More Dangers of Cell Phones Revealed

[onawah]

Cell phone dangers go way beyond radiation

Fri. Mar. 1, 2013 by Blanche Levine

http://www.naturalhealth365.com/dangerous_chemicals/cell-phone.html

Cell Phone Warning(NaturalHealth365) Cell phone dangers are widely known – yet many people get overwhelmed (and ignore) the health risks associated with wireless technology. To be perfectly clear, cell phones do emit harmful radiation which threatens our cellular matrix. These disharmonic frequency vibrations place a constant stress on our physical, mental and emotional wellbeing.

But, radiation is not the only thing bad about cell phone devices.

Are we breathing in toxic air from our cell phones?

There are chemical compounds used in the production of cell phones which pollute the air that enters our lungs; the water we drink and the food we eat. These vapors are spewing out of every mobile device on the planet. We’re talking about nasty stuff like, mercury, lithium, nickel, chlorine, bromine, lead, arsenic and cadmium – to name a few.

Funny how politicians talk about “saving the planet” – yet they use cell phones every day and allow toxic chemicals to be used in thousands of food and household products.

The Ecology Center of Ann Arbor, Michigan with ifixit.com took apart and identified components of 36 cell phones models – to find at least one of the above mentioned toxins inside. After dismantling over a thousand cell phones, they found most were loaded with a toxic soup of unwanted – deadly ingredients. You think politicians will help us to clean this up? (don’t hold your breath)

Do you think we should care about cadmium in our environment?

Cadmium is one of the most dangerous substances known to mankind. This poisonous heavy metal can cause lung and prostate cancer and is extremely toxic to the gastrointestinal tract; the kidneys; cardiovascular, and hormonal system.

By the way, the Environmental Protection Agency (EFA) recently decided to withdraw its final rule of adding cadmium to the “Toxic Substances Control Act”. The EPA recognized (feared) that this would create confusion and uncertainty within certain industrial sectors. Heaven forbid – we should warn people of any danger.

So much for trusting our government-sponsored, “health” agencies to protect us!

Nasty flame retardant chemicals found on cell phones

Brominated flame retardants are added to plastics to reduce the risk of fire. They are used in the printed wiring boards; cables and plastic housing. Brominated flame retardants are highly toxic and bio-accumulative within the human body. What happened to the “good old days” of regular (land-line) telephones?

Lead, a suspected carcinogen, is a hormone disruptor and capable of damaging almost every organ system in the human body – especially the central nervous system. That low-level anxiety you’re feeling could be a symptom of heavy metal poisoning.

Let’s not forget about lithium. This heavy metal creates environmental problems when exposed to water, which is present in most landfills. It can create underground fires, which are very difficult to extinguish.

Mercury accumulates in the fatty tissues of living organisms – such as fish. It is recognized as a hormone disruptor; neurotoxin; reproductive and respiratory toxin. Unfortunately, the inventors of cell phone technology couldn’t care less about human health or the health of planet Earth.

So, minimize your cell phone usage; use a regular telephone when possible and stay close to nature – it will never hurt you.

About the author: Blanche Levine has been a student of natural healing modalities for the last 25 years. She has the privilege of working with some of the greatest minds in natural healing including Naturopaths, scientist and energy healers. Having seen people miraculously heal from all kinds of dis-ease through non-invasive methods, her passion now is to help people become aware of what it takes to be healthy.

Sources:

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/10/cell-phone-dangers-loaded-with-mercury.html
http://www.cleanup.org.au/PDF/au/additional-info-sheet_mobilephones-the-environment.pdf
http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1194947386187

[EarthMan]

Barrie Trower has been getting the message out about the dangers of microwave technology and you may all find this interview interesting.
http://vimeo.com/50208624

[nomadguy]

Here is simple way to help shield your brain and glands from your cell phone,
Stick-on shungite plates.

20723
20722
20724

Shungite
"Shungite is a black, lustrous, non-crystalline mineraloid consisting of more than 98 weight percent of carbon. It was first described from a deposit near Shun'ga village, in Karelia, Russia, from where it gets its name. Shungite has been reported to contain fullerenes." wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shungite)

http://www.shungite.com/Shungite%20for%20cell%20phone.html

:yo:

[conk]

Just great! Another reason for me to worry about my silly teenager girls and their addiction to their iPhones. The 17 year old may have to have it removed from her hand by a surgeon. I try, but can't fight the ex-wife on this one.

[sleepy]

xxxxx xxxxx

[onawah]

Cordless phones, as I understand it, are even worse than cell phones.

[ThePythonicCow]

Cordless phones, as I understand it, are even worse than cell phones.

Do you have a reference for that?

My naive thinking would be that cell phones have to transmit to towers perhaps kilometers away, whereas cordless phones have to transmit to base stations perhaps meters away, so I'd expect the signal from the cell phone to be stronger.

I'd be interested in seeing evidence to the contrary.

[onawah]

Take your pick, Paul.
The articles I recall most clearly were from Natural News and Dr. Mercola, but these are just a few results when I googled "cordless phones worse than cell phones":

