Wi-Fried! Cellphones, WiFi, and EMF Health Effects

Wi-Fried! Cellphones, WiFi, and other Electromagnetic Health Effects

Why you should care about EMF Exposure

The stakes are very high.

We Are Electric

Human beings are bio-electrical systems. Our hearts and brains are regulated by internal bio-electrical signals. Environmental exposures to artificial EMFs can interact with fundamental biological processes in the human body. In some cases, this may cause discomfort, or sleep disruption, or loss of wellbeing (impaired mental functioning and impaired metabolism) or sometimes, maybe it is a dread disease like cancer or Alzheimer’s disease. It may be interfering with ones’ ability to become pregnant, or carry a child to full term, or result in brain development changes that are bad for the child. It may be these exposures play a role in causing long-term impairments to normal growth and development of children, tipping the scales away from becoming productive adults. We have good evidence these exposures can damage our health, or that of children of the future who will be born to parents now immersed in wireless exposures.

In the United States, the deployment of wireless infrastructure (cell tower sites) to support cell phone use has accelerated greatly in the last decades. The spread of cell towers in communities, often placed on pre-school, church day-care, and school campuses means that young children can have thousands of times higher RF exposures in home and school environments than existed even 20-25 years ago. CTIA estimates that in 1997 there were only 36,650 cell sites in the US; but increased rapidly to 131,350 in June 2002; 210,350 in June 2007 and 265,561 in June 2012 (CTIA, 2012). About 220,500 cell sites existed in 2008. These wireless antennas for cellular phone voice and data transmission produce whole-body RFR exposures over broad areas in communities that are an involuntary and unavoidable source of radiofrequency radiation exposure. Further, the nearly universal switch to cordless and cell phones, and away from corded landline phones means close and repetitive exposures to both EMF and RFR in the home. Other new RFR exposures that didn’t exist before come from WI-FI access points (hotspots) that radiate 24/7 in cafes, stores, libraries, classrooms, on buses and trains, and from personal WI-FI enabled devices (iPads, tablets, PDAs, etc). The largest single source of community-wide, pervasive RFR yet rolled out is the ‘smart meter’ infrastructure. This program places a wireless device (like a mini-mobile phone base station) on the wall, replacing the electromechanical (spinning dial) meter. They are to be installed on every home and classroom (every building with an electric meter). Utilities from California to Maine have installed tens of millions already, despite health concerns of experts and enormous public resistance. The wireless meters produce spikes of pulsed radiofrequency radiation 24/7, and in typical operation, will saturates living space at levels that can be much higher than already reported to cause bioeffects and adverse health effects (utilities can only say they are compliant with outdated federal safety standards, which may or may not always be true [1]. These meters, depending on where they are placed relative to occupied space in the home or classroom, can produce RFR exposure levels similar to that within the first 100 feet to 600 feet of a mobile phone base station (cell tower).

The cumulative RFR burden within any community is largely unknown. Both involuntary sources (like cell towers, smart meters and second-hand radiation from the use of wireless devices by others) plus voluntary exposures from ones’ personal use of cell and cordless phones, wireless routers, electronic baby surveillance monitors, wireless security systems, wireless hearing aids, and wireless medical devices like implanted insulin pumps all add up. No one is tallying up the combined exposure levels. Billions of new RFR transmitters from the smart meter rollout alone will raise the baseline RFR levels, and will significantly add to the existing RFR background.

Sometimes, science does not keep pace with new environmental exposures that are by-products of useful things we want to buy and use in society. So, the deployment runs ahead of knowledge of health risks. It is an old story. This is the case for EMF and RFR, and this Report underscores the critical need to face difficult questions, make mid-course corrections, and try to repair the damage already done in this generation, and to think about protecting future generations. [2]

Wireless-devices-at-home-and-school-are-exposing-children-to-unnecessary-radiation

Why does EMF effect me?

DNA is a Fractal Antenna in Electromagnetic Fields

“CONCLUSIONS: The wide frequency range of interaction with EMF is the functional characteristic of a fractal antenna, and DNA appears to possess the two structural characteristics of fractal antennas, electronic conduction and self symmetry. These properties contribute to greater reactivity of DNA with EMF in the environment, and the DNA damage could account for increases in cancer epidemiology, as well as variations in the rate of chemical evolution in early geologic history” [3]

DNA is a Fractal Antenna in Electromagnetic Fields

Do We Know Enough to Take Action?

There is more evidence than we need.
The last five years worth of new scientific studies tell us the situation is much worse than in 2007 and yet people around the world have so much more daily exposure than even five years ago. Exposures are linked to a variety of adverse health outcomes that may have significant public health consequences. When added across billions of people world-wide, no argument for the status quo can be persuasive now.

In twenty-one technical chapters of this 2012 update, the contributing authors discuss the content and implications of about 1800 new studies. Overall, there is reinforced scientific evidence of risk where there is chronic exposure to low-intensity electromagnetic fields and to wireless technologies (radiofrequency radiation including microwave radiation).

