" sounded better. And scientist have since proven that shaken martinis really are better - see http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s118518.htm [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? RogerINtheUSA Comment No. 324261 December 6 4:56 USA " Washington-based Science and Public Policy Insititute's Safe Wireless Initiative" Some Googling and checking the website seems to indicate that this is a one-man band. Us Amercans routinely set up grandiloquently - named Instututes of, Foundation for, Academy of .. etc to make our pronouncements seem more important than they really are. DC lobbies are particularly adept at this. It would be a good idea to take some of this with many large grains of salt. Roger Verity, Phd (USPS), Chairman The National Academy of Truth Washington DC [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? LordSummerisle Comment No. 324351 December 6 8:24 GBR @i2Brain "Eggheads! What do they know?" (Homer Simpson)

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? 11thGenerationYankee Comment No. 324402 December 6 9:33 USA Kate, Kate, Kate, pulsed microwaves are radio waves, just like any other. The only thing that makes them "micro" waves is the frequency. Pulsing actually reduces the net power output compared to not pulsing. Pulsing is one reason your digital cell phone's battery lasts longer than your old analog one's. Digital signals lend themselves to pulsing, while analog signals do not. But pulsing or not, micro or not, it's all still radio. And whatever do you mean by "bare" signals? Signals are signals. They may be modulated or not, but that doesn't change their essential nature. Just so there's no confusion, everyone should be aware that at every hour of the day and night, we are all totally immersed in radio waves. Totally. A broad spectrum of radiation blankets us and penetrates us continuously. Tossing your wi-fi will not change that. If you want to blame some physical condition on radio waves, go ahead. But understand that removing some localized source will not change the reality that we are all fully bombarded by broad-spectrum radio every minute of the day and night. From traditional radio to television, radar, cell phones, two-way radio, walkie-talkies, wi-fi, you name it, all wireless communications make use of radio waves and we are all completely immersed in them. Tin foil hat, anyone? [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? kimX Comment No. 324418 December 6 9:50 WoollyMindedLiberal - you pour scorn on i2Brain's individual examples, while ignoring the general point, which is that science often gets things wrong, and later has to change its mind. The ability of scientists to change their minds in the face of the evidence is, of course, what makes science such a successful way of understanding the world around us. The problem, I think, is that sometimes scientists get very wrapped up in the current scientific orthodoxy and don't like challenges to it. Hence the opprobrium poured initially on the idea that ulcers were caused by a bacterium rather than by stress. Or the certainty with which the

government's medical adviser announced that BSE cannot spread to humans. Or the once firmly-held belief that cervical cancer cannot be caused by a virus. So while it's fair enough to treat new ideas that don't fit in with the current scientific model with scepticism, it's also sometimes worth investigating them to see if they might, after all, be true. Indeed, if scientists didn't sometimes do this, then science wouldn't progress. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? onthefence Comment No. 324442 December 6 10:13 GBR KimX: Your first point is simply a variant on "Science doesn't know everything, therefore it knows nothing, and any random opinion as as good as any other". I'll leave you to spot the logical flaw there. This whole style of argument is so obviously wrong, it's amazing that it keeps being rehashed. Your second point seems identical to Peter Tatchell's in an earlier thread. "I don't know much science, but the scientists are locked into their orthodoxy/dogma, whereas I, thanks to my superior insight, have seen through them." By and large, scientists aren't locked into an orthodoxy, they spend their time exploring what they don't know. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? kimX Comment No. 324584 December 6 11:46 onthefence - that is an entirely unfair caricature of the point I'm making. I don't think any random opinion is as good as any other, and I certainly wouldn't argue that "science knows nothing." What a strange view that would be - and one you certainly couldn't derive from what I wrote. My point is, simply, that science sometimes gets things wrong. Of course it does - mistakes are inevitable in any human endeavour. Generally, the scientific method is superior to other methods of arriving at the truth because it actually tests theories against reality. But sometimes scientists get so wedded to the prevailing dominant view in their field that they

dismiss any challenge to it out-of-hand. All I'm saying is that if you always do that then you miss the opportunity to make a new discovery. Scientific endeavour is, surely, based on curiosity, and if you insist that anyone who makes a challenge to the currently dominant point of view is an idiot or a moron, then you're defeating the point of the enterprise. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? MagicGeoffrey Comment No. 324607 December 6 11:59 GBR Just want to add my voice poo-pooing this nonsense. Get a life Kate, and find a cause worth fighting for. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? MagicGeoffrey Comment No. 324611 December 6 12:00 GBR Just want to add my voice poo-pooing this nonsense. Seriously, there are causes worth using your position as a journalist to publicise. This is not one of them. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? Voodoo Comment No. 324621 December 6 12:06 GBR Blenkinsop posted: "the Guardian technology blog has put up a post that says you probably can't pass a double blind test as to whether or not wi-fi is in a particular room. Arrange a test, take it and pass it. then we can take this seriously."

There is currently some discussion (see http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=69442) on the JREF forum as to whether passing such a test would be eligible for the JREF's Million Dollar Challenge. Perhaps Ms. Figes would like to apply? Details here: http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? onthefence Comment No. 324654 December 6 12:28 GBR KimX: "My point is, simply, that science sometimes gets things wrong." Well, yes, that's certainly true. If that's your entire point, then why come onto a WiFi/health discussion to make it? Presumably there's conclusion you wish to draw from this point, in relation to the WiFi/health question? I assumed the implied line of argument was "Science sometimes gets it wrong, therefore these microwaves really might be making you ill - you never know". If that isn't your point, then I apologise, (though I still don't understand why you came on to make it). If that is your point, then we're back around to "any random opinion is as good as any other" again. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? ArmchairPundit Comment No. 324685 December 6 12:54 IRL sanecyclist: I've had a think about it and reckon that a "resonance" explanation is still a sensible analogy, except it's important to say what the resonance is with. In this case it's frustrated rotations due to the complex network of interactions in liquid water: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_bonds The problem with the classical EM field interacting with a dipole model is it doesn't explain why water is transparent to visible light, which is just another portion of the EM spectrum. (not entirely true since there is some absorption in the red end of the visible spectrum which is why water is blue).

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? kimX Comment No. 324705 December 6 13:05 onthefence - you asked, why come onto a wifi/health discussion to make the point that science sometimes gets things wrong. Well, why not? It's a free country, or so people say. I was interested in people's responses to Kate Figes's piece, and I became irritated by WoollyMindedLiberal's arrogant post, so decided to respond to it. As for whether wi-fi makes people ill, I have no idea. There are people on this board who have a much better understanding of the scientific issues than I do. Most of the scientific research seems to point to wifi being safe - though if, as you imply, only a moron would regard it as being unsafe in the first place, I'm not sure why they needed to do the research. But there you go. What do I know? [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? onthefence Comment No. 324737 December 6 13:23 GBR KimX: "you asked, why come onto a wifi/health discussion to make the point that science sometimes gets things wrong. Well, why not? It's a free country, " You're certainly free to make the point. I could come on and announce that "the Moon is 250,000 miles away", which is true, but a completely pointless piece of information to throw into this discussion. That's why I assumed you has some kind of reason for making your point, though you've now put me right on that. "Most of the scientific research seems to point to wifi being safe - though if, as you imply, only a moron would regard it as being unsafe in the first place, I'm not sure why they needed to do the research." Er, no, I didn't imply that. You're now putting words into my mouth. I'll leave you to debate this against yourself... [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? Wolfbone Comment No. 324783

December 6 13:51 "I think this should be seen as a fundamental contravention of human rights rather than simply as a health issue." Having had to bone up on this subject because of what transpired in the related Guardian tech. blog thread recently, the question of human rights that occurred to me was this: What can be done - without trampling the rights to freedom of expression and speech - about the harmful "nocebosmog" emanating from the media and from the many scaremongering pseudo dot orgs and their websites/webshops? Alarmist distortion and misrepresentation of science may not be the greatest ever public health menace but perhaps it is something worth thinking about. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? kimX Comment No. 324784 December 6 13:51 Onthefence - me, put words in your mouth? Surely not. But really, I'm not quite sure why you think I'm so off-topic. Other people were already arguing about how science works. I was just joining that particular debate. You know, that's how discussion works - one thing leads to another. If you ever follow the discussions that follow other people's blogs on the forum, you'll have noticed that. Just one more thing. I consistently try to be polite and friendly on this forum. I find it makes the debate more productive. I don't think you do yourself any favours by being so rude and unpleasant to someone who is simply trying to make a point. Why not try being nice for once? You might find you have more fruitful discussions. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? WoollyMindedLiberal Comment No. 324975 December 6 15:36 GBR If the report from AirMagnet is to be believed (a big if admittedly) then Kate can protect herself from nasty WiFi signals by hanging Xmas decorations. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/06/no_wifi_for_xmas/ I'll be rude about KimX later. Happy St Nicholas Day! [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Recommend? RodRead Comment No. 325092 December 6 16:43 GBR As we know from the 300 individuals registered with us as reacting unexpectedly and unpleasantly with ill health symptoms to electromagnetic fields and microwave radiation, all 'electrosmog', this is a slow onset condition, usually, and difficult to puzzle out. ES is not easily susceptible to crudely designed and even cruel provocation studies which make participants so ill most withdraw, others will not volunteer, certainly not serious sufferers. As interested parties in this wireless technology may be aware, Wireless LAN systems use broadly the same concepts as mobile phones, namely �soft� (low-frequency) microwaves which are amplitude modulated (�pulsed�) to enable synchronisation and efficient use of bandwidth (radio frequency spectrum). Despite bland reassurances from commercial operators who never produce studies showing safety testing, the real position is there is a very substantial amount of evidence that such emissions � at levels within the �safety� guidelines used by our Government - can, and do, cause ill-health effects ranging from difficult to pin down �unwellness� (headaches, nausea, hearing impairment) to lifethreatening disorders such as cancer and brain degenerative diseases. That evidence includes: (a) Peer-reviewed research studies showing specific effects on brain cells and brain function, certain of which have knock-on effects due to the brain�s key role in regulating body chemistry; (b) Peer-reviewed research studies showing detrimental effects of emissions specifically from mobile phone masts (Operating a WLAN facility within a school classroom is comparable to having a mobile phone mast permanently emitting from within that classroom); those effects are directly in line with the research findings referred to in (a); (c) Definitive statements by literally thousands of medical specialists � most of them doctors and professors of medicine � that emissions of this type are responsible for a wide range of disorders, ranging from distressing to life-threatening; those specialists base their firm views on this matter on in-depth investigations of patient lifestyles and living/working environments, they also indicate that these disorders are occurring in increasing numbers and at lower ages, and are less amenable to treatment than has previously been the case. Again, the types of disorders they cite are in keeping with (a) and (b) above; (d) Anecdotal evidence, from around a large number of masts across the UK, of symptoms experienced by substantial numbers of people living and/or working in the vicinity of those masts; again, these reports are in accordance with research and medical evidence as described in (a) � (c) above. All across Britain there are groups of parents, headteachers, groups of school governors, fighting to prevent masts being erected in close proximity to schools � for very good reason. It seems odd that at the same time there are schools inviting the equivalent of a phone mast

right inside classrooms where children of primary school age spend five or six hours every weekday. This can only be due to a misunderstanding of the issues involved. Probably down to the bluster from the industry fooling people everywhere, especially in the media, and even on this website. Ask them for their safety test results and you get more bluster, no reports. Try it. For references refer to Dr Grahame Blackwell at http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/wlan_general.doc For more evidence and elucidation refer to http://www.radiationresearch.org/HPA_EileenOConnor%20v12b.pdf or us at www.electrosensitivity.org.uk

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? Delivsavocado Comment No. 325148 December 6 17:15 USA Mr. RodRead, You wrote, (is this another wind-up??), " As we know from the 300 individuals registered with us as reacting unexpectedly and unpleasantly with ill health symptoms to electromagnetic fields and microwave radiation, all 'electrosmog', this is a slow onset condition, usually, and difficult to puzzle out. ES is not easily susceptible to crudely designed and even cruel provocation studies which make participants so ill most withdraw, others will not volunteer, certainly not serious sufferers." When the 300 people registered with you, did they come in and say, "Hello, I'm suffering from "electrosmog" syndrome and I'd like to register with you"? What criteria did you use to include the people as being diagnosed with "electrosmog syndrome"? Is it just a catch-all diagnosis if there is no other explanation for the symptoms (dizzynes, tingly feeling, scrambled), and the person has a cell phone, or a wireless router in their home? Is Ms. Figes registered? Maybe you should contact her? And who are you anyway?(or "us" as you say, rather secretively and sinisterly) Your in curiousity, Dr. Johnny Von Neumann [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Recommend? onthefence Comment No. 325176 December 6 17:32 GBR "As interested parties in this wireless technology may be aware, Wireless LAN systems use broadly the same concepts as mobile phones, namely ?soft? (low-frequency) microwaves which are amplitude modulated (?pulsed?) to enable synchronisation and efficient use of bandwidth (radio frequency spectrum)... " Look, this doesn't make sense, you clearly haven't the foggiest idea what you're saying, you're just cranking out a word salad of techy-sounding jargon. It's just a bog-standard piece of pseudo-scientific quackery. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? Wolfbone Comment No. 325225 December 6 18:14 "Is this another wind-up??" No, it's a manifestation of the headache and nausea inducing "nocebosmog" I was referring to earlier. http://xrl.us/tpdu [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? Delivsavocado Comment No. 325237 December 6 18:23 USA Mr. Wolfbone, What about diagnostic inclusion criteria for "electrosmog syndrome"? [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? BigYank76 Comment No. 325289