About 161,000 results (0.26 seconds)
Search Results

Cordless Phones: Even More Dangerous Than Cell Phones? | www ...
www.electricsense.com/.../cordless-phones-even-more-dangerous-tha...
Jul 14, 2010 – Is Cordless Phone Radiation Worse Than Cell Phone Radiation? Yes, it possibly is. With EMF exposure, proximity to the source and length of ...
WHO SAYS WIRELESS IS DANGEROUS
willthomasonline.net/Who_Says_Wireless_Is_Dangerous.html
CORDLESS (PORTABLE) PHONE DANGERS Cordless phones are 100-times worse than risky cell phones. Popular portables constantly blast out high levels of ...
Radiation :Cordless (DECT) Phone Worse Than Cell ... - YouTube
► 5:22► 5:22
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jggo5R2a6g
Nov 25, 2010 - Uploaded by RadiationProtection1
http://electricsense.com/815/cordless-phones-even-more-dangerous-than-cell-phones/ Cordless Phones ...
Dect Cordless Phone Radiation More Dangerous than Cell phones ...
► 4:14► 4:14
vimeo.com/46753247
Aug 1, 2012
Dect Cordless Phone Radiation More Dangerous than Cell phones and ... about DECT phones, as they ...
More videos for cordless phones worse than cell phones »
Cordless phones present untold dangers.
www.healthiswealthmaui.com/emf-cordless-phones.html
Experts say cordless handsets 100 times worse than mobiles ... Dr David Dowson said: "Having a cordless phone is like having a mobile mast in your house.
Warning - Your cordless phone may subject you to harmful levels of ...
www.naturalnews.com/034078_cordless_phones_EMFs.html
Nov 7, 2011 – Research has indicated that cordless phones can be up to one hundred times more dangerous than their mobile counterparts!
Cordless Phone Radiation Worse Than Cell Phone
www.thenaturalrecoveryplan.com/...Cordless-Phone...Worse-Than-C...
Lloyd Burrell of www.electricsense.com demonstrates the amount of radiation emitted by a cordless DECT phone. 5 mins.
Worse than Cigarettes? The Silent Enemy Harming Your Health ...
articles.mercola.com/.../vickie-warren-on-effects-of-electro...
Joseph Mercola

by Joseph Mercola - in 499 Google+ circles - More by Joseph Mercola
Jul 9, 2011 – It can also impede inter-cell communication anywhere in your body. ... According to Vickie, cordless phone bases are a MAJOR source of ...
[PDF]
The Dangerous Health Effects of Cell and Cordless Phone Use
healthgap.info/ep/cordless.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
Cordless Phones. Some experts say that cordless handsets are worse than cell phones because they are constantly blasting out high levels of radiation - even ...

[ThePythonicCow]

Take your pick, Paul. The articles I recall most clearly were from Natural News and Dr. Mercola, but these are just a few results when I googled "cordless phones worse than cell phones":
Did you read what you posted :) ?

What I see are warnings that the cordless phone base can be worse than the cell phone tower.

That doesn't surprise me.

But so far as I can tell, the gravest danger's from cell phones come more from the cell phone up next to your brain, rather than from the tower 100's of meters away or further.

The portions that I read of the articles you linked sound to me like they have taken what's probably legitimate research, and turned it into a bit of fear mongering. I'm not saying there are no elements of truth buried here, but I am saying that there's not enough legitimate research, analysis and measurements, accurately conveyed, in these popularizations of this research, to provide a useful basis for decision making.

[Calz]

Never carried a cell phone.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-f6LRFLW2Ef8/TeS1y5bhBFI/AAAAAAAAAA0/yd19HjzdJ5k/s1600/funny-pictures-cell-phone-dork-dhD.jpg

http://www.verdict.net/images2/ShoePhone.jpg

Insisted getting rid of cordless phone for the household ... which worked for awhile ... but I don't try to dominate all the other members of my family regardless ...

After a time even caved into wireless router.


Cell phone tower about 1/4th mile away.


Guess I have an excuse now ... right???


No responsibility???


Chemtrails ... barium ... all hopeless right???


Okay ... then why does this all still make sense to me???


Must be that ET dna.


Wifee constantly carries cell and endlessly does the facebook thang ...


Still sane and able to cope ... for the most part. If she has brain cancer I am not aware ... but since I am in a cordless/wireless household close to a cell tower I guess I would not pick up on that kind of thing would I???


:noidea:

[Nick Matkin]

I'm unconvinced that the amounts of radio frequency energy 99 percent of people are exposed to in a normal domestic environment is dangerous. I say that because I have been an RF engineer for over 30 years. Nevertheless, I'm not closed to the idea that some people may be sensitive.

I have not seen any peer-reviewed scientifically-based studies that show much more than psychosomatic effects, but I agree that the subject does need more proper research.

Anyone knowing anything about electromagnetic radiation (radio waves) will know that sticking anything on your phone or around your neck will do nothing to "protect" you, despite the convincing-sounding technical/scientific-sounding fancy advertising, so save your money. (Incidentally, such bogus advertising claims are forbidden in Europe. That may suggest something...)

What will "protect" you is keeping your cell phone switched off, or wrapped in foil, or in a metal tin. But these will of course prevent it from working.

Nick

[greybeard]

This is a full documentary regarding the dangers of cell phones and much more
I know that people are inclined to say that this is important documentary ---I find myself saying the same.

Please watch

Chris


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vb9R0x_0NQ

[Calz]

I am with yah Chris (and others ringing the alarm).

Gone to lengths to avoid what was possible (some things are not without moving).

Despite that there is still a near unavoidable level of that type of energy.

I expected much higher cancer evidence after all these years that would be undisputable.

:noidea:

[greybeard]

I am with yah Chris (and others ringing the alarm).

Gone to lengths to avoid what was possible (some things are not without moving).

Despite that there is still a near unavoidable level of that type of energy.

I expected much higher cancer evidence after all these years that would be undisputable.

:noidea:

Hi Cal
The documentary I posted is a scientific study and explains a lot even the death of bees.
Who knows birds falling from the sky might be caused by a build up of this energy---Im just guessing.
Even the cordless telephone and probably the wireless head phones im so fond of, are a big risk.

Another part of the documentary was that when people as part of an experiment were isolated from the Schumann resonance under ground the became ill.
I wonder if those who plan to live in underground citys are aware of this.

Regards Cal

Chris

[Muzz]

Barrie Trower has been getting the message out about the dangers of microwave technology and you may all find this interview interesting.
http://vimeo.com/50208624

Wow! that is an important interview. Thanks for posting Earthman.

More info on Barrie Trower here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?53147-Tetra-Masts-Biological-Impact&p=598875&viewfull=1#post598875).

[greybeard]

Cordless phones, as I understand it, are even worse than cell phones.

Do you have a reference for that?

My naive thinking would be that cell phones have to transmit to towers perhaps kilometers away, whereas cordless phones have to transmit to base stations perhaps meters away, so I'd expect the signal from the cell phone to be stronger.

I'd be interested in seeing evidence to the contrary.

Hi Paul I think it is somewhere in the video I posted---Cordless phones.
Chris

[Jean-Luc]

Cordless phones, as I understand it, are even worse than cell phones.

Do you have a reference for that?