There is more evidence in 2012 that such exposures damage DNA, interfere with DNA repair, evidence of toxicity to the human genome (genes), more worrisome effects on the nervous system (neurology) and more and better studies on the effects of mobile phone base stations (wireless antenna facilities or cell towers) that report lower RFR levels over time can result in adverse health impacts. There has been a big increase in the number of studies looking at the effects of cell phones (on the belt, or in the pocket of men radiating only on standby mode) and from wireless laptops on impacts to sperm quality and motility; and sperm death (fertility and reproduction).

In other new studies of the fetus, infant and young child, and child-in-school – there are a dozen or more new studies of importance.

The 2007 BioInitiative Report was prepared by world- recognized experts in science and public health policy. Outside reviewers also contributed valuable content and perspective. It was concluded even in 2007 that existing public safety limits were inadequate to protect public health, and agreed that new, biologically- based public safety limits were needed five years ago. The public health cost of doing nothing was judged to be unacceptable in 2007. This did nothing to change the rules, nor roll back the technology tsunami of wireless-everywhere.

The levels of exposure we face in 2012 are higher, and have crept into every day life, even for children. The levels at which undesirable effects on health and well-being are seen is much lower. The levels of concern at have dropped lower in 2012 by 10s to 100s of times. There is much greater involuntary exposure, and it is nearly unavoidable even for people who choose not to ‘go wireless’ (second-hand radiation effects). Safe forms of communication by land-line telephone are being phased out without general public knowledge or agreement. There is no informed consent for consumers (warning labels on cell phones, for example, have been defeated by telecom industry lobby groups). It is still difficult or impossible for a consumer to get reliable information on levels of exposure from wireless devices, It is simply beyond the reach of people to identify where excessively high levels of exposure occur in their communities, and it is very rare for a county or state health department to accommodate requests for information or provide measurements.

Today the evidence is stronger than ever and it may be placing people at risk, but most people have no idea. There is little indication that cell phone users (whose numbers have risen from roughly 2 billion in 2006 to 6 billion users globally in 2012) are aware of the risks. In that time, whole-body exposures from other RFR sources like WI-FI, WI-MAX, smart grids using wireless utility meters, and vast commercial applications of wireless RFR (in commerce, transportation, in banking, in surveillance and monitoring, in medical imaging and ironically in health care record-keeping and learning environments for education – all these new applications of wireless over wired communications and data transmission add to the RFR saturation in cities. Wireless laptops and wireless internet in schools, and home offices and for homework mean even more chronic exposures to RFR, a designated IARC 2B Possible Human Carcinogen (May 31, 2011).

The range of possible health effects that are adverse with chronic exposures has broadened. The most serious health endpoints that have been reported to be associated with extremely low frequency (ELF) and/or radiofrequency radiation (RFR) include childhood and adult leukemia, childhood and adult brain tumors, and increased risk of the neurodegenerative diseases, Alzheimer’s and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Recent studies largely reinforce the potential risks to health (rather than reducing our concerns, or providing actual indications of safety). In addition, there are reports of increased risk of breast cancer in both men and women, genotoxic effects (DNA damage, chromatin condensation, micronucleation, impaired repair of DNA damage in human stem cells), pathological leakage of the blood–brain barrier, altered immune function including increased allergic and inflammatory responses, miscarriage and some cardiovascular effects. Insomnia (sleep disruption) is reported in studies of people living in very low-intensity RFR environments with WI-FI and cell tower-level exposures. Short-term effects on cognition, memory and learning, behavior, reaction time, attention and concentration, and altered brainwave activity (altered EEG) are also reported in the scientific literature. Biophysical mechanisms that may account for such effects can be found in various articles and reviews.

We could do otherwise. Each wireless need had a wired solution in counterpart that has none of the health effects that wireless RFR does, with the exception of cell phone use for talking directly to someone. It is time to re-think the wireless tsunami and educate people about health, privacy and security risks. It is past time to develop new safety standards. It is necessary now to look to less harmful ways to communicate, move ourselves from place to place, shop, sleep, recreate, save energy, and educate our children in school. It is time to rethink our global commerce, energy, banking, transportation and communications infrastructures so we are all committed to sustaining healthy living spaces and conserve safe sanctuary for all species on earth. [4]

Are cellphones causing Cancer?

Professor Magda Havas of Trent University gave a one hour presentation to the citizens of Oakville Ontario Canada that demonstrated the amount of microwave emissions that are emitted by cell phone antenna. The audience in attendance were mostly members of the local community of Bronte that were concerned about 6 additional cell phone antenna that were placed on a tower beside their local fire station.