December 6 19:08 USA I just get around these problems by wearing a skullcap of tinfoil, seems to do the trick for me as I haven't heard any voices or felt any tingling for awhile now. I hear the CIA and aliens can't read my mind when I do this, don't have any proof on this yet but I haven't seen any UFO's either. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? Delivsavocado Comment No. 325316 December 6 19:38 USA BigYank, You're wrong. It is well known that aliens are able to penetrate tin-foil helmets with their mind-reading force fields, using what is known as the "Schlumberger Effect" (with an umlaut over the u for extra prestige.) The Schlumberger effect does not work if the alien signals are "bare", but works well when the aliens modulate a Paris Hilton video clip onto the carrier. For further details, see www.electrosensitivity.org.uk [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? gurner Comment No. 325331 December 6 19:49 GBR Its funny I was thinking about the other day. While I'm not worried that I'm going to be cooked, pretty soon the air's going to be thick with wi-fi signals. They are electromagnetic waves, whatever they're strength they are going to have some kind of effect however infinitessimal. Multiply that by the amount of base stations, hubs, routers and modems in any urban area, then multiply that by the spam and taliored advertising (routed through RFID tags that we will be wearing and carrying) and sooner or later its got to have some biological effect, even if that effect takes years to accumulate. Maybe it will transpire to be benign, but I do think serious testing needs to be done - not testing just one signal, but more realistically reflecting what life will be like in the wi-fi RFID world, when wireless advertising licenses

will be given out with corn-flake boxes because it will make the government lots of nice revenue. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? TheNuclearOption Comment No. 325350 December 6 20:16 GBR Get your all new potable Faraday Cage, just what every concerned parent needs for their children. Simply log onto www.imastupidarse.com and leave your credit card details. Also, coming soon our radical new anti-RFID talisman, protect yourself from the lethal cabbage rays of the RFID tag. Many important scientists have printed in peer reviewed research the threat from deadly cabbage rays polluting our atmosphere. Log on to www.IbelieveAllThecrapImTold.com for the latest information and to leave a donation. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? BigYank76 Comment No. 325386 December 6 21:18 USA DelivsAvocadoI have the latest Belkin AntiBilderburger Firewalls, this will supposedly protect me from the Schlumburger effect. TheNuclearOptionCan you send me a catalog showing all these wonderful products, I would go to the website but I'm afraid of all the radiation I'll recieve. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? WoollyMindedLiberal Comment No. 325432 December 6 21:59 GBR kimX : "The ability of scientists to change their minds in the face of the evidence is, of course, what makes science such a successful way of understanding the world around us."

You go on to list examples where the consensus changed almost overnight in response to evidence and claim this proves that scientists are "very wrapped up in the current scientific orthodoxy and don't like challenges to it." Not contradicting yourself by any chance are you? You anti-science mumbo-jumbo types often fall into that trap.

kimX : "So while it's fair enough to treat new ideas that don't fit in with the current scientific model with scepticism, it's also sometimes worth investigating them to see if they might, after all, be true. Indeed, if scientists didn't sometimes do this, then science wouldn't progress." This starts off reasonably but then leaps off into typical anti-science nonsense that demands every crank's leylines', 'magic' crystals or perpetual motion machine has to be taken seriously and disproved. This is a profoundly stupid thing to say. If you've got some evidence that the current understanding of physics can be improved then go ahead and prove it. Standing there crying because the nasty scientists won't believe that there are fairies at the bottom of your garden will only get you some thoroughly deserved ridicule. As a taxpayer I don't want to see my taxes wasted on grants for research into esp, 'electro-smog' and so on unless there are some reasonable grounds for thinking its worth looking into. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? charlesa Comment No. 325445 December 6 22:11 GBR Well, as the author of the story (http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1959714,00.html) that triggered this piece by Kate Figes (when we called her to check a fact in a letter we'd received on the piece).. I later received a number of calls from people who said they were sensitive to Wi-Fi. I asked them if they had tried the test that's in the article. None had. They said it would make them feel too ill. I contacted James Rubin (who did the EMF sensitivity study referenced above, thanks WoollyMindedLiberal) to ask if people dropping out of studies because they made them ill didn't invalidate them, or at least significantly weaken their power. He pointed out that "as we showed in our study, when they do drop out they are just as likely to drop out after a placebo condition as after a genuine condition. So even here there is no evidence for genuine sensitivity." Ben Goldacre has written on this topic too (in May: http://www.badscience.net/?p=239). He, like me, thinks the *symptoms* are real, but I (and I think he) reckon that the cause is

different. Rubin thinks it could be a "nocebo" - that is, a placebo, or inactive component, which has a negative effect on the recipient. Certainly the sight of a mobile phone mast does seem to bring Ms Figes out in a rash of words like "human rights" and "must be proved safe". There's a syndrome here we need to examine. The fact is all the studies, on mobiles and pretty much anything else you care to name, show no replicable effects on people - not cancer (see the big Danish study showing no excess cancers in a huge group) or others. But those with the syndrome demand we stop all clicks until we're sure of being "safe". Funny how pretty much nothing else that's already in our lives needs to be proved safe - in fact, we detest the Health and Safety Executive for finding risk where previously we'd just accepted it as part of life, such as conkers falling from trees - but when we introduce a new technology that builds on ones we've been using for, say, a century (radio), or 50 years (microwaves) there's suddenly a cause for saying "Oh, science is always wrong" and that this stuff must be a threat. I'll repeat: I think these *symptoms* are real. But in the quotable words of Radiohead, "Just because you feel it, doesn't mean it's there." I remain a sceptic, because there's nothing there in the science - no outliers, no odd little studies getting replicated, no scientists saying "Well, there was this surprising result.." When the consensus is about to change, you hear those little expressions of doubt. (I heard them on BSE.) I'm not hearing them now from the scientists, who are the ones who count, because they're disinterested. They're not selling McGuffin "protection" from stuff, and they're not looking for a new cause. They're just interested in understanding whether something's true. And so far, this one's a big wash. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? jefferson Comment No. 325477 December 6 22:40 GBR Wooltmindedliberal: "Still, nice to see you making such a laughing-stock of yourself in public. Keep it up!" Very unkind comment especially as you responded to an Eric Blair quote in cif by pointing out that he was an Oxford educated barrister and resident of Islington. WMLiberal didn't realise that Eric Blair's nom de plume was George Orwell ; definitely not our current PM. Lesser men might be a little embarrassed, not WML! [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? spacepenguin

Comment No. 325663 December 7 4:08 GBR WoollyMindedLiberal : While i'm sure KimX can speak for herself herself , it's not strictly true that the consensus changed swiftly regarding Helicobacter . According to the US CDC (Center for Disease Control) the link between Helicobacter pylori and ulcers was first made in 1982 , it wasn't until 1994 that the NiH in the US confirmed this and recommended anti-biotics for treating ulcers. 12 years is hardly overnight . In an ideal world scientists would change their minds instantly if the evidence warranted it . In the real world politicking , institutional inertia and the inherent human tendency to conservatism all play a part in maintaining the consensus of scientists . Personally i think any theory that makes empirical predictions should be entertained , without regard for its seeming unlikeliness to talking primates on a spinning rock . This is why astrology is science and intelligent design , for instance , is pseudoscience . It has nothing to do with what seems reasonable , but what can be predicted . Astrology , nobly , makes endless amounts of predictions all of which , except perhaps the baffling 'mars effect', have been proven false . Intelligent design makes no predictions at all . The claim that modulated electromagnetic fields can cause illness has been taken seriously and tested for mobile phones . The studies , as charlesa says , have shown no negative effects on health . This , i would say , falsifies a good part of the electro-smog hypothesis . At least as i understand it . [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? WoollyMindedLiberal Comment No. 325773 December 7 8:59 GBR jefferson : "Very unkind comment especially as you responded to an Eric Blair quote in cif by pointing out that he was an Oxford educated barrister and resident of Islington. WMLiberal didn't realise that Eric Blair's nom de plume was George Orwell ; definitely not our current PM. Lesser men might be a little embarrassed, not WML!" Don't be daft, even I know that George Orwell was really the Eton-educated journalist Eric Blair.

spacepenguin : "According to the US CDC (Center for Disease Control) the link between

Helicobacter pylori and ulcers was first made in 1982 , it wasn't until 1994 that the NiH in the US confirmed this and recommended anti-biotics for treating ulcers. 12 years is hardly overnight ." Actually the position is more complex than that. Despite what KimX might think, peptic ulcers are not caused solely by infections and psychological factors are still recognised as contributory. Have you lot never heard of Wikipedia? Do I have to cut and paste stuff from their for you or can I leave it as an exercise for the reader? [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? ElmerPhudd Comment No. 325825 December 7 9:45 GBR I am deeply grateful for all the above discussions. As of about thirty minutes time I'm going to take the telly aerial off the roof as it is attracting things I can't see. Also I believe my telly also gives off electromagnetic waves so that's going in the bin, too. As for that DAB radio thingy -- I'm so relived that I've not rushed out and bought a receiver. Can someone post a URL for all the ley lines in the U.K. please. I want to try to avoid all the EM stuff around me. Protect and survive. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? unstrung Comment No. 325877 December 7 10:18 GBR "(Operating a WLAN facility within a school classroom is comparable to having a mobile phone mast permanently emitting from within that classroom)" A WLAN base-station typically runs at 100 milliwatts. Leakage from a microwave oven is typically around 1 watt

For those like RodRead who that have trouble counting up to two using both hands, that means that a WLAN base-station emits about a tenth as much as having a running microwave oven in the room. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? ArmchairPundit Comment No. 326021 December 7 11:48 IRL http://www.theregister.com/2006/12/06/phones_still_safe/ [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? WoollyMindedLiberal Comment No. 326068 December 7 12:08 GBR Thanks armchairpundit. Sadly these studies are a massive waste of money as none of the antiscience nutters, or "Campaigners against Stuff" as El Reg calls them, are ever swayed by facts and no rational person thought their mobiles were giving them cancer any more than a bruise will give them cancer. Only Danish taxpayers and charitable money was wasted on this. Shame it wasn't spent on doing some research into cancer treatments which might have achieved something. http://jncicancerspectrum.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/jnci;98/23/1707 [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? DaveMWW Comment No. 326191 December 7 13:19 GBR I'd bet money that there is a significant correlation between people who claim to suffer from WiFi sickness and people who believe in homeopathy and/or were taken in by the MMR scare.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? topazg Comment No. 326228 December 7 13:38 GBR I'm amazed at the pot calling kettle black attacks that seem to go on with these contentious subjects. The "Campaigners against stuff" saying that anything will kill you, and the "Campaigners against campaigners against stuff" saying that it's all a bunch of scaremongering luddite nonsense, are both guilty of the same thing, gross ignorance. Very few people that have posted here appear to have any understanding of just how different TV transmissions, radio broadcasts, and WiFi transmissions are - in fact, a large number of people have even tried to package them into the same box. When are people going to accept that to be worried about a possible risk is quite reasonable behaviour, especially when there _is_ evidence to suggest that it might have some chance of being true. I have no intent on regurgitating much of the content I have already posted on this subject, but will include links to discussions I have made elsewhere: http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,10004574o-2000331766b,00.htm (posting again under topazg) http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/archives/2006/11/25/wireless_technology_made_me_s ick_claims_author_kate_figes.html (posting again under topazg) There is a wealth of evidence now to suggest that modern digitally pulsed microwave frequency communications _may_ pose a problem to health. Of course it isn't proved, it's not actually possible to prove either (especially to prove there isn't an effect), but with the evidence that currently exists to criticise people of worrying for their health seems somewhat out of order, even if you don't agree. With regards to the latest Danish mobile phone study - it is in indeed very much a waste of time, under the basis that they simply couldn't collect the data required to properly compare phone users and non-phone users: http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20061206_danish_phones_cancer.asp (news story is my text) - Graham [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? WoollyMindedLiberal Comment No. 326372

December 7 14:54 GBR topazg : "With regards to the latest Danish mobile phone study - it is in indeed very much a waste of time, under the basis that they simply couldn't collect the data required to properly compare phone users and non-phone users:" As Ford Prefect put it in the HHGTTG "Prove it to me and I still won't believe it." there is no persuading some people. If every scientist in the world spent their whole careers producing studies on the MMR vaccine it wouldn't convince Melanie Phillips. This manifestation of "Electrosmog" will go away when there is a new widespread consumer product for them to attach their fears to. I wonder what it will be .... iPods must be a strong bet as there are an awful lot of them around and those wires go into the ears so they could be beaming radiation into children's brains! [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? topazg Comment No. 326396 December 7 15:04 GBR I agree that there is no convincing some people -- the same no doubt goes for those that still believe smoking tobacco to be of negligible risk. The problem here is the current overpolarisation of views. This whole section of science is still very undecided, and for people to act as though the evidence is authoritative one way or the other is premature. The other reason we choose to be so precautionary on this issue is under the basis that there will soon be no unexposed population in this country -- with WiFi, WiMax, mobile phone masts, mobile phones and DECT cordless phones, the exposure will be completely ubiqituous. This in turn will mean that if there is an effect, it will simply never be found as it will be affecting as all. It seems prudent whilst there is the opportunity to research this further that we should do so _before_ the mass implementation of the technology, though that is also not possible now in most cases. http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/20060818_viewgraphs.asp This is an interesting analysis of recent research, from both the Hardell lot and the Interphone group, and it does show something at least. Maybe one group has done their research wrong, maybe the other has, but I still contest that a statistically significant protective effect from phones is unlikely. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? spacepenguin