My naive thinking would be that cell phones have to transmit to towers perhaps kilometers away, whereas cordless phones have to transmit to base stations perhaps meters away, so I'd expect the signal from the cell phone to be stronger.

I'd be interested in seeing evidence to the contrary.

Not worse, but probably just as bad, though differently.

Especially when you think this is your home telephone, that you live close by and that it emits 24/24 and also that you would naturally tend to have longer phone conversations, just because you may feel more secure and also because calling rates are usually much cheaper than cell phone rates.

There is indeed little specific research on DECT.

Here is the very interesting and significant research from Dr Madga Havas from Trent University with EHS (electro-hyper-sensitive) people and the direct, measurable effect on heart beat in double blind experiments (well, it's simple blind in the video, but that's just for demo purposes).

Radiation from Cordless Phone Base Station Affects the Heart (2010)
http://www.magdahavas.com/new-study-radiation-from-cordless-phone-base-station-affects-the-heart/ (2010)
http://www.magdahavas.com/microwave-radiation-affects-the-heart-are-the-results-real-or-are-they-due-to-interference/ (2012 - discussion)

Here is Powerwatch UK's review on DECT:


There has been quite a lot of publicity about the research showing that using digital cordless (DECT) phones results in similar adverse health effects as using a mobile phone, including the risk of developing brain tumours [1,2]. This research seems to be scientifically sound and the evidence for problems is growing.
We have had concerned parents on the phone to us, explaining that their children do not use their mobile phones at home, due to the possible health effects, so they talk for long periods of time on the cordless phones instead.

Children, particularly teenagers, can appreciate the privacy of a cordless phone. They can shut themselves in their bedroom, the bathroom, anywhere to make their calls away from prying ears. Unfortunately, it may have unforeseen consequences that neither they nor their parents could have anticipated.
DECT phone base units transmit 24-7, even when they are not being used to make actual phone calls. We have written a much more detailed article on DECT phones in our article library, available from here.
References
[1] Hardell L et al, (2006) Pooled analysis of two case-control studies on the use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk of benign brain tumours diagnosed during 1997-2003, International Journal of Oncology 28:509-519
[2] Hardell L et al, (2006) Pooled analysis of two case-control studies on the use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk for malignant brain tumours diagnosed during 1997-2003, International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health Mar 16; [Epub]
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/rf/dect.asp

In a recent series of experiments done at Brussels University with ants and documented here (in French with abstracts in English : full study available for those interested, just pm me),
http://www.teslabel.be/antennes/255-etudes-a-lulb-effets-nocifs-des-ondes-gsm-mis-en-evidence-sur-des-fourmis-et-des-protozoaires

roughly speaking the effects were shown to be just as bad with Wi-Fi or with a DECT : the ants really dislike both !

In a nutshell, though not a EHS myself, I personally refrain from using a DECT or a wifi, and make very reasonable use of my cell phone.

And I would very, very strongly discourage any parents from using a digital wireless babyphone (use the old ones instead, if you can find one).
http://www.magdahavas.com/health-canada-needs-to-issue-warning-about-wireless-baby-monitors/

[vje2]

Has anybody ever heard of "orgonite"?

Apparently orgonite is very good at transforming negative energy into positive.
There is a company in the UK that makes then with sungite.

http://www.thebluesun.co.uk/orgonite.htm

I don't know of any suppliers in the USA or Australia etc, but I am sure there are many.

I 've placed orgonite all over my house, and I also carry it in my pockets, bags and even in my car!

[Mad Hatter]

In Melbourne, and for the first time in Australia, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of the Australian Federal Court has provided legal recognition of the health effects of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) also known as electromagnetic frequencies (EMF).
In a workplace compensation case, handed down on 28 February 2013, the Tribunal found that Dr Alexander McDonald, suffered a workplace injury of a worsening of his sensitivity to EMR, as a result of him being required, by his employer (CSIRO), to trial the use of electronic equipment.


source for article http://stopsmartmeters.com.au/2013/03/08/legal-acknowledgement-of-the-condition-of-ehs-and-compensation-in-australia/

source for court case http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/2013/105.html


As far as the 'dumb' meters go even if they don't cause cancer it has, to my mind, been proven beyond all reasonable doubt by a couple of German uni students that at short read intervals they can tell exactly what you are watching on TV and when.



For those interested watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOArwu3lziQ ... blew my socks off !!



IIRC the World Health Organization just recently changed its stance from 'no harm done' to 'may cause cancer'... perhaps the re-insurers are getting a little nervous?


make your own orgonite... http://www.orgonite.info/

[hardrock]

I would love to see more valid research done on this. Everything is profit driven and we do not value health at all. If a company can subvert the rules process and output a dangerous product without getting sued, they will do so in our culture.

We KNOW that cell phone use has been linked to brain tumors.

Other than that, I haven't seen any REAL research of the effect of all these wireless signals on the human mind/body other than the Russian woodpecker and some vague Tesla documents. Nothing really describes in a digestible detail what effects the Cell wavelength, WiFi, Cordless Phone, Remote controls, etc. etc. that we usually have in the home.

If anyone has links to more valid research or documentation around this, I'd love to read it!

HR

[HaveBlue]

I rang my power company this week and asked them about their plans to do with these smart meters. they told me they were waiting for all the other power companies to sort out all the problems first.

The lady agreed that she didn't want one in her house either. I told her how long do i have before one is forced upon me? She didn't know. I asked her to make a note on the computer tha I was yet another 'customer' that is not interested and will go off grid, hence the reason for my call that I would be one who will grumble but reluctantly accept one.

I already have a battery bank of 12V deep cycle batteries and just need the solar panels and wind turbine. I do like the look of Win Keechs' Ridge Blade design the most.

[Mad Hatter]

Win Keechs' Ridge Blade design the most.

Do you have a link to that...??

[sleepy]

xxxxx xxxxx

[william r sanford72]

sounds a bit like the start of a long term denial campaign...sorta like the tobacco industry....or global warming.10 years from now there will be awhoops ...we srewed up..hows about some money to make your tumor shrink....were sorry moment...

[Nick Matkin]

What I see are warnings that the cordless phone base can be worse than the cell phone tower.