In this video you will be introduced to several cell antenna studies that show the microwave radiation that is emitted by these towers are harmful to human health. You will hear testimony of one person that lived right below a cluster of cell antenna that had been placed on her roof. Using radio frequency meters, Dr. Havas also demonstrated how wireless household appliances such as portable phones, WiFi base stations and DECT baby monitors broadcast constant microwave radiation that are similar in intensity a few hundred meters away from a large cell phone tower. [5]

  • For links to read about the studies that were mentioned [6]
  • For information about the Bronte Fire Station protest [7]
  • For information about Dr. Magda Havas [8]

Get the facts

  • Mobile phone before we are 12 NO WAYThe UK Chief Medical Officers strongly advise that children and teenagers under 16 should not use mobile phones except for short essential calls. [9]
  • The European Parliament commented on the Bio-Initiative international report and stated that: “the limits on exposure to electromagnetic fields which have been set for the general public are obsolete” and called upon the Council to “set stricter exposure limits for all equipment which emits electromagnetic waves …” [10][11]
  • The German government’s health protection agency recommends the public reduce their exposure to high frequency radiation to minimize health risks. It recommends:
    • remove cordless DECT phones
    • use cabled connections rather than wifi and bluetooth [12]
    • site wi-fi access points away from people, including at work  [13]

Electro-Hyper-Sensitivity (EHS)

EHS is characterized by a variety of non-specific symptoms that differ from individual to individual. The symptoms are certainly real and can vary widely in their severity. Whatever its cause, EHS can be a disabling problem for the affected individual. EHS has no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF exposure. Further, EHS is not a medical diagnosis, nor is it clear that it represents a single medical problem. WHO, through its International EMF Project, is identifying research needs and co-ordinating a world-wide program of EMF studies to allow a better understanding of any health risk associated with EMF exposure. Particular emphasis is placed on possible health consequences of low-level EMF. Information about the EMF Project and EMF effects is provided in a series of fact sheets in several languages. [14][15][16][17]

References

WiredChild.org ● The Oscillatorium ● EMF Portal  ● EMF Project ● Smart Meter Resources ● EMF Facts Consultancy ● EMF Safety Network

  1. http://sagereports.com/smart-meter-rf/ – Assessment of Radiofrequency Microwave Radiation Emissions from Smart Meters, Sage Associates Santa Barbara, CA USA January 1, 2011
  2. http://www.bioinitiative.org/participants/why-we-care/ – DNA is a fractal antenna in electromagnetic fields. – Why We Care About Health Effects from EMF & RFR – BioInitiative Report 2012
  3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21457072 – Blank M., Goodman R., Department of Physiology, Columbia University, New York
  4. http://www.bioinitiative.org/participants/do-we-know-enough-to-take-action/ – Evidence of Health Concerns with Wireless, EMF & RFR Exposure – BioInitiative Report 2012
  5. http://www.ccst.us/projects/smart/documents/082009_Hardell_Wireless_Phones_%26_Tumor.pdf – Epidemiological evidence for an association between use of wireless phones and tumor diseases
  6. https://web.archive.org/web/20131216073824/http://bronte.celltowerstudy.com/ – Oakville Epidemiological Cell Phone Tower Study
  7. http://mybronte.ca/studies-cell-antenna/ – Studies on Cell Antenna
  8. http://www.magdahavas.com/ – Dr. Magda Havas, PhD
  9. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130107105354/http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4123979 – Mobile phones and health – Department of Health, 6 October 2006
  10. http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20080923_european_parliament.asp – European Parliament Recommends Stricter Safety Limits for Cell Phones
  11. http://wiredchild.org/sciencealias/43-what-the-science-tells-us/65-what-scientists-are-saying.html – WiredChild – Scientists around the world have been speaking out… The Bio-Initiative Report
  12. https://web.archive.org/web/20071102125947/http://www.bfs.de/de/bfs/druck/infoblatt/Bluetooth_WLAN.html
  13. https://web.archive.org/web/http://www.brain-surgery.us/GermanGovt2007.pdf – German Government warns against WLAN-use, Industry criticise the move
  14. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity – Electromagnetic hypersensitivity on Wikipedia
  15. http://www.who.int/peh-emf/project/en/index.html – The International EMF Project
  16. http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs296/en/ – Electromagnetic fields and public health
  17. http://www.who.int/peh-emf/en/ – World Health Organization EMF portal
  18. http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120727/srep00540/full/srep00540.html – Amazing study which shows exposing a baby to EMF while in the womb can lead to childhood obesity
  19. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2308193/The-cell-phone-free-town-West-Virginia-sees-influx-residents-allergic-electronic-devices.html – The cellphone-free town in West Virginia that offers people who are ‘allergic’ to radio waves escape from the modern world
  20. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/03/the-hazards-of-electromag_n_171501.html – The Hazards Of Electromagnetic Pollution
  21. http://www.scribd.com/doc/140504845/Non-Thermal-Effects-and-Mechanisms-of-Interaction-Between-Electromagnetic-Fields-and-Living-Matter-2010 – Non-Thermal Effects and Mechanisms of Interaction between Electromagnetic Fields and Living Matter
  22. http://www.exohuman.com/wordpress/2011/02/biological-hazards-from-cellphone-use/ – Biological Hazards of Cellphone Use
  23. http://electromagnetichealth.org/community-health-assessment/ – Electromagnetic Health Assessment
  24. http://www.bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/ – BioInitiative Report 2012