Comment No. 326442 December 7 15:28 GBR WoollyMindedLiberal : I didn't state peptic ulcers were solely caused by infection . My point was that scientific consensus has a sociological element to it , though it is certainly not the major element it is significant . The string theory controversy , for instance , is a good example of this . topazg : Are there any upcoming studies that might settle this to your satisfaction one way or another ? From what i can tell most researchers don't think there is a link between domestic devices that use electromagnetic waves and ill health . [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? topazg Comment No. 326501 December 7 15:49 GBR spacepenguin (like the name btw): Regarding phones - Unfortunately no, not at the moment. I had very high hopes initially of what might have come from the Interphone group work, but there were some fairly important flaws in their consideration of exposure confounders (for example in no case have they taken DECT cordless phones into account, despite the fact they are now very common in domestic households across Europe) that unfortunately could mean their unexposed groups are as exposed as their exposed groups. If so, this would obviously invalidate all the hard work they have put in to date. There is also research like the Danish study in the last few days which seems spectacularly poor given the amount of money thrown at it. Regarding base stations - nothing specifically, but there is a lot of research that has come out in the last few months, and almost all of it has found significant adverse health effects - this I am trying to keep up to date on, and appears to be genuinely concerning. Regarding WiFi / Wireless networks - AFAIK there is nothing published, nor anything planned -- I must confess I would like to see research being done into this area for the reasons covered in this article amongst others. Regards Powerlines / Substations - I cannot say much due to disclosure agreements, but the SAGE process (which we are involved in: http://www.rkpartnership.com/sage/) running in

this country is hopefully soon going to announce their conlusions. This I suspect may be interesting and surprising to a lot of EMF sceptics out there, but we shall see. And I don't think we can say "most researchers" really - what we see in the "associated press" is rarely a true indicator of "most researchers", and we certainly know plenty that are on both sides of the fence (and some sitting firmly on top of it). Interestingly, in most of the nonpublic scientific debates we have been involved in, the real scepticism is not that the science does not support it (as there is plenty of peer-reviewed science that does), but that there is no known mechanism that could cause the problems being reported. Without mechanism, a lot of people refuse to entertain these ideas on principle. - Grhaam [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? spacepenguin Comment No. 326614 December 7 16:48 GBR topazg : Thank you for a detailed reply . I have to admit i am quite ignorant on this subject , my interest in this thread came more from the nature of scientific consensus than a particular view on electro-smog . I am not sympathetic to mechanism arguments , if an effect happens it happens . I hope this can be cleared up soon . If , as you say , researchers are not really questioning whether there is significant statistical effect , but only if there could be a mechanism , then that is worrying . btw the link you gave doesn't work . [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? LemonGrass Comment No. 326672 December 7 17:13 GBR She does bang on about phone masts as well: http://www.n16mag.com/issue25/p7i25.htm

(Fyi, N16 Magazine is a dreadful publication who seems to think its the "Undisputed voice of Stokey") [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? topazg Comment No. 326721 December 7 17:51 GBR SpacePenguin: At the end of the day, I think most people just want things to work and there to be no health effects. It would be good if that turned out to be the case! Sorry for the link, it was supposed to be .co.uk: http://www.rkpartnership.co.uk/sage/ [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? statisticsandspin Comment No. 327058 December 7 22:38 Haven't read much of this thread, looks interesting... DaveMWW, Do you know the figures for autism in Britain and USA at the present time and also 60 yrs ago? Any ideas? No? Nice to leave the thinking to your government isn't it they'll take care of you - no need to tax your brain with a bit of research. The FDA has rejected calls to limit the use of mercury preservative in vaccines (this may increase to five times the present level). Do you know anything about mercury Dave? Best just to trust your government they'll take care of you and your children (if you have any). [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? TheNuclearOption Comment No. 327135 December 8 0:24 GBR

BigYank76 "TheNuclearOptionCan you send me a catalog showing all these wonderful products, I would go to the website but I'm afraid of all the radiation I'll recieve." Are you a mentalist? A catalog, made of paper and ink. You expect me to handle hazardous CHEMICALS. Do you know what is in ink? CHEMICALS, and as for the paper, its CARBON man. Haven't you heard, CARBON is one of the most toxic substances on Earth. I read on www.MyLittlePonyIsGoingToDrownToDeathBecauseOfThoseEvilScientistScumThatVivisec tAndIrradiate.com (while wearing my portable Faraday cage) that CARBON is even more deadly than Polonium 210 absolutely billions are going to die because of catalogs. Haven't you heard of WMD? Bush and Blair have been looking everywhere for them in Iraq. They were sure Sadam had a secret stash of back issues of FHM and GQ just waiting to burn them and spread chaos and destruction around the world. But now I realise that was a red herring. While we were looking for his hidden magazine racks he was secretly putting up mobile phone masts planing to flood the universe with radiation (including the parallel ones like the one where they realised that Madona was pants and no one bought her records). The cunning swine. Love this article, it is nice to see an ambulance chaser fall flat on his face: http://microcast.biz/mw0206health.pdf [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? panayis Comment No. 327188 December 8 2:05 GBR As a radio amateur living near a mast I wish I could uphold the notion that ICNIRP compliant emissions are without adverse impact on health. I am readily familiar with the commonly quoted symptoms that seem to present amongst residents near base stations. What I found both worrying and intriguing is the remarkably consistent response these symptoms have when the radiation is reduced by effective shielding. The placebo effect does not offer convincing rationalisation, as the shielding in some instances was more effective than paracetamol and prescription sleeping tablets. At least 15 case studies show that the symptoms were consistently mitigated due to effective shielding. Double blind trials are unlikely to yield meaningful results as the onset of and recovery from these symptoms can take up 6 months. "Microwave syndrome� first appeared as early as 1932, I would urge those that may have doubts to make the effort and take a really close (rather than a cursory) look at the science. Those that might take comfort from the recently published Danish study should be aware that out of the 600,000 people studied 200,000 were excluded because they were corporate subscribers. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Recommend? WoollyMindedLiberal Comment No. 327359 December 8 9:15 GBR panayis : "The placebo effect does not offer convincing rationalisation... Double blind trials are unlikely to yield meaningful results" Classic anti-science twaddle, when the science proves you wrong you start waffling. Its amazing how alleged electro-magnetic sensitivity disappears when properly tested. Dousing goes the same way also. The placebo and nocebo effects are well established and known to be very strong, after all they were almost the entire basis of medicine until fairly recently. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? needtea Comment No. 327399 December 8 9:52 GBR panayis; "Double blind trials are unlikely to yield meaningful results" yet you also get a "remarkably consistent response [on symptoms] when the radiation is reduced by effective shielding" So what's the objection to a double-blind trial using real and fake shielding? [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? topazg Comment No. 327531 December 8 11:14 GBR The problem with double blind tests is what you are looking for. Some people seem to take hours to react to MW exposure others get headaches almost instantly. The latter for example I have seen working without the recipient being aware of the source being turned on (normally by someone in another room taking a mobile phone call).

We also know two people who were originally taking part in the Essex study, and were getting very ill quite early on because of the (according to them) lengths of exposure they were receiving. They were told they had to live with it (couldn't change the exposure metrics now the study was under way) or leave, so they felt they had no option to leave. "Its amazing how alleged electro-magnetic sensitivity disappears when properly tested." It's amazing how little you have to back up that sentence. Placebo / Nocebo can give a possible explanation to a lot of things, but it isn't necessarily the right explanation for everything. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? onthefence Comment No. 327589 December 8 11:46 GBR "The problem with double blind tests is what you are looking for. Some people seem to take hours to react to MW exposure others get headaches almost instantly. The latter for example I have seen working without the recipient being aware of the source being turned on (normally by someone in another room taking a mobile phone call)." Double blind trials? Bah, what good are they, when pitted against my extensive list of anecdotes? Priceless. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? UseSomeSense Comment No. 327602 December 8 11:53 GBR What exactly is a "bare signal" which presumably does not carry any information? I think we should be told. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? FrogStar Comment No. 327682

December 8 12:43 GBR The highest amplitude high-frequency RF we get exposed to is from using a mobile handset. Anything else (unless it's some plasma arc welder or a US crowd control device) gets watered down to comparatively miniscule levels by the inverse square law ... double the distance, quarter the intensity. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? needtea Comment No. 327696 December 8 12:50 GBR Topazg: When Wooly said "Its amazing how alleged electro-magnetic sensitivity disappears when properly tested" I think he's referring to the same double-blind studies he mentioned on 5 Dec: http://iddd.de/umtsno/emfkrebs/rubin2005emf.pdf And although people might drop out of them, from what CharlesA said above, it seems like they're just as likely to drop out following a placebo condition as following a real one. Presumably you don't yet know why those two contacts of yours had to leave the Essex study? [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? WoollyMindedLiberal Comment No. 327700 December 8 12:55 GBR topazg : "Some people seem to take hours to react to MW exposure others get headaches almost instantly. The latter for example I have seen working without the recipient being aware of the source being turned on (normally by someone in another room taking a mobile phone call)." So you claim to have witnessed a person who instantly gets headaches every time a mobile phone is used anywhere near them including a different room? What is the range of this amazing ability and does it work through any thickness of wall?

Frankly I don't believe you, but if you aren't lying through your teeth then this should be easy to reproduce in properly controlled circumstances to prove us rational sceptics wrong. I'd be delighted to be proven wrong as it could be the start of a massive breakthrough for science. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? topazg Comment No. 327909 December 8 15:17 GBR @Onthefence: I did not mock the validity of double-blind trials, nor did I give any claim that anecdotes were good scientific evidence. I did point out that some anecdotes seem to imply people react differently, and therefore when conducting a double-blind study it is important to know what you should be looking for. Take some time to read the post if you are going to make an attempt to criticise. @needtea: The rubin study was an interesting one. He has also done a provocation study with Charles Wessely fairly recently that failed to find a connection - which, apart from the fact their sham exposure also included some not inconsiderable RF exposure (though continuous wave, not pulsed) seemed to be a well conducted study. There are indeed certainly plenty of provocation studies that have failed to find the connection. However, some of the references in the 2005 HPA RPD Irvine report have found some interesting results on questionnaire surveys (which I accept also are very limited): http://www.hpa.org.uk/radiation/publications/hpa_rpd_reports/2005/hpa_rpd_010.htm @WoolyMindedLiberal: Yes, I have witnessed a person responding in this way. I'm afraid I did no further tests to answer your other questions (funnily enough - "excuse me, I know it might give you some problems but can I put you through a series of tests to satisfy my own personal curiosity") about range and wall thickness. The person in question has to have the power off in his house (at the consumer unit) when he is at home, and finds it very uncomfortable to drive or be driven in a car with much electrics. He doesn't own a mobile phone, nor does he allow them in the building he works (FYI, his name is Brian Stein and he is currently CEO of Samworth Brothers, a half-billion pound food manufacturing company). Could it be nocebo? Of course it could, though even the Irvine report linked to above considers Electrical Sensitivity a genuine and real condition - albeit without accepting the connection to EMF exposure. So instead of being a nocebo it could be a real condition brought about by overly high levels of worry from being near EMF sources (i.e. a selfinduced physical condition with a psychological origin). It could also be that the effect is real. I accept that this case example is purely anecdote, and one being given by a random poster on an internet news feedback section. However, I hope you will note that I also didn't try to make out that it was anything else, or that it proved the case one way or another. Frankly, I couldn't care less whether you believe me or not - I don't know you and have no reason to be interested in what you think or believe. I do find it amusing however that you can

cast such doubt on my honesty purely on the basis that I have stated something that you think unlikely. My points earlier were aimed to highlight that it is not necessarily easy to reproduce, depending on how you are going about attempting to reproduce the symptoms, and what symptoms you are looking for. Maybe some people react to powerfrequency EMFs but not RFR, maybe some people are the other way round? Maybe the symptoms exhibited are different in different people? Maybe it may take days of exposure for the symptoms to start showing? It may not be easy to do a "one case fits all" experiment. You can consider yourself a rational sceptic in much the same way as I can consider myself a rational believer. I personally hope you are not wrong - I don't like the idea that the very instruments I rely on for a living could potentially give me some allergic condition that would render me virtually incapable of using them. It's not the sort of breakthrough I would want to see to be honest, but hopefully, if it is real, it will be recognised in the end and understood for whatever it actually is. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? onthefence Comment No. 327976 December 8 15:59 GBR topazg: "I did not mock the validity of double-blind trials, nor did I give any claim that anecdotes were good scientific evidence. I did point out that some anecdotes seem to imply people react differently, and therefore when conducting a double-blind study it is important to know what you should be looking for. Take some time to read the post if you are going to make an attempt to criticise." Rest assured I did read the post. You seem to agree that anecdotes aren't good scientific evidence, but, undeterred, you present them anyway. Obviously "people react differently", otherwise all medical trials could be conducted on just one person. "...it is important to know what you should be looking for". Well, thanks for that insight too. Your position combines arrant nonsense with statements of the blindingly obvious. When challenged about the arrant nonsense, you reply by repeating the blindingly obvious bits. It's one of the oldest debating tricks in quackery. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? needtea

Comment No. 327988 December 8 16:09 GBR Topagz: What exactly do you mean by "real"? I think everyone here accepts that the symptoms Kate or panayis or Brian Stein experiences are real. They're hardly imaginary are they? The question is whether they are caused by electromagnetic fields, or by psychological things such as the nocebos or worry or whatever, or by something else entirely. Yes, doing the double-blind studies properly sounds very difficult. RCTs always are. But you do accept that they have been done. 31 times in fact, according to that Rubin paper. And that some (many?) have been well-conducted. And they all suggest that if you really want to get to the bottom of this then the boffins should now be looking at options other than the EMF one. How many more of these studies would you need to see before you would agree with that? BTW what difference does it make that Brian Stein runs a business? [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? WoollyMindedLiberal Comment No. 328006 December 8 16:22 GBR Its stange you didnt mention that Brian Stein is the CEO of a company that sells Electrosensitivity products, emf detectors and related Electrosmog quackery. He does sounds like exactly the sort of person who would claim that. http://www.detect-protect.com/ He might even believe his own claims but I'd bet his billion dollar company that he couldn't pass a properly constructed double-blind test. Is he really the CEO of Samworth Brothers? Their website claims the CEO's name is David Samworth and its a family-owned business. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? topazg Comment No. 328127 December 8 17:44 GBR