Exactly! There are folks who don't want a cell-phone tower near them, but are happy (perhaps not exactly 'happy') to use a phone next to their heads!

Well people, I have news for you; if you don't want a mast near you, guess what? Your cell phone is transmitting more energy out of its antenna (and into your adjacent head) by trying to reach a tower much further away. The inverse-square-law means a 100 watt transmitter 100 metres (or even 50 metres) away gives you much less 'radiation' (wrong word, but something everyone seems to understand) than a couple of watts stuck to your head.

So if you want your phone using as little power as possible, go somewhere where there are lots of towers.

Question: If you lived in an area with poor terrestrial TV reception, and someone said: "We can improve this by putting a 500 watt relay transmitter into your community", hands up (honestly now) if you said: "Oh no, the radiation will be harmful to our health!" Precious few I suspect. Why? What's the difference?

It can be argued from an engineering standpoint that there isn't any significant difference. The frequencies are often adjacent and both are 'pulsed'. But the media has equated only phone masts (and to some extent wi-fi signals) with health effects. I don't know any RF engineers - those who actually understand the issues - that accept electrosensitivity to be real. They work in MUCH higher field strengths than the public encounter and on my last head count were not 'dropping like flies'.

Nevertheless, there seems to be some anecdotal evidence (always a good indicator for serious research) to suggest that it might be real. But still no widely accepted double-blind conclusive studies - unless someone can show me otherwise.

Unfortunately the media hasn't educated the public with the facts. They could start by explaining the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, but hey, let's not let the facts get in the way of a good (scare) story!

Nick

[Flash]

shuman resonance 7.8 hrtz is the same as the alpha waves of our brains. Interesting. ADD has to do with the inability to put the brain in Alpha mode. Wouldn't it mean that all our ADD children are in fact not a able to connect to the earth, or are being disconnected in some ways? Just a thought.

I would very much like to test that, introducing an obvious source of shuman resonance when with ADD children and see the result. Or make sure pregnant women are connected to shuman resonance.

The melatonine effect in children is also true when thinking of autism or ADD

[onawah]

This article is from 2011, but there is sound research backing the claims, I would say...
Please pardon all the text I've copied here, but I think it's important that the dangers of the cell phone and cordless devices not be minimized.

In my experience, Dr. Mercola is not into fear mongering, but has genuine concerns over many important health issues, about which he is doing his best to educate his readers.
o4J4w7YKqdg
AzEBHQf-ybQ

Here's some news about cell phones and cancer which even the mainstream media has found impossible to ignore. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), has declared after a review of the research that cell phones are possible cancer-causing agents. The expert panel ruled that there was some evidence that cell phone use was linked to two types of tumors—brain tumors (gliomas) and acoustic neuromas.

Some scientists say the IARC classification is still not strong enough, and that cell phone radiation should have been classified as a "Probable Human Carcinogen" based on the existing science, but evidently there were not enough studies to classify it more strongly at this time.

Alasdair Philips of Powerwatch in the U.K. says,

"The existing science is very clear there is risk of cancer from cell phone use. The warning might have been 2A if there were a larger number of animal studies showing this, or if there were a larger number of up-to-date human studies. It's important to recognize the Interphone study on which the classification to a large extent relied was completed in 2004, and current studies reflecting usage patterns today would be far more damning, possibly earning a Class 1 "Human Carcinogen."

However, according to Electromagnetic Health:

"Nonetheless, the IARC opinion is a breath of fresh air to many, and restores some integrity to a badly tarnished IARC ... The IARC classification of cell phones as a 'possible human carcinogen' will now travel throughout the world, influencing governments far and wide, for the 1st time providing an official scientific basis on which governments, schools and parents can legitimately call for precautionary behavior regarding these radiation-emitting devices."

Professor Dariusz Leszczynski, of the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority in Finland, explains why this should probably be considered big news:

"... for the first time a very prominent evaluation report states it so openly and clearly: RF-EMF is possibly carcinogenic to humans. One has to remember that IARC monographs are considered as 'gold standard' in evaluation of carcinogenicity of physical and chemical agents. If IARC says it so clearly then there must be sufficient scientific reason for it, or IARC would not put its reputation behind such claim."

WHO's Group 2 Classification of Cancer Risk

"This category includes agents for which, at one extreme, the degree of evidence of carcinogenicity in humans is almost sufficient, as well as those for which, at the other extreme, there are no human data but for which there is evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. Agents are assigned to either Group 2A (probably carcinogenic to humans) or Group 2B (possibly carcinogenic to humans) on the basis of epidemiological and experimental evidence of carcinogenicity and mechanistic and other relevant data.

The terms probably carcinogenic and possibly carcinogenic have no quantitative significance and are used simply as descriptors of different levels of evidence of human carcinogenicity, with probably carcinogenic signifying a higher level of evidence than possibly carcinogenic."

So as you can see, while some journalists and scientists are now downplaying the IARC decision, saying the IARC classification of cell phones as possibly carcinogenic does not mean cell phones cause cancer, and even preposterously claiming that there is no evidence of this at all, there is no uncertainty that IARC, a highly respected scientific body, is now clearly saying there is evidence of carcinogenicity, otherwise they would not have classified in category 2B.

See Citizens for Health commentary on this, including comments on the 2B classification by 20+ year veteran of the IARC, Dr. Annie J. Sasco of Bordeaux Segalen University, France

Camilla Rees of ElectromagneticHealth.org says,

"We expect to see continued spin from all directions, attempting to confuse the public and raise doubt, for some time to come. Thus it is especially important citizens be able to spot the misinformation and recognize there is an extraordinary propaganda machine in motion. We expect this will get LOUDER until industry is one day forced to cry 'Uncle" under the landslide pressure from expected lawsuits and governments."

Already, three senior members of Congress are calling on the General Accounting Office (GAO) to conduct a "thorough review" of the science and "adequacy" of current FCC exposure guidelines. These include Representatives Ed Markey (MA), Henry Waxman (CA) and Anna Eshoo (CA). And Reuters reports the Supreme Court is considering the fate of existing cell phone safety litigation in light of the WHO classification.

The IARC decision came only days after the Council of Europe, elders from 47 European countries, has called for a dramatic reduction in EMF exposure to humans from call phones and wireless technologies.

It is important to realize, however, that cell phones may not all be the same. Although all cell phones emit radiation, CDMA cell phones, such as those used by Sprint and Verizon, do not pulse their signals like the GSM phones used by AT&T and T-Mobile.

According to Dr. Joel Moskowitz, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley, "GSM phones emit about 28 times more radiation on average compared to CDMA phones according to one published study." Dr. Moskowitz recommends switching to a CDMA carrier if you want to reduce your radiation exposure.

Magda Havas, PhD of Trent University, Canada, agrees pulsed radiation is more dangerous:

"Pulsed radiation is much more harmful and the true intensity is not provided as it is "averaged" during a period of time (30 minutes for public exposure in US). The average of the pulse (maximum reading) and the minimum reading
gives a false low reading. Engineers like to measure averages but living organisms react to extremes so these average readings under estimate the potential for harm if the radiation is pulsed."

pulsed microwave graph



Dr. Mercola's Comments:

Follow Dr. Mercola on Twitter Follow Dr. Mercola on Facebook

This is truly a groundbreaking moment; one that I and other safety advocates have worked toward for over a decade. I personally began warning my readers about the potential health hazards of cell phones and the need to adhere to the precautionary principle in the late 1990's. So those of you who have been long-time readers of this newsletter, you've had more than 10 years to consider the evidence and implement safety precautions for yourself and your family.

Cell Phone Radiation Declared "Possible Carcinogen"

On May 21, 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a committee of 27 scientists from 14 different countries working on behalf of the World Health Organization (WHO), concluded that exposure to cell phone radiation is a "possible carcinogen" and classified it into the 2B category. This is the same category as the pesticide DDT, lead, gasoline engine exhaust, burning coal and dry cleaning chemicals, just to name a few.

The group did not perform any new research; rather the decision is based on a review of the previously published evidence, including the Interphone study results published so far (about 50% have still not been released) and the Hardell studies. This is the same evidence that the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Cancer Society (ACS), among others, have previously waved aside; calling it "reassuring," and claiming it showed "no evidence" of harm.

Finally, this international committee of experts has now declared otherwise. Only days before the meeting commenced, a key 'expert', Dr. Anders Albom of the Karolinska Institute, was let go from the expert group after it was revealed he had failed to disclose a potential telecom industry conflict on his WHO conflict-of-interest statement. Anders Albom and others long suspected of ties to the telecom industry had recently been featured in the spoof poster created by activists below, "The Science of the Lambs".

Science of the Lambs

Christopher Wild, Director of IARC, opened the IARC meeting on carcinogenicity of RF calling for scientists to understand the gravity of the upcoming decision for society.

Cell Phones—A Worldwide Health Hazard

As you probably know, over five billion people worldwide, about 80 percent of the world's population, now has a cell phone. This fact alone makes this an extremely important issue as it affects the vast majority of people on Earth—not to mention the detrimental impact it may have on insects, such as bees, and other animals. Many Third World countries have actually circumvented the infrastructure of landlines entirely, and have gone straight to using cell phones.

It's important to realize that while this type of radiation exposure may not pose an immediate short-term threat to your health, as it is not an ionizing type of radiation (like x-rays) that can break chemical bonds and directly damage DNA, cell phones emit a radio frequency field in the microwave band that interacts with your own bio signaling system, which can over time cause a variety of health problems and raise your risk of cancer. Cancers associated with this radiation include brain tumors (gliomas), acoustic neuromas, meningiomas, salivary gland tumors, eye cancers, testicular cancers and leukemia.

And, importantly, in some people, acute symptoms from cell phone radiation can also be debilitating, greatly impairing cognitive function, even for long periods after cell phone use. And while DNA is not directly impacted, its repair processes are impacted, the end result being damaged and malfunctioning DNA, with unknown consequences for future generations.

Don't be misled by those saying there is not DNA damage just because the power is not hot enough to separate electrons from atoms. DNA has been shown to be exquisitely sensitive to these fields, according to research by Martin Blank, PhD of Columbia University and others. In fact, it is "exquisitely sensitive" to EMFs, Blank says, across the entire spectrum of frequencies (i.e. from the low frequency ELFs, such as from electricity, to the higher frequency radiofrequency and microwaves from cell phones and WiFI, due to DNA's 'coil of coil structure'.

In 2008, the year for which we have the most recent statistics, there were 237,913 new cases of brain cancers and about two-thirds of these were gliomas.

The WHO scientific committee, relying on much research from the Swedish Hardell group and IARC's own 13-country Interphone data, found that cell phone radiation exposure increased the risk of this type of cancer by as much as 40 percent. However, other experts who have reviewed the evidence believe it may be far worse than that, warning that it may actually double your risk of developing brain cancer.

Wireless Industry Grasping for Straws

Needless to say, the wireless industry is now scrambling to counteract the bad press. John Walls, vice president for public affairs for The Wireless Association (CTIA) was quoted in the New York Times, stating:

"This IARC classification does not mean cell phones cause cancer.''

He also noted that both the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have evaluated the evidence, concluding that cell phone radiation does not pose a health threat.

Well, the last time I checked, the FDA couldn't even distinguish between the health effects of raw- versus pasteurized milk laced with genetically modified growth hormones, so I'm not so sure they're qualified to evaluate something as complex as the health effects of non-ionizing radiation… And the FCC, while it regulates the media industry, including telecommunications services, it is also politically tied to those industries. At least one of the current commissioners (who make the decisions) is a former telecommunications industry lobbyist.

Additionally, as clearly stated on the FCC's website, the FCC's "primary jurisdiction does not lie in the health and safety area, and it must rely on other agencies and organizations for guidance in these matters." Hence, it stands to reason that a "thumbs up" from the FCC is not all it's cracked up to be.