@onthefence: And basing your argument amongst nit-picking and trying to discredit the other person it a common tactic amongst ardent non-scientific sceptics. Stop wasting everyone's time. @needtea: I agree, the studies done so far lend a lot of weight towards ES not being EMFrelated, though I still stand by the point that if the effects are caused by a build up of exposure, then most of the study metrics would not have had a chance of finding anything. Remember, there is now a steadily increasing number of epidemiological research papers showing "microwave syndrome" effects from mobile phone base stations - these are fairly similar to the more chronic health effects ES people are reporting. I must confess, I myself remain sitting on the fence a little bit, but I certainly don't feel it is justified to write off the whole ES / EMF thing at the moment. That Brian Stein runs a business means little, other than it being something that can a) be looked up should people want to go so far as to attempt to contact him themselves, and b) the fact he still holds the position gives some indication of him not being just a mental nutcase, prone to bouts of hypochondria. It was there for info rather than anything else. @WoollyMindedLiberal: He is not CEO of Sensory Perspective, merely chairman and acts partly as business advisor. Links connecting him to Samworth Bro's with some mention of title: http://www.bizawards.co.uk/photo2005.asp http://www.itsfood.com/features/detail.asp?item=380 http://www.amazon.com/Competitive-life-Brian-Ed-Bedington/dp/B000BE35VQ Also, why exactly do you claim that the site you linked to sells "Electrosmog Quackery" Detectors are scientific measuring instruments, no more, no less, and the screening / shielding products they use do exactly what they say - reduce microwave radiation. The netting used for the bed canopies are used in the UK military as military decoys due to their reflective abilities in this frequency: http://www.swisstulle.co.uk/ Whether or not this shielding is necessary does not make it quackery, we aren't talking crystal pendants or anything here. Have you actually done any real investigation or are you just finding whatever little hole you can in fairly irrelevant information? [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? hpplus Comment No. 328128 December 8 17:44 GBR

Congratulations to Kate Figes for her excellent article and to the Guardian for publishing it. She�s right that it�s a very important issue and much more research is needed on safety levels. It happened that on Tuesday evening I was talking by phone (a wired variety) to someone who had suffered badly from a wireless network a few years ago and whose employer had removed it. During the call I had a headache but I did not know why. Later my partner admitted to using a mobile phone in a room nearby at exactly that time. What�s the explanation? For what it�s worth, my own guess is that I�m sometimes sensitive to some forms of electro-magnetic radiation (it�s not the first time that I�ve felt such headaches from mobiles) and my body causes me pain to warn me of harm. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? WoollyMindedLiberal Comment No. 328135 December 8 17:53 GBR hpplus : "During the call I had a headache but I did not know why. Later my partner admitted to using a mobile phone in a room nearby at exactly that time. What�s the explanation?" Did you ever have a headache before mobile phones became widespread? Yes or No. Have you ever had a headache when there was no mobile phone or wireless network present? Yes or No. Have you ever been in the presence of an active mobile phone and not had an instant headache? Yes or No. If the answer of any of these questions is 'Yes' then we can be reasonably certain that your headache was not connected with your partner's mobile phone usage. If the answer to all three questions really is 'No' then it gets more interesting. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? Delivsavocado Comment No. 328136 December 8 17:53 USA

Well, its been fun while it has lasted but this one looks as though it is about to be laid to rest. It started well, but actually the thread got a little boring for the last few days as the "real" pseudo-scientists took over, wittering on about "double blind" tests. (Who is that guy who posted all of that junk about Brian Stein, CEO of Stammersworth, and why is it "certain" that the symptoms reported are real? Is this a tautology, since in the world of "everything is bad for you"-types, are psychosomatic symptoms real? If you think that you have the symptom, do you, by definition have the symptom. Being a simpleton myself, I would think that psychosomatic symptoms are imaginary.) These articles that the Guardian chooses to publish, no matter how idiotic, usually stir up a somewhat interesting debate. And so until the next time, fellow Graundianistas, I bid you fare-thee-well. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? topazg Comment No. 328165 December 8 18:19 GBR "Did you ever have a headache before mobile phones became widespread? Yes or No. Have you ever had a headache when there was no mobile phone or wireless network present? Yes or No. Have you ever been in the presence of an active mobile phone and not had an instant headache? Yes or No. If the answer of any of these questions is 'Yes' then we can be reasonably certain that your headache was not connected with your partner's mobile phone usage." No offense intended, but this is woefully poor logic. Your logic to question one would imply that having a headache once means that nothing that hasn't given you a headache before is likely to give you another one - that's simply rubbish. Same with the second question, it makes no logical sense whatsoever. The third one _does_ make sense as a question, but it excludes the possibility to the intolerance may have been built up. So the summary of reasonable certainty is ridiculous. I suspect it would be extremely rare for anybody to answer "no" to both of the first two questions, and the third question may have a "no" answer from that poster anyway. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Recommend? TheNuclearOption Comment No. 328197 December 8 18:42 GBR ElectroSmog detector, priceless, you really can't make this stuff up. I wonder how you get on the web to order one for the first time. You'd think direct marketing would be the prefered media. Yes there is a real problem being described here, its called hypochondria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypochondriac It explains ALL the anecdotal evidence presented here as supporting EMF sensitivity or casting doubt over the safety of low energy radio waves. While it is not advisable to sit in front of an active RAF radar or similar, or to hug a television transmitter the only harm your likely to do yourself surfing the web using an IEEE 802.11 network is haemorrhoids if you spend too long sitting on your backside. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Recommend? panayis Comment No. 328689 December 9 4:59 GBR In response to Woolymindedliberal and Needtea�s posts about double blind trials and placebo effects. The shielding has been on trial with seemingly good effect for over five years since the link between health/well being and shielding was fortuitously discovered. On many occasions some residents removed the shielding and the symptoms over time seem to return. How many times does this have to be repeated? Tangible symptoms experienced were mostly that of poor sleep, run down, listless, simple tasks requiring inordinate amount of effort, prone to infections and uncharacteristically susceptible to the cold, and after protection within a few months the overall health and energy seemingly returning back to levels that the resident was familiar with prior to being exposed to RF. The regulators and industry may demand double blind satisfaction and utilize the placebo/nocebo effect as a rationalization. My observations on the ground however suggest that at least 15 people seem to have got their life back from a nightmare that one would not wish on one�s worst enemy. Should any of you be familiar with any of the science you would know that the Soviets bombarded the personnel in the American Embassy in Moscow with the Schwann guideline compliant (fore-runner to ICNIRP) emissions for over 23 years (1953-76) because they had already established the link

between RF and health in well funded occupational studies. A study conducted by the Americans in 1976 concluded that people working at this Embassy experienced premature ageing due to the radiation. Was this premature ageing due to placebo/nocebo effect? The Stewart report acknowledges that the Moscow study exists but it would not look at it because it could not find a copy. In view of this fact are debates on double blind studies and placebo/noceboes really necessary? Once again if you have doubts about ICNIRP compliant emissions and health I would advise you to take a good look at the science. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Part II: The health implications of playing with Big Brother’s most cool tool You may as well know up front that what you are about to read is possibly the worst news you will ever receive. It goes quite beyond our ordinary concerns about the state of our nation and Bush administration admissions that the war on terror could last a long time. The article to follow connects 125 referenced dots to advance a disturbing hypothesis: "The wireless age is shortening our lives and endangering the planet." Governments cannot claim ignorance to the effects of radiation. Declassified documents have been compiled into extensive reports showing that humans have been experimentally-exposed to all types and levels of radiation for decades—in every possible way they can be exposed. Radiation exposures over time lead to physical and mental sickness, genetic damage, birth defects and death. Knowing this, Congress was persuaded to pass the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to kick start the wireless age. And, just a decade later, our people are constantly exposed to radiation through a variety of wireless ways. The pervasive effects, now being noticed by a few, will soon be impossible for the many to ignore. by Amy Worthington First, a quick review. In part one of this series, we documented how the USA of George W. Bush has morphed into a fascist (public-private collaborative) police state under the guise of "national security" and "war on terror." While our ruling serial killers have never been brought to justice for their 9/11 atrocities, civilian and military snoopers now read our mail, listen to our phone calls, sniff around our Internet activities and monitor our financial transactions. They use national security letters and computer data mining to track our activities and assess our every motive and intention. But this is only the beginning. Big Brother’s most cool tool—wireless and radio frequency identification (RFID) technologies—now enable our controllers to far surpass the Orwellian vision of 1984. Four main pillars of the totalitarian master plan are: ¨ a national identification system linking all humans to electronic cards, tags or subdermal chips containing personal ID numbers and biometric data

¨ a central data base containing sperm-to-worm information on each numbered citizen ¨ a wireless tracking system capable of instantly deciphering the location of any human encumbered with an electronic ID device ¨ a nationwide wireless (WiFi) network of surveillance cameras linked with internet systems allowing police command centers to watch everything that moves The surveillance juggernaut The Homeland Security Act of 2002 produced the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) by merging 22 federal agencies into a gigantic intelligence octopus with the primary goal of spying on the American people. DHS is the creature’s center. State and local agencies, lubricated with Homeland Security grants, are being absorbed through the fiscal tentacles of this paranoid monster. This federal-state-local juggernaut is implementing the master plan at break-neck speed. Hundreds of thousands of surveillance cameras—many satellite enabled— are being purchased with DHS money and mounted everywhere across the nation. From 80 conspicuous cameras in remote Dillingham, Alaska, keeping tabs on 2,400 villagers,1 to the massive IP and mobile camera networks stalking denizens of Los Angeles,2 the bizarre DHS security apparatus is constructing a surveillance grid capable of watching 300 million citizen "outmates" who simply can’t be trusted to live without Big Brother’s close supervision. The Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 and the Real ID Act of 2005 established an ominous national ID system, forcing all states to standardize biometric-laden birth certificates, drivers licenses and other ID cards. By 2008, personal data from these mandatory identifiers will be duly flowing into the Fuhrer’s central database. Just as it has come to power over all law enforcement agencies with its directives and funding hooks, DHS is now feverishly regimenting the U.S. medical establishment to collect and forward all health data to Information Central. The medical history of every citizen’s private parts will soon be efficiently forwarded from the examination table directly to Big Brother’s electronic health records database. Chief executive officer for eHealth Initiative, Janet Marchibroda, confirms that national standards and policies are being developed for "connectivity"3 no matter where in the U.S. a citizen might receive his hemorrhoid or herpes diagnosis and treatment. Centralized medical surveillance will certainly leave no citizen unwhacked when Homeland Needle Nazis unleash their stash of disabling, compulsory lipidlaced vaccines during a "national emergency." DHS and dozens of medical facilities across the nation now encourage the use of various types of RFID microchips, which can be implanted under the skin. At least 68 hospitals and medical facilities are already using Applied Digital Solution’s VeriChip, recently approved by FDA for human implantation.4 Each VeriChip, implanted under a patient’s skin between the elbow and shoulder, contains a 16-digit identification number, readable by a chip scanner blasting kilohertz radio frequency. Meantime, DHS has announced its quest for powerful new reader technology that could obtain information from ID microchips attached to either a human or a vehicle, even if the human is 25 feet away; even if the vehicle is moving at 55 miles per hour.5 The Digital Angel tracking chip is an active, self-powered tracking device, also developed for implantation under human skin. Produced by Digital Angel Corp, a subsidiary of Applied

Digital, this wireless monstrosity is capable of sending and receiving data packets of information at long distances through both ground stations and GPS satellites. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, homeless and mentally ill people wandering the streets of New York City, San Francisco, Washington and Bethlehem, Pennsylvania have already been implanted with dangerous RFID tracking devices. Police and social workers, armed with handheld computers that receive radio signals from the implants, can monitor their every move.6 We assume that eventually all cities and states will participate in this horrific experimental program, which so cruelly exploits those least able to endure the devastating health effects of round-the-clock RF radiation. Many federal workers, including DHS employees and contractors, now carry biometric ID cards which use radio frequencies to communicate wirelessly with central tracking computers.7 Eventually, all federal and state employees will carry such devices. The House of Representative is seeking technology to track 13,500 House members and staff using microwave-readable tags. These active badges will continuously transmit microwave signals, enabling readers to obtain information through clothing and briefcases up to 100 feet away.8 Sweet justice will be the day the most corrupt congresspeople in history have no place to hide from the totalitarian police state they have so zealously created. Public school children are also in the crosshairs for tagging. A number of corporations nurtured by DHS are pushing RFID systems for schools. One such company is InCom Corporation, which last year tagged kids in a California, grade school without parental consent.9 Kids wearing RFID badges will be continually scanned throughout the school day and will become acclimated to having their every move contemplated by a central authority. An Orwellian nation would definitely want to imprint its children with the dehumanizing mindsets of radio-tracking. Our world a microwave oven As documented here, wireless devices and networks are the very bedrock of Police State USA. The Gestapo’s burgeoning wireless infrastructure consists of tens of thousands of gargantuan communications towers, hundreds of thousands of very small WiFi transmitters and an ever growing network of tiny bucket sensors being systematically mounted in and on nearly everything in our environment. All of these transmitters or transceivers generate radio frequency/microwave radiation in kilohertz, megahertz or gigahertz frequencies. With thousands of commercial and military satellites blasting additional microwaves at the earth, humanity now swims in a tasteless, odorless, invisible dense sea of toxic electromagnetic, cancer-causing, brain altering frequencies that are nearly impossible for laymen to assess and monitor. Both our polar ice caps are rapidly melting and our winters are growing more dangerously warm every year.10 Our world is water based. Microwaves agitate and heat water molecules. The U.S. military will soon increase to 180 the number of HAARP transmitters used to actually boil the ionosphere—the electrically charged layer just above the Earth’s atmosphere.11 Tons of metallic salt particles, including barium, have been dumped into the atmosphere by chemtrail projects for the last 8 years.12 Barium heats and dries the atmosphere, inducing drought. If the military uses chemtrail particles to augment over-the horizon radar technology,13 would not these aerosols also be useful for augmenting commercial and police state communications? It is surely no coincidence that the lunatic HAARP project, pestilential chemtrails, the explosion of wireless technology and runaway