In all likelihood they too may eventually be forced to recognize the IARC's classification of cell phone radiation as "possibly carcinogenic, and change exposure guidelines for industry for microwave radiation from wireless technologies so that the standards are based on what we know is happening biologically, not simply on assumptions of physicists. An excellent write-up on the FDA and FCC conflicts and the failure of our government on this was published on ElectromagneticHealth.org last summer:

ElectromagneticHealth.org asked,

"If the FCC says it relies on the safety expertise of the FDA, and states it considered opinions from the FDA in setting its safety guidelines, but the FDA officially does not review the safety of radiation-emitting consumer products such as cell phones and PDAs before they can be sold, as it does with new drugs or medical devices, then where is the responsibility for assuring safety actually domiciled?"

The New York Times also quotes Dr. Meir Stampfer, a professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health and a paid adviser for the cell phone industry:

"It's a very thoughtful group, but the important thing is putting it into the perspective of what 'possible' means, and the likelihood that this is really something to be concerned about. The evidence doesn't support that. Comparing this to going out in the sun or any number of normal everyday activities that we're not really concerned about, I would put cell phones in the lower part of that category.''

His outdated knowledge about the "danger" of sun exposure notwithstanding, I cannot help but think that this is little more than a grasping for straws, supporting his telecom client's interests.

John Maris, MD of Children's Hospital in Philadelphia, has also recently made a statement in which he said, several times, "there is nothing at all to be worried about".

Misinterpreting the intent of the 2B classification of cell phone radiation as a potential carcinogen, Maris said

"The World Health Organization released a cautionary statement to say that we just need more information. That does not mean that cell phones cause cancer."

However, if we simply needed 'more information', cell phone radiation would not have been classified as a possible carcinogen by this esteemed body. And they made this decision before publishing the remaining almost 50 percent of the Interphone study, including much of the results from studies on tumors closest to where the cell phone us held against the head.

Cell phone radiation has the potential to harm your health, just like DDT or lead, which is what experts in the field have been saying for years. That doesn't mean that every person exposed to those substances will get cancer.

But it raises your overall risk, depending on a number of other factors, such as your general state of health, which in part is dependent on exposure to other toxins through food, air, and water, just to name a few. And I believe it's important to remember that when we're talking about toxins in general, it's your accumulated toxic load that matters most. So in that sense, heavy users of cell phones and other wireless gadgets are at exponentially increased risk, and should at the very least be warned so that they can make educated decisions about their self-imposed level of exposure.

Why You Should Take Notice of the IARC's Conclusion

Darius Leszczynski, an electromagnetic field (EMF) scientist with the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority of Finland, points out in a recent blog post that one of the factors that lend extra weight to the IARC's decision is that of the 27 working group members (Three of the 30 IARC members did not participate in the final voting process. One had previously been removed from the group due to a previously undisclosed potential conflict of interest.), a clear and overwhelming majority voted for the 2B classification. It was not a decision fraught with controversy and disagreement.

"This should be recognized as a strong mandate, for the IARC and the WHO, to classify RF-EMF (including mobile phone radiation) as 2B agent – possibly carcinogenic to humans," Leszczynski writes.

… One has to remember that IARC monographs are considered as "gold standard" in evaluation of carcinogenicity of physical and chemical agents. If IARC says it so clearly then there must be sufficient scientific reason for it, or IARC would not put its reputation behind such claim."

An excellent review of the dynamics surrounding the IARC decision, including the industry supporting views of the U.S. National Cancer Institute's Peter Inskip, who walked out of the meeting before the vote, can be found on Microwave News.

What Does this Mean Long-Term?

Some nations have already adopted the precautionary principle, and have previously issued precautionary advice to mobile phone users. Now that cell phone radiation has been classified as a "possible carcinogen," these messages can be strengthened in a meaningful way to reach more people, across the world.

Additionally, we're still in the infancy of EMF science as it relates to understanding the mechanism of the human health effects. One of the most beneficial effects this classification can have is to increase support for more research, as only when the mechanisms of action are better understood can causation be proven.

Research funds have begun to dry up in recent years, but that doesn't mean we don't need more research. It just means that those holding the purse strings thought it wasn't worth looking into further since the potential for health hazards seemed remote, based on conventional thinking about the biological effects of non-ionizing radiation, or because the findings would be detrimental to the cell phone industry.

Government officials rely on the wireless industry for financial support, and the health of our entire economy is deeply intertwined at this point with telecom industry interests.

Alasdair Philips of Powerwatch in the U.K. makes the important point that we are basing our insight, even in the IARC evaluation, on research conducted many, many years ago, and usage patterns have changed. He says that a review of the incidence of brain tumors conducted in the U.K. show that in fact the incidence rates for malignant temporal and frontal lobe tumors IS in fact rising.

Philips says,

"The graph below, created from research by de Vocht et al shows a rise in brain tumors in the regions of the brain closest to where you hold a cell phone. Tumors in other areas of the brain are actually decreasing."

This is an extremely important finding says Camilla Rees of ElectromagneticHealth.org, as other countries have not separated out their overall brain tumor incidence data by type and location of tumor so insights like this, that brain tumors are actually on the rise, can be gleaned.
cancer incidence from cellphone use

If we fail to continue researching the effects of this type of radiation, we throw away the opportunity to perhaps alter the technology in such a way that it significantly reduces the health impacts. I believe doing nothing is not an option at present, and hopefully the IARC's decision will help usher in greater research and safer technologies.

Rees says greater transparency in research funding is also urgently needed:

"Universities must be upfront and disclose the extent of their funding from telecom industry sources. This way, when statements downplaying the known cancer risks are made by academics, any telecom industry potential influence can be better assessed and clearer to the public."

Three Important Factors to Remember that May Reduce Health Risks

The major take-home fact that everyone needs to be concerned about is to protect your children, as they're clearly the most vulnerable. This includes unborn babies as well, so pregnant women may want to take extra precautions.

Increasing numbers of children are now using cell phones at an ever younger age, and it's important to realize that this exponentially increases their risk of cancer and any other wireless radiation-related health problems over their lifetime. According to professor Lennart Hardell of Sweden, those who begin using cell phones heavily as teenagers have 4 to 5 times more brain cancer as young adults!

So I believe you really need to set limits, if you're a parent.