global warming have all burst onto the scene simultaneously—within the last 15 years. Our planet and its atmosphere have become a gigantic microwave oven, while greenhouse gases keep the fire burning. Experts say RF/microwave earth transmitters are increasing at a rate of 15 percent per year. And there is no end to the dictators’ plans for adding more. How can we calculate the additional electromagnetic smog to be added by the Department of Transportation’s plan to have auto makers install onboard tracking units on every new car beginning in 2010? Radio waves blasting from 57 million autos by 2015 will automatically transmit tracking information to Brother’s voracious transportation computers.14 Just how far totalitarian planners are taking the tracking business is revealed by Intel’s Research Laboratory in Seattle, which advises that both commercial and government entities will one day pinpoint our location and movements with the help of ubiquitous, microwave-blasting beacons able to decipher our cell phone numbers from a distance. Watchers will then infer what we are doing and buying (and thinking?) based on our location.15 Kilohertz, megahertz and gigahertz are among the most dangerous radiation frequencies known to man. Neither medicine nor industry has ever established a demonstrably "safe" human exposure level for this man-made, modulated, pulsing radiation. There are, however, thousands of studies proving that these emanations are deadly to all living creatures and their biospheres. It is the purpose of this article to document the terrible health ramifications of our ever– increasing exposure to commercial and police state radiation. Medical and empirical evidence indicates that we are becoming energetically weak, intellectually impaired and chronically ill from insidious RF waves we can neither see, touch, smell nor taste. Clueless Americans who allow themselves to be implanted with identification and tracking chips will suffer most grievously. Millions, already physically and emotionally addicted to microwave-spewing cell phones, laptops, personal data gadgets and entertainment devices which they cuddle to their brains and bodies, will have little moral or philosophical aversion to being chipped. But for the more discriminating, we are reviewing here crucial research data, which, if taken seriously, may save lives and stiffen resolve to reject the fascist subdermal tracking system— no matter what the cost. Our baseline study: The U.S. embassy in Moscow We begin with the Soviet microwave attack against the U.S. embassy in Moscow, Russia. That tragic episode is a crucial study for understanding the effects of radio frequency/microwave on the human body. Beginning in 1953 and continuing into the 1970s, the Russian Soviets used microwave radiation to sicken and stupefy our embassy staff. Two consecutive U.S. ambassadors died of cancer and a third developed a leukemia-like blood disease and bleeding eyes. At least 16 women in the embassy group developed breast cancer. Breast, eye and testicle tissues are the most sensitive to radiation. Many staffers also suffered immune system disorders, high white blood cell counts, chromosomal breaks, chronic fatigue, blurred vision, cataracts and muscle aches. Such conditions are known collectively as Microwave Syndrome.16

U.S. officials knew about the Soviet assault from the beginning but they did not warn embassy staff for 10 years because, like the Soviets, the CIA was interested in studying the effects of irradiation on the human body.17 While monitoring the Soviet project, the CIA launched Project Pandora and nefarious parallel projects like TUMS, MUTS and BAZAR, some of which involved the military. These intrepid devil-doers documented the horrible effects of radio frequency/microwave radiation on both animal and human subjects. ¨ They learned that the worst after-effects become evident long after exposure—sometimes a decade or more.18 ¨ They discovered that exposed people and animals and their offspring show a drastic decline in intelligence.19 ¨ They learned that microwave creates effective weaponry, resulting in the grotesque RF "poppers" currently being used against the Iraqi people,20 and the deadly 95-gigahertz active denial systems prepared for both the military and domestic law enforcement.21 Fedgov absolutely knows from the Moscow data and from its own 50 years of research that microwave radiation emitted by America’s wireless communications and surveillance networks will eventually make all of us ill, and many of us prematurely dead. What millions of wireless-worshiping Americans don’t know is this: 1. The Russians targeted the Moscow embassy staff with 2.4 gigahertz microwave—the same frequency blasting out of the wireless cell phones, in-house cordless phones, wireless computers and WLAN systems now irradiating the bodies, homes, work places and schools across America. Some phones are excreting 5.8 gigahertz—which is even more deadly than 2.4 gigaherz. 2. The Russians mainly used a power density of only +5 microwatts per cubic centimeter (cm2) which they aimed at the west facade of the embassy building. Most of the people inside the building received about 1/50 of that amount or .1 microwatts per cm2. The Federal Communications Commission has set an ambient microwave exposure "safety" limit of 580 microwatts per cm2, which enables government and industry to irradiate us with over 100 times the power density used against the Moscow embassy officers and staff. 3. The Russians beamed microwaves at the embassy only nine hours a day, unlike cell tower and roof top transmitters and WLAN systems which blast megahertz and gigahertz into American homes, neighborhoods and offices 24 hours a day.22 Our deadly exposure standards The Russians well understand that a tiny bit of microwave can cause serious health problems and death. Russian microwave standards for public exposure are 100 times more stringent than those in the U.S. The Chinese standards are even more stringent. Austria allows public exposure of only .1 microwatt per cm.2 Contrast that to Great Britain’s genocidal standards which permit a whopping 5,800 microwatts per cm2. This is most convenient for Tony Blair’s rabid surveillance police state, outpacing even our own in repression and scope with its deadly TETRA police communications radiation.23

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which permits such lenient radiation exposure from most U.S. transmitting sources, is a cheering squad for the telecommunications and broadcasting industries it is supposed to regulate. The Center for Public Integrity found that FCC officials are bribed by the industry with such perks as expensive trips to Las Vegas.24 FCC standards are based on the obsolete theory that the only risk from RF/microwave exposure is excessive heating of tissues (thermal effects). Yet there are so many documented and dangerous non-thermal effects that even the EPA has said it is time to consider non–thermal effects in updated standards. The FCC admits that its standards are based upon recommendations of organizations loaded with industry and military lobbyists— most of whom would obviously prefer NO restrictions whatever on the use of RF/microwave radiation.25 The FCC’s exposure limits are so high that no matter how much Fedgov and industry adds to our radiation burden, it will always be "within standards." Ditto for the FCC’s cell phone SAR guidelines. SAR quantifies radiation absorbed by the brain. SAR standards were calculated by using dummies with sugar water in their fake heads.26 A news segment on the TV news magazine 20/20 demonstrated that cell phones often exceed the grossly dangerous SAR ratings listed on their labels anyway. 27 Swedish studies show rat brain damage at SAR levels 800 times lower than those allowable under FCC standards.28 The FCC has neither money nor manpower to monitor wireless installations across the nation for compliance with its obsolete standards. It admits that "physical testing to verify compliance" is relatively rare.29 Nor does the FCC do an adequate job of requiring industry to monitor itself. The FCC says that many wireless facilities are UNLIKELY to cause human exposures in excess of RF exposure guidelines, so operators of those facilities are exempt from routine compliance testing. FCC is so unconcerned about public RF/microwave exposure that if an applicant desires to emit radiation in excess of FCC standards, they just file environmental assessment paperwork.30 Transmitter emissions levels are based merely on computer models done by industry at the time of application. What the actual emissions really are from America’s microwave towers and roof top antennas—no one knows. But we have important clues from radiation expert Dr. Bill Curry, a brilliant and published scientist who honed his expertise working as an engineer for Argonne and Livermore labs. Working as a private consultant, Dr. Curry has traveled the nation to monitor homes and neighborhoods where people are now grossly sick from microwave transmitters. In 2000, Curry reported finding homes near cell towers with ambient radiation measuring as high as 65 to 70 microwatts per cubic centimeter.31 People living in them were very ill. Some left their homes and slept in their cars to obtain some relief. The situation across the nation must be considerably worse today. The wireless buildout In the 1990s, industry and government began constructing a national wireless communications infrastructure capable of supporting a surveillance police state. But citizens, with the help of their local governments, were effectively foiling Big Brother’s long-range plans by resisting the siting of cell towers in their neighborhoods on grounds that microwave emissions were harmful. So the telecom lobby and its mascot, Senator John McCain, railroaded the Telecommunications Act of 1996 through Congress. Section 704(II)(B)(iv) of the act states, "No State or local government....may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of

radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions." This act makes it virtually impossible for citizens and local governments to block the siting of cell towers, giving government and industry absolute, unchallenged power to erect its surveillance state in blatant disregard for known health and environmental consequences. Intelligent people are concerned. For example, the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) does not want wireless transmitters placed on fire department facilities. The IAFF says that wireless transmitters blasting away 24 hours a day could endanger the lives of firefighters, thanks to the obsolete FCC regulations.32 A large group of scientists and engineers, including the Communications Workers of America, filed suit in 1990s. They were hoping to have the Supreme Court review both the FCC’s outdated exposure guidelines and the legality of preventing state/local governments from considering health/environmental hazards of wireless transmitters. In 2001, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.33 So the group petitioned the FCC to employ the newest scientific studies and bring its exposure guidelines into the 21st century.34 The FCC naturally thumbed its nose at the suggestion.35 Three congressional bills have been introduced in Congress since 2001, proposing to update exposure guidelines. These bills have gone nowhere with the most corrupt Congress in history. So Police State USA presses on into a wireless radiation free-for-all, with zero accountability. Microwave syndrome Ambient radiation levels and the frenetic use of personal wireless devices are steadily increasing. As a result, millions of Americans now suffer from "Microwave Syndrome." The parameters of this sickness are described in the Freiburger Appeal, a document signed by over 2000 German medical doctors.36 The document describes microwave sickness as incurred by the German people from their wireless transmitters, mobile phones and digital cordless household phones. The doctors say they are observing a "dramatic rise in severe and chronic diseases," especially: ¨ Cancerous conditions, including leukemia and brain tumors ¨ Learning, concentration and behavioral disorders (including ADD) ¨ Extreme fluctuations in blood pressure, not controllable by medication ¨ Heart rhythm disorders ¨ Heart attacks and strokes among very young people ¨ Degenerative brain disorders and epilepsy ¨ Ear nerve damage and tinnitus ¨ Immune system inadequacy and susceptibility to infection ¨ Nervous and connective tissue pain for which there is no explanation

¨ Chronic exhaustion, severe headaches, nervousness and sleep disorders When five French scientists recently conducted a survey study of hundreds of French people living near microwave transmitters, they documented the same symptoms, including nausea, fatigue, memory problems and cardiovascular symptoms.37 Two thirds of Americans are declared overweight. Obesity and low metabolism, epidemic across the nation, are hallmark signs of thyroid malfunction. Microwave radiation to the brain is proven to slow or halt the pineal gland’s production of the thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH), thereby drastically reducing production of the vital T4 and T3 thyroid hormones.38 Meters show that wireless phones often "leak" radiation from the mouthpiece, which flows directly into radiation-sensitive tissues in the neck and thyroid gland. The cancer issue A most tragic manifestation of radiation sickness is cancers and leukemia. We now have a glimpse of what the wireless revolution means in terms of future U.S. cancer rates. Last year, there were 30,000 cases of brain and eye tumors—as a direct result of cell phone use— reported to the Mobile Telephone Health Concerns Registry, which tracks and counts information volunteered from citizens across the country.39 This registry is currently directed by Dr. George Carlo, who was chief scientist for the Telecom industry when it conducted its six-year wireless radiation studies in the 1990s in order to prove the "safety" of cell phones. After the industry’s studies revealed cell phone use was the opposite of safe, it went into "spin" mode, apparently determined to lie and deny as long as possible. The industry’s disingenuous but lucrative stance is found in the words of Joe Farren, director of public affairs for the CTIA—The Wireless Association, who stated, "The science to date shows there is not a health risk associated with the use of any wireless device."40 Dr. Carlo wrote an expose documenting both the shocking data and the political hanky panky that still keeps consumers in the dark on the life-threatening hazards of wireless phones.41 He estimated that, in 2006, there will be 50-75,000 new cell phone tumors reported and by 2010, an estimated 300,000-500,000 cases, as a new crop of microwave victims comes into full bloom.42 The latency period for developing cancer from cell phone microwave exposure is thought to be about 10 years.43 It is this tragic latency period which has long allowed corporate killers—those who profit handsomely by exposing people to depleted uranium, asbestos, tobacco and wireless technologies—to lay their eggs of death before victims understand what has happened to them. Microwave radiation produces at least two mechanisms for the promotion of cancer: Micronuclei and heat shock proteins. The telecom industry’s own studies confirmed that cell phone radiation produces micronuclei in human blood cells at levels far below the U.S. government’s exposure guidelines.44 Micronuclei are broken fragments of DNA, indicating that cells can no longer properly repair themselves. All cancers are the result of genetic damage and the presence of micronuclei in living cells is a premier diagnostic marker for cancer. Doctors treating victims of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster used micronuclei testing to determine the extent of radiation damage. University of Washington researchers funded by the U.S. military demonstrated that 2.4 gigahertz radiation increases the frequency of single-strand DNA breaks in the brain cells of live rats after only two hours of exposure at only 1/5th of the FCC’s so-called "safety"

limits.45 In 2000, Dr. Joseph Roti Roti, a highly-credentialed scientist who received sizeable grants from Motorola, also confirmed formation of micronuclei at radiation levels far lower than those emitted by cell phones.46 By 2004, studies commissioned by the European Union confirmed that mobile phone microwaves damage DNA and such damage passes onto the next generation of cells.47 In late 2005, Chinese scientists found that low-level cell phone microwaves provoke significant increases in cell DNA damage.48 Because wireless phones cause hotspots in human tissue, the body produces heat shock proteins in an effort to protect and repair overheated cells.49 These proteins also protect cancer cells, making them resistant to treatment.50 Many tumors are found to be overabundant in heat shock proteins. In 2002, Italian cancer researchers demonstrated that microwaves from mobile phones made leukemia cells in vitro replicate rapidly.51 British researcher Alisdair Phillips found that a few minutes exposure to cell phone-type radiation can transform a 5 percent active cancer into a 95 percent active cancer for the duration of the exposure and for a short time afterwards.52 British molecular toxicologist David de Pomerai confirmed that cells with unrepaired DNA damage are likely to be far more aggressively cancerous.53 In the U.S., where nearly half of us are expected to develop cancer in our lifetime, the last thing we need is microwave -spewing (and receiving) ID implants in our flesh. In 2005, three separate European research groups showed a significant increased risk of brain tumors—both malignant and benign—in people who have used cell phones for 10 years or more.54 One of these studies suggests that the risk is greatest in people who begin using phones before they are 20 years old, since children absorb more radiation than adults.55 In March, 2006, the Swedish National Institute for Working Life turned even U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) heads when it confirmed that people who use mobile phones for 2,000 hours in their lifetimes have a 240 percent increased risk for malignant tumors on the side of the head where the phone is positioned.56 Workers across America, compelled to use cordless phones, extremely hot radios/walkie talkies or wireless blue tooth headsets throughout the work day, can achieve their 2,000 hours in roughly one year—which clearly explains why national brain cancer rates are steadily climbing. In 2005, the National Academy of Sciences confirmed that even very low doses of ionizing radiation from X-rays and gamma rays over a lifetime cause cancer.57 The above-referenced RF/microwave studies confirm that non-ionizing radiation—flowing from wireless transmitters and wireless devices—inflict the SAME KIND of damage upon human cells as ionizing radiation, with the same cancerous results. Conclusion: All people living in a radiation-intensive police state are at high risk for developing cancers that make rapid and lethal advancement. And that goes for Big Brother’s super-wired enforcement agents and bureaucratic heel-clickers. Brain and central nervous system damage Cell phone radiation causes profound damage to the entire nervous system. By 1977, researchers knew that very low levels of microwaves to the brain can quickly initiate a breaching of the blood-brain barrier.58 This happens when radiation causes albumin to leak from capillaries into surrounding brain tissue, causing neuronal damage. Harmful molecules in the blood, including pathogens, then enter the central nervous system with tragic results. In 1988, Swedish scientists began a series of animal studies to confirm that cell phone radiation

opens the blood-brain barrier. They found that such leakage can occur after only two minutes of microwave exposure and at density levels of only 1/10,000 of a watt, thousands of times less than the radiation absorbed by a cell phone user’s brain.59 Scientists in Finland have found that mobile phone radiation can actually shrink brain cells, making them more permeable to leaking toxins.60 In 2003, British researchers demonstrated that cell phone radiation changes the shape of brain proteins, causing them to clump together and form pathological protein fibrils like those found in Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease patients..61 That same year, Swedish scientists published a study on rat brains exposed to cell phone microwaves. They found that damage to nerve cells in the cortex, hippocampus (memory center) and basal ganglia was severe. Exposed rats had an astonishing number of dead neuron cells, actually suffering holes in their brains from the damage. The scientists concluded that, after some decades of daily use, cell phone users will suffer drastic negative brain effects, probably in middle age.62 In February, 2006, Chinese researchers announced that chronic exposure to GSM cell phone radiation reduces the synaptic activity in hippocampus neurons63 while French researchers found that abnormal proteins found in Alzheimer’s cases always deposit in the hippocampus first.64 This is why memory loss is one of the first indications of dementia and is a common side effect of wireless phone use.65 University of Washington studies showed that rats exposed to pulsed microwaves suffered damage to their long-term learning and memory centers.66 These rats became slow learners and handicapped at finding their way around their environment. The acetylcholine neurotransmitter necessary for numerous brain functions was reduced in exposed rat brains after only 45 minutes.67 Irradiated brain neurons die rapidly because nerve cells have a low capacity for DNA repair.68 University of Kentucky researchers were amazed to find that the autopsied brains of 89 cognitively normal elders had the same pathology found in Alzheimer’s victims’ brains including necrotic decay, amyloidal deposits and senile plaques. They surmised that these people functioned normally anyway because they had a large nervous system reserve that allowed them to function normally despite their pathological burdens.69 Cellphonites who rapidly kill their neurons with radiation will obviously not have that reserve in old age. The British medical journal The Lancet announced in December, 2005, that global Alzheimer’s rates are exploding.70 The Japanese are among the more "wired" people on earth. Ninety million Japanese cellphone users play video games, download songs, read news and even watch TV on their cell phones. By 2001, Japanese doctors reported that a growing number of people in their 20s and 30s are suffering from severe memory loss and impaired judgment. "Young people today are becoming stupid," said a Japanese professor of neurobiology.71 They are not alone. A literacy study conducted in 2005 on 19,000 young Americans is sobering. Only one in three American college grads can read a complex book and extrapolate from it. The report concluded that an overwhelming majority of college students are unable to understand arguments in a newspaper editorial or to comprehend a simple comparison table.72 The report nevertheless pronounced these pathetically impaired students to be more "intelligent" than the average American adult. While commentators attribute this shocking state of functional decay to a literacy problem, it is more likely the sad fate of a generation that has recklessly irradiated itself for at least a decade. Have these young adults simply erased their intellectual hard drives?

Cell phone radiation causes deficiency in the motor function, memory and attention required to drive safely, according to insurance studies in England.73 An average driver talking on a cell phone is actually more impaired in function and reaction time than a drunk. Studies show radiation-impaired reaction time is actually 30 percent slower than alcohol impaired reactions.74 Drivers on phones are less able to maintain a constant speed and find it more difficult to keep a safe distance from the car in front.75 BBC news reported in 2005 that drivers are four times more likely to crash when on a mobile phone, even if they are using a hands free kit.76 Also in 2005, federal researchers reported that using a cell phone while driving is a major cause of traffic accidents and that hands free devices have little safety benefit.77 The University of Utah study showed teenagers on cell phones drive like elderly people. Put a 20 year old behind the wheel with a cell phone—even hands free—and his reaction times are the same as a 70 year old driver, say authors of the study.78 Older drivers on cell phones would likely be at very high risk. Conclusion: All of us living in a radiation intensive police state are at risk for diminishing mental function and premature dementia, which means that we may end up just like the maniacs who got us into this mess. Heart and circulatory damage Microwave radiation is cardiogenic, ie., heart damaging. A medical consultant for Hughes Aircraft Corporation, who completed a report for the U.S. military on radar-exposed personnel, listed heart conditions as among the most serious ill-effects.79 Russian researchers noted that cell phone radiation causes "significant changes" in cardiovascular systems. They observed that microwave sickness begins with low blood pressure and slow pulse, then progresses to high blood pressure, culminating in blockage of coronary arteries and heart attack.80 In 1998, German scientists found that 35 minutes of cell phone radiation caused blood pressure in human test subjects to rise between 5-10 mm Hg, an increase reportedly high enough to cause a stroke in those at risk.81 Other researchers noted that blood pressure can also be dangerously reduced when cell/cordless phones irradiate certain brain areas that regulate blood pressure.82 Are you ready now to get that big old gigahertz cordless away from Gram and Gramps? Medical specialists in London warned that cell phone radiation causes blood cells to leak hemoglobin, damaging both heart and kidney tissues.83 German scientists found that cell phone microwaves cause lymphocytes to clump together (hemaglutination).84 High school students in Germany recently blood tested 51 of their classmates before and after cell phone use. They showed that immediately after cell exposure, red blood cells clump together, a pathological condition causing blood to take up less oxygen while jamming in capillaries, increasing the risk of blood clots.85 People in England are now so radiation-damaged from their wireless infrastructure that many are sending their blood to be tested by German laboratories to find out how sick they really are. German doctors reported that the blood of a woman living by a cell tower looked like the blood of someone who had undergone chemotherapy.86 A British female doctor reports that she and her entire family became very ill when they connected a 2.4 gigahertz wireless router in their home to service computers and peripherals. Because the system irradiated the entire house, she and her children quickly developed headaches, chronic fatigue and flu-like symptoms. Her severe heart palpitations ended when the wireless router was turned off. 87

Conclusion: All of us living in a radiation-intensive police state are at high risk for heart, blood and circulatory problems, especially high blood pressure and stoke. Hey, you cops out there with your in-vehicle laptops and radar guns and wireless cameras—hope you’re having fun in your stroke-mobiles! Genetic damage and birth defects In the late 1990s, scientists confirmed that chick embryos exposed to cell phone radiation during their 21-day incubation period were five times less likely to survive than unexposed chicks.88 In 2000, Dr. Ross Adey researching at UC Riverside reported studies showing that pregnant rats exposed to Iridium cell phone radiation produced fetuses with significantly decreased brain activity compared to non-exposed fetuses.89 In 2002, the Associated Press reported that DNA and chromosomal damage caused by ionizing radiation and other radiation has profound ramifications for the offspring of people thus damaged.90 According to researchers at University of Leicester, United Kingdom radiation damage suffered by parents can be passed on to children and grandchildren.91 Researchers have long warned that mothers using a cell phone headset, causing her to place the phone near her abdomen during pregnancy, could expose the fetus to dangerous levels of microwave radiation which the fetus can readily absorb.92 In 2002, the French government warned teenagers to keep cell phones away from their developing sex organs.93 By 2004, researchers in Hungary found that men who carried a cell phone on their bodies— even on standby—had significantly lower sperm concentration. The motility of the sperm they did produce was reduced and sperm movements were abnormal. 94 Other researchers found that the use of laptop computers can impair male fertility when they heat men’s testicles. 95 In 2005, German researchers found significant alterations in gonad function of mice exposed to GSM cell phone radiation.96 University of Washington researchers documented reproductive changes in lab animals occurred at exposures 16,000 times less than the FCC’s SAR exposure guidelines.97 Thousands of young women working in retail companies and offices across the U.S. are now wearing on their bodies a variety of microwave-driven communications devices throughout their shifts. Many of these devices are worn in pockets or on waist bands, exposing their ovaries to microwave radiation. Thousands of these woman at any given time are unknowingly pregnant and exposing their fetuses to DNA damage. The crime is that neither industry nor regulating agencies are warning Americans about these dangers nor are they doing follow-up studies on women who have exposed their fetuses. When their children are born with defects and illness, parents have no way to prove that wireless radiation was the cause. Scientists now suspect that there may be a correlation between autism and fetal or neonatal exposure to radio frequency radiation.98 One in six children suffers some neurological disability and the rate of autism has skyrocketed in the last decade.99 Dr. Ross Adey of the University of California Riverside showed that a pregnant rat’s exposure to cell phone radiation alters the activity of an enzyme in fetus brains, indicating stress.100 In 2005, researchers with the Environmental Working Group reported that unborn U.S babies are soaking in a uterine chemical stew, including mercury, gasoline by-products and pesticides. The group found an average of 287 contaminants, many of them carcinogenic, in

each of 10 samples of umbilical cord blood.101 Chemically contaminated humans are far more likely to succumb to the deadly effects of radiation exposure. When scientists wish to induce cancer in lab animals exposed to experimental radiation, they often prime them first with a CARCINOGENIC chemical. Conclusion: In a radiation-intensive police state, the already polluted unborn conceived by radiation-damaged parents are at ever-increasing risks for genetic deformities, brain damage and death. Perhaps we now have clues as to why approximately one half of all pregnancies in the United States result in death of the baby—either before or after birth—or in a less than healthy baby.102 Learning disabilities in school children For the cell phone industry—it’s open season on kids. Children as young as six years old are targeted by companies which tempt them with kiddie phones that double as music and game players. Even children not exposed to cell phones begin in their toddler years to damage their brains with household cordless phones. University of Utah researchers found that the brain of a 5-year-old child absorbs four times more radiation than an adult brain and the eye fluid of a 5-year-old child absorbs over 10 times more radiation than an adult eye.103 Spanish scientists using a special scanner found that pre-teen children exposed to microwave radiation for only two minutes suffered abnormal brain pattern activity for hours afterwards. It is believed that such disturbed brain activity can lead to psychiatric/behavioral problems and impairs learning ability.104 British scientists warned in 2001 that cell phone signals can disrupt a child’s alpha and delta brain wave activity, damage his genetic components and disable his immune system.105 The British Health Protection Agency advises parents to discourage the use of mobile phones by children under 8.106 Yet by 2005, over 1 million children under 10 years of age were reported to have mobile phones in Britain. The German Academy of Pediatrics has warned German parents to strictly limit cell phone use by children.107 In 2002, an Austrian radiation expert explained that cell phone radiation is especially dangerous to children, not only because their skulls are thinner than those of adults, but because the earlier in life a malign (pre-cancerous) transformation occurs, the more likely it will one day result in a clinical malignancy.108 By 1995, British researchers confirmed that cell phone radiation could radically change mood, and produce aggressive behavior in children.109 In 2000, an EPA scientist stated that wireless communication devices in schools exposing children to long-term, pulse-modulated radio frequency radiation could produce subtle effects on brain function and memory, endangering the ability to learn.110 Nevertheless, digital classrooms by the thousands are now contaminated with wireless laptop computers enveloping children in a cloud of powerful, pulsed gigahertz microwaves. Wall or ceiling WLAN antennas also damage children, as would the ionizing radiation of x-rays. These irradiated children are susceptible to blinding headaches, eye damage, attention deficit, slow learning response, impaired memory function, poor immune function and fatigue.111 Conducting a $5 million study at the University of Washington in the early 90s, Dr. William Guy demonstrated that nearly every test animal exposed to five years of low-level, pulsed electromagnetic fields, died from cancer or immune system breakdown.112 Thirteen years of continuous radiation exposure in public school cancer zones is child abuse. Networking systems using cables are the answer.