How to Pick the Phone Carrier with the Lowest EMF

Please remember, you cannot determine safety by the SAR (specific absorption rate) on your phone. Buying a low SAR phone is a false sense of security, because the SAR rating has nothing to do with the non-ionizing radiation emitted and only is gauge of the intensity of the heating effect, and simply comparing one phone to another. One thing you can do, which hardly anyone is discussing, is to pick your cell phone carrier appropriately. There are two primary technologies used to distribute cell phone signals in the U.S.:

CDMA
GSM

As it turns out, GSM is far more dangerous because it emits 28 times more radiation than CDMA phones. In the United States, there are two primary CDMA networks: Verizon and Sprint. Most of the others use GSM, but you need to check with your specific carrier to confirm.

Common Sense Tips to Lower Your Cell Phone Risks

While the IARC panel, being a science not policy organization, did not make many specific recommendations to consumers, IARC Director Christopher Wild did take it upon himself to publically state:

"Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings it is important that additional research be conducted into the long-term, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands-free devices or texting."

And, Jonathan Samet, leader of the IARC RF-Carcinogenicity working group, of University of Southern California, has said:

"The 2B designation was not limited to cell phones. It has "broad applicability" to all sources of RF radiation" according to Microwave News, something the general news media has not yet zeroed in on.

Keep in mind that completely eliminating exposure is close to impossible. Even if you don't use a cell phone and your home is wireless-free, you can be exposed to microwave radiation from your neighbor's wireless devices or while visiting "hot spots" or traveling near cell phone towers. That said, there's still plenty you can do to minimize your exposure and help safeguard your children's health:

Children Should Never Use Cell Phones: Barring a life-threatening emergency, children should not use a cell phone, or a wireless device of any type. Children are far more vulnerable to cell phone radiation than adults, because of their thinner skull bones, and still developing immune and neurological systems.
Reduce Your Cell Phone Use: Turn your cell phone off more often. Reserve it for emergencies or important matters. As long as your cell phone is on, it emits radiation intermittently, even when you are not actually making a call.

Leave an outgoing message on your phone stating your cell phone policy so others know not to call you on it except in emergencies.
Use a Land Line at Home and at Work: Although more and more people are switching to using cell phones as their exclusive phone contact, it is a dangerous trend and you can choose to opt out of the madness.
Reduce or Eliminate Your Use of Other Wireless Devices: You would be wise to cut down your use of these devices. Just as with cell phones, it is important to ask yourself whether or not you really need to use them every single time.

If you must use a portable home phone, use the older kind that operates at 900 MHz. They are no safer during calls, but at least some of them do not broadcast constantly even when no call is being made. Note the only way to truly be sure if there is an exposure from your cordless phone is to measure with an electrosmog meter, and it must be one that goes up to the frequency of your portable phone (so old meters won't help much). As many portable phones are 5.8 Gigahertz, we recommend you look for RF meters that go up to 8 Gigahertz, the highest range now available in a meter suitable for consumers.

Alternatively you can be very careful with the base station placement as that causes the bulk of the problem since it transmits signals 24/7, even when you aren't talking. So if you can keep the base station at least three rooms away from where you spend most of your time, and especially your bedroom, it may not be as damaging to your health.

Ideally it would be helpful to turn off or disconnect your base station every night before you go to bed. Levels of microwave radiation from portable phones can be extraordinarily high, according to Camilla Rees.

"Portable phone radiation can be as high or higher than a wireless router, though most people would have no idea that this common device at their bedside could be harmful".

You can find RF meters at www.emfsafetystore.com. But you can pretty much be sure your portable phone is a problem if the technology is labeled DECT, or digitally enhanced cordless technology.

Limit Your Cell Phone Use to Where Reception is Good: The weaker the reception, the more power your phone must use to transmit, and the more power it uses, the more radiation it emits, and the deeper the dangerous radio waves penetrate into your body. Ideally, you should only use your phone with full bars and good reception.

Also seek to avoid carrying your phone on your body as that merely maximizes any potential exposure. Ideally put it in your purse or carrying bag. Placing a cell phone in a shirt pocket over the heart is asking for trouble, as is placing it in a man's pocket if he seeks to preserve his fertility.
Don't Assume One Cell Phone is Safer than Another.There's no such thing as a "safe" cell phone, and do not rely on the SAR value to evaluate the safety of your phone. Always seek CDMA carriers over GSM as they have far lower radiation in their signaling technology. And remember, eliminating cell phone use, or greatly lowering cell phone use from phones of all kinds, is where true prevention begins.
Keep Your Cell Phone Away From Your Body When it is On: The most dangerous place to be, in terms of radiation exposure, is within about six inches of the emitting antenna. You do not want any part of your body within that area.
Respect Others Who are More Sensitive: Some people who have become sensitive can feel the effects of others' cell phones in the same room, even when it is on but not being used. If you are in a meeting, on public transportation, in a courtroom or other public places, such as a doctor's office, keep your cell phone turned off out of consideration for the 'second hand radiation' effects. Children are also more vulnerable, so please avoid using your cell phone near children.
Use Safer Headset Technology: Wired headsets will certainly allow you to keep the cell phone farther away from your body. However, if a wired headset is not well-shielded the wire itself acts as an antenna attracting ambient information carrying radio waves and transmitting radiation directly to your brain. Make sure that the wire used to transmit the signal to your ear is shielded.

The best kind of headset to use is a combination shielded wire and air-tube headset. These operate like a stethoscope, transmitting the information to your head as an actual sound wave; although there are wires that still must be shielded, there is no wire that goes all the way up to your head.

We Can WIN this Battle

This latest development reminds me of the statements made by two famous men: Gandhi, and Arthur Schopenhauer, about the stages all truths must go through before being fully integrated into any society:

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mohandas Gandhi

All truth passes through three stages.

First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer

We are now entering into the third phase described by Schopenhauer:

Acceptance.

This is the typical transition, and it's not just related to health; it's really related to any principle of truth because truth is something that you really can't suppress for very long. It will eventually surface, and it's exactly what we're now seeing in so many areas.

For example, I was one of the first public figures to recommend and encourage the use of vitamin D because of all of its amazing health benefits, and for years I've sought to dispel the beliefs of many dermatologists and expert medical groups that the sun is dangerous. Nothing could be further from the truth as long as you have reasonable and rational exposure to it. This is one major area where we've already made a huge impact.