Conclusion. The future is grim for children in a radiation-intensive police state dedicated to further irradiating their school zones with compulsory radio frequency ID tags and wireless surveillance cameras. If Americans really loved their children, all schools would be radiationfree safe areas, period. If there was ever a good reason to home school children, the advent of the digital surveillance classroom is it. Microwave addiction One of the most tragic realities of our time is the fact that microwave radiation, like nicotine, stimulates the pleasure centers of the brain. In the 1980s, University of Washington researchers found that radio frequency radiation activates endogenous opioids, compounds generated by the brain which behave like morphine.113 In 1996, researchers found that pulsed telephone microwaves have a hypnotic effect on the brain.114 In 1999, the Observer newspaper in London cited a study which found that cell phone radiation stimulates production of morphine-like chemicals in the brain and that the "high" is triggered by endorphin release when radiation from the phone enters through the ear.115 It is also relevant that an increase in endogenous opioid activity in the brain caused by microwave radiation is known to increase alcohol-drinking behavior.116 Observations confirm our suspicion that a sizeable percentage of our population, especially teenagers and young women of child-bearing age, are literally "stoned" on microwaves, much to the economic advantage of those who conspired to hook them. Cell phone dependency is now called compulsive communicating. Chain dialers call continually to get another "fix." A striking example of possible psycho-emotional addiction was the young female bank robber who calmly robbed four Northern Virginia banks in late 2005 while she was immersed in cell phone chats.117 An article in the British Medical Journal noted that mobile phones are replacing nicotine as the foremost addictive obsession in Great Britain.118 75 percent of Brit teenagers said they literally could not bear to be without their phone.119 A London detox clinic specializes in helping patients deal with behavioral addiction related to cell phone use, including a patient who developed a severe repetitive strain injury from obsessively keying messages.120 Apparently few care if American children are hopelessly habituated to giga-juice. Some final thoughts Much of the above data addresses the long term exposure of microwaves emitted by active transmitters such as cell towers, cell/cordless phones and embedded communications chips like Digital Angel, now tragically being implanted in the most undeserving of cancer and premature death—search and rescue dogs.121 God help those precious babies! No animal should be tagged with cancer-causing frequencies 24/7. Radio collars should be used only for short times and removed as soon as possible. We must add some perspective on the passive ID chips, like those now being implanted in hospitals across the nation. The VeriChip is similar to AVID chips embedded in domesticated pets. A radio frequency blast from an AVID chip reader used to find pet ID numbers causes both gauss and microwave meters to jump "off the scale." This kind of kilohertz blast is obviously a significant electromagnetic shock to the body. Passive human chip implants will expose chip bearers to continual zapping from 134 kilohertz identification readers as

embedded chips become universally accepted for locational, financial and identification purposes. Where are the health studies on how human cells respond to the continual assault from 134 kilohertz radio frequency, hot enough to oscillate at 134,000 cycles per second? Long term exposure to electro-magnetic fields of a mere 60 hertz—over 2,000 times less energy active than 134 KHz—can cause leukemia, brain cancer, Lou Gehrig’s disease, miscarriage, severe depression and suicide.122 These low frequency fields have been classified by both the National Institutes of Health and the California Department of Health Services as probable human carcinogens.123 If 60 hertz magnetic exposure can damage genetic material in our cells and cause human cancers to increase growth rate,124 what can 134 kilohertz accomplish? The FDA has approved implantation of VeriChip with no longterm health studies performed whatsoever. Police State USA will never tell us the truth about the radiation they are using against us with such a vengeance. Deliberately kept dumb as dirt about the issue, Americans are cornered rats who have never had the privilege of giving informed consent for this abuse and brutality. We all now stand between a ruthless political machine that will snuff out our lives without a blink and the equally serious repercussions that come from political resistance. Can we educate enough people in time to mount effective resistance? Can we hold the line until this fascist administration and the murderous corporate horse it rode in on finally destroy themselves with their own excesses? Surviving Here are constructive suggestions for those who want to help restore the world to sanity: 1. First establish your own priorities regarding personal wireless devices. Make the choice for robust health and normal mental function with a trade-off of less convenience. Explain to others that you are rejecting wireless devices because you choose to prevent premature aging, memory/vision loss, genetic damage and cancer. They may appreciate knowing the facts too. And cheer up! There is life after wireless. 2. Become creative on how to function successfully in this world without having a microwave transmitter directly on your body. If you absolutely must use cell or cordless phones, keep them off your body and in speaker mode only for very short, essential calls. Some cordless phones with two antennas irradiate a whole room, even when not in use. It is best to get them out of your house and use land line speaker phones that allow you to yak while wandering around. You can still buy corded phones, even though they may be hidden under the retail counter in a brown bag, like old-time porno magazines, ha! The more we buy, the more available they will be. 3. Obtain a good radio frequency/microwave meter and see the world around you in its energy form. Use the meter to show others the death rays pulsing wildly from wireless devices. Use it to help create a safe space where your body can rest from RF radiation, spending as much time as possible in radiation-free zones. If your work place is high in microwaves, ask your boss to help you reduce your exposure—such as installing a land line phone for your desk. Your boss might even be interested in reducing his own exposure once you educate him.

4. Help us build mass awareness about the many lethal RF/microwave hazards to humans, animals and all life on earth. Use the wonderful resources we provide here to become an "expert" on the difference between life energies vs. death energies. 5. Refuse to allow any identification or communication device to be implanted in your body, no matter what the cost socially or financially. The documentation presented here makes it clear that people who allow themselves to be tagged or chipped will ultimately be very sick. They will have "a noisome and grievous sore"—to quote a very reliable source.125 6. Get this information into the hands of anyone who has a heart with which to hear the truth. There are innocent lives to be saved. Those of us who refuse to be chipped and tracked by Police State USA absolutely must stick together, helping one another through this dark night, until the morning breaks. Note: Many people are asking if VeriChip is being implanted into newborns by participating hospitals. If any reader has information on this, please contact The Idaho Observer pronto! References will be available online at www.idaho-observer.com or send $1 and a SASE to The Idaho Observer. Resources: Meters, books and websitesRadiation meters: Alpha Lab Inc. 1280 South 300 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 800 658-7030 www.trifield.com Alpha Lab carries the excellent Trifield Meter ($130) used mainly to measure the milligauss of electromagnetic fields coming from 60 hertz sources. Use this meter to make sure your living and working spaces are under 2 milligauss. Although this meter has a radio/microwave dial, you need a more sensitive digital microwave meter that will help you assess the kilohertz, megahertz and gigahertz radiation in your environment. Alpha Lab sells the Microwave Power Density Meter ($320) which performs nicely. This easy-read meter measures microwave radiation in microwatts per cm2, allowing comparison of your readings to the 5 microwatts per cm2 used by the Russians to make our embassy staff sick. Remember, people inside the embassy reportedly received only about .1 microwatts per cm2 —peanuts to the ambient RF/microwave radiation you will be finding in wireless cities everywhere. For a list of more expensive professional meters available, go to: www.microwavenews.com. On the left side of the home page find a link called Radiation Meters. Alan Broadband

93 Arch St. Redwood City, California 94062 (888) 369-9627 www.zapchecker.com This company produces radiation detection devices with models ranging in price from $159 to $2,800. The $159 ZC 185 is what Don and Ingri have been using for the last three years. While not giving detailed measurements, it is an extremely sensitive and sturdy instrument that gives an accurate read on whether or not radiation is present and its relative intensity. It lets you know when you are being irradiated and serves as an excellent tool to illustrate exposure levels to others. Must-Read Books Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age, Dr. George Carlo and Martin Schram, Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2001. Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette, Robert C. Kane, Vantage Press, 2001. Cell Towers: Wireless Convenience or Environmental Hazard? The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council, Edited by B. Blake Levitt, 2000. Order from Barnes and Noble. Websites These websites provide excellent information on all aspects of health and other issues relating to electromagnetic fields and radio frequency/microwave radiation. www.buergerwelle.com. This excellent German (also in English) site features RF/microwave radiation news from all over the world. The science keeps pouring in and this is where to find it, along with lots of human interest. www.emrnetwork.org This site has superb resources organized by professionals with expertise in all facets of our RF/microwave radiation problem. www.safewireless.org This site features Dr. Carlo’s Mobil Telephone Health Concerns Registry where people can report ill health effects from living near microwave transmitters or from the use of wireless devices. It also features great news reports. www.microwavenews.com

This site is home to Microwave News, an excellent monthly publication. It offers cutting edge science reports plus a great archive. www.sageassociates.net This site provides valuable information on how to make homes and offices safer in the wireless age. CAUTION: There are many devices on the market claiming to protect wireless users from radiation. These include: Air tube headsets, ferrite bead clip-ons and an array of paste-ons advertised to cut down on thermal effects or deflect negative energy. However, energy testing, kinesiology and meter readings indicate that these mitigation devices DO NOT adequately protect against the brutal force of near field microwave radiation. The easiest way to determine the effectiveness of these devices is to meter radiation levels while using them. If practiced in the art of kinesiology, one can also "muscle test" the effectiveness of the radiation mitigation device. Traveling in the wireless age For three years now Ingri and I have been traveling with a hand-held device called a "zapchecker." The zapchecker measures ambient levels of electromagnetic radiation. During dozens of road trips throughout the western U.S. since 2003, we would be driving along and notice that the zapchecker would suddenly "spike." We would then see a cell tower, a hospital or government building with a satelite communications array, a radio station or, sometimes, high tension lines within a half mile or so. After a few minutes, the zapchecker would calm down again until the next wireless monument came within range. Sometimes, however, it would spike for a moment for no apparent reason. We figured that we had just encountered a microwave transmission superhighway—evidence we had crossed paths with microwaves being transmitted between repeaters. On March 30, 2006, Ingri and I traveled from Spirit Lake to Seattle to attend what turned out to be an excellent 9/11 truth event on the University of Washington campus. What we experienced with regard to measureable amounts of ambient electromagnetic radiation was shocking to us and occupied much of our conversation throughout our journey. Wherein previous years there would be miles between measureable amounts of radiation being detected by our zapchecker, the opposite was suddenly true. We notied that our zapchecker was spiking about 90 percent of the time during our 800-mile round trip. In eastern Washington it was "clean" only between cell towers and now there is almost always one in sight. In western Washington, the only "clean" areas were a little spot south of Olympia and an area outside Shelton. In all cases, when we were in urban areas, the zapchecker was solidly spiked—even when the sensitivity of the device was turned down. We are amazed at how quickly our world came from being irradiated only in spots to being saturated in this odorless, tasteless and invisible ambient danger. Like it or not, except in isolated areas, as of April, 2006, we are bathed in ambient radiation.

NOTES 1. "80 eyes on 2,400 People," Los Angeles Times, 03-28-06, www. latimes.com. 2. Phoenix Insurgent 04-01-06 features expose of the MOTOMESH video surveillance system being used by law enforcement in Los Angeles: See "Of Generational Wars Old and New," phoenixinsurgent.blogspot.com. 3. "Work in States a Key Focus of eHealth’s Initiative’s Connecting Communities Learning Forum," April 10, 2006. See commergence.com. 4. "VeriChip Corporation Expands Adoption of VeriMed System for Patient Identification," 12-01-05, www.verichipcorp.com. 5. "Homeland Security Looking at RFID Technology to Track Individuals," 02-2206, consumeraffairs.com. 6. "U.S. to Implant Homeless with RFID Tags," Jesse Warrens, 04-02-04, United Press International, thunderbay, indymedia.org. 7. "RFID Invades the Capital," Mark Baard, Wired News, 03-08-05, rense.com. 8. "Congress Considers Evacuation Tracking," RFID Journal, 02-07-05, rfidjournal.com. 9. "Human Tracking: Big Brother Goes Mainstream," North Jersey Record, 02-2105, www.infowars.com. 10. "Inuit See Signs of Arctic Thaw," D. Struck, The Washington Post, 03-21-06. 11. HAARP Project Proceeds; Said to be Record-Setting HF Project," 11-14-05, Radio World NewsBytes, www.rwonline.com. 12. "Barium Tests Are Positive," Clifford Carnicom, 05-24-04, Aerosol Operations Crimes and Cover Up, www.carnicom.com. 13. "Military Behind 4 Different Chemtrail Programs," Mile Blair, The Spotlight, 06-21-01. 14. "Feds Plan to Track Every Car in America," World Net Daily, 10-7-2004, www.worldnetdaily.com. 15. Intel Research Laboratory, www.placelab.org This site contains numerous links such as "Large-Scale Activity Inferencing," which outline plans for various forms of RFID people tracking, plus a discussion of the infrastructure of sensors and beacons needed to keep us all under surveillance full time—even "in the wild."

16. Lilienfeld, A. M., 1978, Evaluation of Health Status of Foreign Service and Other Employees from Selected Eastern European Posts, National Technical Information Service, PB288-163. Professor Abraham Lilienfeld, head of the Epidemiology Department at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, completed this study of the Moscow irradiation project for the U.S. State Department. 17. Currents of Death, Paul Brodeur, 1989. Also: "Microwave Detection-- Remote Mind Control Technology," Anna Keeler, www.bugsweeeps.com. 18. Ibid. 19. Ibid. 20. "Pentagon Deploys Array of Non-Lethal Weapons, USA Today, 7-25-05; also "Microwaving Iraq," Will Thomas, www.willthomas.net, 01-24-05. 21. "Details of U.S. Microwave-weapon Tests Revealed," David Hambling, NewScientist.com news service, 07-22-05. 22. Practical Guidelines to Protect Human Health Against Electromagnetic Radiation Emitted in Mobile Telephony, Summary June 2001, Miguel Muntane Condeminas, industrial engineer for Consulting Comunicacio i Disseny S.L, Barcelona, [email protected]. See Section 4.3.1 "US Embassy in Moscow Study." 23. "Secret Report on Cell Phone Dangers and Tetra," B. Trower, 11-25-04, rense.com. 24. "FCC Lives Large of Lobbyist Bribes," Capitol Hill Blue, 05-22-03, capitolhillblue.com. 25. Radio Frequency Safety, Federal Communications Commission, www.fcc.gov. 26. Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette, Robert C. Kane, Vantage Press, 2001. This book contains an excellent expose on the stupidity and inadequacy of SAR calculations. 27. ABC News 20/20 segment on cell phone safety, October 20, 1999. 28. Statement by radiation expert Bill Curry in e-mail to Roy Beavers, May 4, 2003: " I don’t see why the strictly thermal limits aren’t blown away by the latest paper of Salford’s group….It graphically shows brain damage in rats subjected to actual GSM phone radiation at a SAR value about 800 times lower than the ‘safe’ limits." The Salford study: "Nerve Cell Damage in Mammalian Brain after Exposure to Microwaves from GSM Mobile Phones," Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 111, Number 7, June 2003.

29. FCC states in its publication Radio Frequency Safety: "FCC does not have the resources nor the personnel to routinely monitor the emissions for all the thousands of transmitters that are subject to FCC jurisdiction." While the FCC is shuffling papers and proclaiming that transmitters are "unlikely" to exceed FCC radiation guidelines and "probably" compliant, it’s a radiation free-for–all across the nation. 30. A Local Government Official’s Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance, FCC advisory, June 2000. 31. "Some Unexpected Health Hazards Associated with Cell Tower Siting," Bill P.Curry, PhD., Cell Towers: Wireless Convenience or Environmental Hazard? The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council, edited by B. Blake Levitt, 2000. See chapter 6. 32. Position on the Health Effects from Radio Frequency/Microwave Radiation in Fire Department Facilities from Base Stations for Antennas and Towers for the Conduction of Cell Phone Transmissions, International Association of Fire Fighters, Division of Occupational Health, Safety and Medicine, August 2004. 33. "Supreme Court Rebuffs Challenge to U.S. Tower Policy," Microwave News, Jan./Feb 2001. 34. EMR Network Petition For Inquiry To Consider Amendment of Parts 1 and 2 of the FCC’s Rules Concerning the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation, September 25, 2001. 35. FCC order to deny application for review filed by the EMR Network, adopted July 28, 2003. 36. Freiburger Appeal, UGUMED, October 2002. 37. "Study of the health of people living in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations: I. influences of distance and sex," R. Santini et al, Institut national des sciences appliquées—laboratoire de biochimie-pharmacologie, 2002. 38. "Effects of 900 MHz electromagnetic field on TSH and thyroid hormones in rats," Koyu A. et al, 2005 July 4;157 (3):257-62. 39. "Brain and Eye Tumors on the Rise," Dr. George Carlo, CPR News Bureau, 0116-06. cprnews.com. 40. "Wake-up Call," Rob Harrill, March 2005, Columns-- University of Washington Alumni Magazine. Farren is quoted here. 41. Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age, Dr. George Carlo and Martin Schram, Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2001, p. 154

42. "Brain and Eye Tumors on the Rise," Dr. George Carlo, CPR News Bureau, 0116-06. cprnews.com. 43. "Is There a Ten-Year Latency For Cell Phone Tumor Development?" Microwave News, January 2006. 44. Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Ag, op. cit. 45. "DNA Damage and Cell Phone Radiation," www.rfsafe.com, 11-02-05. 46. Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Ag, op. cit. 47. "Cell Phone Radiation Harms DNA, Study Claims," (Reuters) MSNBC, 12-0404. 48. "RF-Induced DNA Breaks Reported in China," Microwave News, 09-29-05. This report comes from the Zhejiang University School of Medicine. 49. "ROS release and Hsp70 expression after exposure to 1,800 MHz radiofrequency electromagnetic fields in primary human monocytes and lymphocytes," Lantow M, et al., Radiat Eviron Biophys, 03-22-06. See also: Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Ag, op. cit. 50. "Cancer Biology: On Heat Shock Proteins and Tumor Cells," Science Week, Nature 2003, 425:357) scienceweek.com. 51. "Cell Phones Make Cancerous Cells Grow More Aggressively," 10-24-02, rense.com. This study on leukemia cells was done by scientists at the National Research Council in Bologna, Italy. 52. "Mobile Phones Linked to Cancer," BBC News, 11-9-1998. Article contains court testimony by cancer expert Alisdair Phillips. 53. New Scientist, 10-24-02. 54. "Cell Phone Risks Cited in Studies: Three Groups find Danger of Tumors," N. McVicar, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 02-01-05. 55. Ibid. 56. "Long-Term Mobile Phone Use Raises Brain Tumor Risk: Study," Reuters, 0331-06. This research was conducted by the Swedish National Institute for Working Life whose scientists studied 905 people with malignant brain tumors to confirm a 240% increased risk of brain tumors after heavy mobile phone use. 57. "Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer," Associated Press, 06-29-05.

58. "Nerve Cell Damage in Mammalian Brain after Exposure to Microwaves from GSM Mobile Phones," Leif G. Salford et al, Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 111, Number 7, June 2003. 59. Ibid. 60. "New Study Shows Cell Phones Cause Brain Changes," Reuters, 06-20-02, Helskinki, Finland. This study was done by Finland’s Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority. 61. "Changes in Protein Folding: A Nonthermal RF Mechanism," Microwave News, May/June 2003. This report describes experiments completed by Dr. David de Pomerai, University of Nottingham. 62. "Phone Study: Holey Rat’s Brains," Elisa Batista, wired.com, 01-31-03. This is Leif Salford’s study, confirming severe damage to rat brains exposed to only two hours of cell phone radiation. 63. "Chronic exposure to GSM 1800-MHz microwaves reduces excitatory synaptic activity in cultured hippocampal neurons," Xu et al, Department of Neurobiology, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China, 02-05-06. 64. "The Biochemical Frontier Between Alzheimer’s Disease and Aging," N. Sergeant and A. Delacourte, Proceedings of the Second Kuopio Alzheimer Symposium, Finland, January 2001. 65. "Memory and Behavior," Dr. Henry Lai, Bioelectromagnetics Research Laboratory, University of Washington: paper presented in Italy, November 21-25, 1999. 66. "Rats Exposed to Cell Phone Microwaves Suffer Long-Term Memory Loss, According to New Study by University of Washington Researcher," www.sciencedaily.com, 12-02-1999. 67. "Neurological Effects of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation," a paper presented by Dr. Henry Lai at the Mobile Phones and Health Symposium, in Vienna, Austria, October 25-28, 1998. 68. Ibid. 69. "Neuropathology in Aging," D. G. Davis et al, University of Kentucky Medical Center, report presented at the Second Kuopio Alzheimer Symposium, Kuopio, Finland, January 2001. 70. "Alzheimer Rate Exploding," Lancet, 12-17-05; 366 (9503);2112-7.

71. Quote from Toshiyuki Sawaguchi, Professor of Neurobiology Hokkaido University School of Medicine. See report: "Frightful Epidemic of ‘Severe’ Memory Loss People 20-30—Is it nvCJD?" www.rense.com, 02-05-01. 72. "Survey’s Finding of a Drop in Reading Proficiency is Inexplicable, Experts Say," L. Romano, Washington Post, 12-25-05. 73. "Talking on a Mobile Phone Whilst Driving is More Dangerous Than being Drunk Behind the Wheel," www.driectline.com, 03-22-02. This study was conducted by the Transport Research Laboratory in Britain for leading insurer Direct Line. 74. Ibid. 75. Ibid. 76."Cell Phones Quadruple Car Crash Danger," BBC News, www.rense.com, 0711-05. 77. "Hand-Free Cell Phones No Safer than Hand-Held—Cell phone Use Contributes to Car Crashes," consumeraffairs.com, 6-13-05. 78. "Study: Cell Phone Use ages Young Drivers," Associated Press, 02-03-05. 79. Dr. John T. McLaughlin was the medical consultant for Hughes Aircraft Corp. which compiled for the military a list of ill effects of radar exposure. See Sterneck, et al (1980). 80. From Russian report presented in Warsaw 1971 by Zinaida V. Gordon and Maria N. Sadchikova of USSR Institute of Labor Hygiene and Occupational Diseases, who identified comprehensive series of symptoms which they called microwave sickness. 81. "Influence of a radiofrequency electromagnetic field on cardiovascular and hormonal parameters of the autonomic nervous system in healthy individuals," Braune et al, Radiat Res 158 (3): 352-356, 2002. 82. "Health Scientists Cut Their Mobile Phone Use," BBC News, 03-01-99. 83. "Cell Phone on Your Belt Brings Radiation To Liver and Kidneys," The Sunday Mirror, UK, 7-10-99. 84. "Erythrocyte rouleau formation under polarized electromagnetic fields," Sebastian et. al, Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys 2005; 72 (3) 031913-1031913-9. Source: Infoline 11-03-05.

85. "Red Blood Cells Lump by Mobile Phone," reported by Schwabische Zeitung, 03-07-05; also see "German Students Shame British Government," Mast Sanity, 03-22-05, mastsanity.org. 86. "Blood Test Hope for Mobile Phone Mast Victims," mastsanity.org, 09-13-05. 87."Wireless Local Area Networks (WLANs) and Bluetooth," www.powerwatch.org.uk., 11-04-2003. 88. "Muddled Rats, Dying Chicks—Scare Stories from Around the Globe," Telegraph, UK, 01-12-98, www.telegraph.co.uk. This article cites French study done on chicks at University of Montpellier. 89. Presentation by Dr. Ross Adey, U.C. Biochemist, UC Riverside, delivered Feb 4, 2000 at the Bioelectromagnetics Society meeting in Washington, D.C. 90. "Autism Alarm," Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), January 2004. 91. "Radiation Damage May Be Passed to Offspring," (Reuters Health), Nature, May 4, 2000. 92. "Mobile Phones Warning to Pregnant Women," www. telegraph.co.uk, 06-2898. 93. "Eye on Europe," Microwave News, Vol. 22, No. 2, March/April 2002. 94. "Is there a relationship between cell phone use and semen quality?" Fejes, et al, University of Szeged, Hungary, Arch Androl. Sept-Oct 2005, 51 (5): 385-93. 95. "Laptop Use Can Damage Male Fertility," www.eweek.com, 12-09-04. This study was done by researchers at State University of New York at Stony Brook. 96. "Effects of 1800 MHz GSM-like exposure on the gonadal function and haematological parameters of male mice," Forgacs Z, et. al, FGF-Infoline 03-11-05. 97. "Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation," Dr. Henry Lai, University of Washington, paper presented in Italy, September 13-14, 2002. 98. "A Possible Association Between Fetal/Neonatal Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation and the Increased Incidence of Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD)," Robert C. Kane, Ph.D., Medical Hypothesis, Volume 62, Issue 2, February 2004. 99. "Autism, Mercury and Politics," Robert Kennedy Jr., The Boston Globe, 07-012005: In USA, one in every 166 children has an autism spectrum disorder-- an

increase of 6000% since the 1970’s-- and one in every 6 children is now diagnosed with a related neurological disorder. 100. Presentation by Dr. Ross Adey, U.C. Biochemist, UC Riverside, Feb 4, 2000 at the Bioelectromagnetics Society meeting in Washington, D.C. 101. "Unborn Babies Soaked in Chemicals, Survey Finds," Maggie Fox, Reuters, www.rense.com, 7-14-05. 102. "Shocking Pregnancy Statistics," Joel Sol, rense.com, 05-02-02. This statistic was in a press release from the National Research Council of the National Academy of Science Institute of Medicine, June 2000. 103. Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Ag, op. cit. 104. "What Cell Phones Can Do To Youngster’s Brain in 2 Minutes," U.K. Sunday Mirror, rense.com, 04-01-04. 105. This assessment is from Dr. Gerard Hyland, University of Warwick, Dept. of Physics, Coventry, England and is excerpted from his report for the STOA Committee of the EU. See www.latitudes.org: Electromagnetic Radiation—free article. 106. "Teddy Bear Mobile puts 4-years Olds at Risk from Radiation," Nic Fleming, telegraph.co.uk., 11-29-05. 107. "German Academy of Pediatrics: Keep Kids Away from Phones," Microwave News, January/Feb. 2001. 108. "More Reasons Children May be at Risk," Microwave News, Vol. 22, No. 4, July /August 2002. 109. EMF Health Report, March/April 1995. 110. Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Ag, op. cit., pp. 218-219. The EPA official quoted is Norbert Hankin, who was an environmental scientist with EPA’s Office of Radiation and Indoor Air. 111. "General Symptoms of Radio Wave Sickness," No Place to Hide, Volume 3, Number 1 April 2001, Special Issue on Russian and Ukrainian Research, Arthur Firstenberg, Cellular Phone Taskforce, P.O. Box 1337, Mendochino, Ca. 95460. 112. Washington Post, 06-07-95. 113. "Neurological Effects of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation," Dr. Henry Lai, op. cit.

114. "Effects of Pulsed High-frequency electromagnetic fields on Human sleep," Mann, K, Roschke, J. Neuropsychobiology 33 (1):41-47, 1996. 115. "Mobile Phone Users ‘Addicted to Radiation,’ "Observer (London), 03-14-99. 116. "Neurological Effects of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation," Dr. Henry Lai, op. cit. 117. "Robbing Four Banks, Cell Phone in Hand," Spokesman Review, 11-12-05. 118. "Cell Phones the Newest Teen Addiction," British Medical Journal, 11-400;321:1155. 119. "Cell Phones Indispensable to Teens," The Telegraph, UK. www.rense.com, 12-19-04. 120. "Are Microwaves Addictive?" The Courier-Mail (London) 10-07-03. 121. "Group Implants Digital Angel Microchips in Rescue Dogs," J. Vomhof, Minneapolis St. Paul Business Journal, 01-18-06. 122. California Dept. of Health Services, California EMF Program, Draft of Final Risk Evaluation Report, 2002. 123. Ibid. 124. Cross Currents, Dr. Robert Becker, 1990. 125. The Book of Revelation, King James Bible. See Chapters 13-16 on mandatory number implants and health ramifications, especially verses 16-17 of chapter 13 and verse 2 of chapter 16.