Here are four more health challenges that are currently being violently opposed under the current paradigm:

Water fluoridation
Genetically modified (GM) food
Mercury amalgams
Vaccinations

I address these four issues in the video above, so if you haven't done so already, please listen to it, or read through the transcript.

More Information

Now that we've established safer ways of using your cell phone, I just want to emphasize how excited and delighted I am about this recent announcement from the IARC because it really is a vindication of much of the work that I've been doing. Over the years, I've posted more than 200 articles about this topic.

To learn more, please see my dedicated EMF site.

I highly recommend setting aside an hour to listen to ElectromagneticHealth.org founder Camilla Rees' interview with Karl Maret, MD. With an extensive background in medicine, electrical engineering, and biomedical engineering, Dr. Maret is uniquely qualified to speak on the topic of electromagnetic fields, and he shares some of the most compelling arguments to date on why you must use extreme caution when it comes to cell phones, cordless phones, smart meters and other forms of electromagnetic fields (EMFs).

You can also listen to an important 20-minute speech by Martin Blank, PhD, who spoke at the November 18, 2010 Commonwealth Club of California program, "The Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields," co-sponsored by ElectromagneticHealth.org. Dr. Blank speaks with deep experience and commanding authority on the impact on cells and DNA from electromagnetic fields, and explains why your DNA is especially vulnerable to electromagnetic fields of all kinds.

An "Elephant in the Room"?

On a final note, Camilla Rees of ElectromagneticHealth.org cautions that while the IARC decision was a true watershed event, especially given IARC's own 13-country Interphone study downplayed brain tumor risk when published last May, with news headlines heralding "No Risk Found", she says:

"This first IARC classification is just the tip of the iceberg. There is a big elephant in the room most people are not seeing.

Microwave radiation emitted by cell phones is the same kind of radiation emitted by other wireless technologies, such as WiFi routers, portable phones, wireless baby monitors and cell towers.

The distinction is that the cell phone has more power at the head, and they operate at different frequencies. But given society is blanketing itself in this radiation at a range of frequencies, and the radiation is known to cause DNA damage, cancer, impaired fertility, cognitive impairment, such as memory changes, interference with learning and wildlife and ecosystem effects, we feel it is urgent that federal research funding be immediately allocated to examining this issue in the broader sense, far beyond the cell phone and brain tumor issue"

Fertility and Other Concerns

Fertility impacts from wireless radiation is one of the issues that is of greatest concern, given the number of people exposed to wireless technologies. Last Fall Rees published a "Letter to Parents on Fertility and Other Risks to Children" discussing these concerns that every parents will want to read.

And this month, Holistic Primary Care, a large circulation magazine for physicians and health practitioners, has published a piece on fertility by Alasdair Philips of Powerwatch entitled "Male Infertility Linked to Cell Phone EMF Exposure" Philips reviews the damage to sperm morphology and motility, fertility, as well as DNA and testicular changes . All men, or parents of a male child, will want to understand the fertility damage now occurring and take steps to create EMF-free environments.

Beyond fertility impairment, Rees says there is grave concern among scientists, such as Dr. Blank, about EMF's impact on our genetic material:

"If we do not look at this subject now, with significant federal resources, the damage occurring to the human species, as well as to animals and nature, may not be reversible. It is important public health officials understand the consequences of their inaction, or slow action, on this urgent public health issue".

Joel Moskowitz, PhD of UC Berkeley and others, as well, have proposed a $1 per year surcharge on cell phones to fund a $300 million federal research fund immediately.

Rees says an immediate step schools should take is to swap out wireless networks and exchange them with hard-wired connections.

"This will lessen long-term damage to our children as well prevent the short-term cognitive difficultiess occurring that impair learning. This investment in our children's health is essential".

Rees, who is founder of ElectromagneticHealth.org is also founder of Campaign for Radiation Free Schools (Facebook).

"What I don't understand", Rees says, "is how a trillion dollar industry could have emerged without our government expressing concern about human exposure to microwave radiation, when we have known for over a half century that microwaves are biologically active. There has been a terrible failure of government here. I hope we can learn from this.

Congress needs to place public safety above commercial interests. We have seen health overlooked in so many areas of society, for example in government support of Big Pharma, Big Telccom, Big Agra, etc.,at the expense of public health, and it is our responsibility as citizens to stand up and let our representatives in Congress understand what we value, and actively vote those representatives in government out of office if they are not concerned with our values and responding to serious public health issues."

[onawah]

More articles from Dr. Mercola on the dangers of cell phones and cordless phones

From Feb. 2011: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/02/16/raising-awareness-about-electromagnetic-pollution.aspx
From that article:
As Explore! Magazine author Eve Greenberg, M.A. wrote:

"B. Blake Levitt, Former New York Times writer and author of "Electromagnetic Fields, A Consumer's Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves, and Editor of Cell Towers, Wireless Convenience? Or Environmental Hazard?" explains in Rees' book, "Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution" that

"... It turns out that most living things are fantastically sensitive to vanishingly small EMF exposures. Living cells interpret such exposures as part of our normal cellular activities (think heartbeats, brainwaves, cell division itself, etc.) The problem is, man-made electromagnetic exposures aren't "normal". They are artificial artifacts, with unusual intensities, signaling characteristics, pulsing patterns, and wave forms. And they can misdirect cells in myriad ways."

You generally cannot feel or touch EMFs and electricity in your environment, but it's becoming increasingly clear that your cells are indeed impacted. Illness linked to electromagnetic radiation exposure include (and this is only a partial list):

Many cancers Neurological conditions Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) Sleep disorders Depression
Autism (early indications) Cognitive problems Cardiovascular irregularities Hormone disruption Immune system disorders
Metabolism changes Stress and Mineral disruption Fertility impairment Increased blood-brain barrier permeability DNA damage

In fact, in Dirty Electricity: Electrification and the Diseases of Civilization, epidemiologist Sam Milham, MD points out that the major diseases plaguing modern man -- heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc. -- may be triggered by this prevalent, yet nearly entirely overlooked, cause.

After analyzing health demographic data going back to the early part of the 20th century, Dr. Milham showed that populations without electrification experienced less disease than in urban areas with electrification, and that rural death rates correlated with levels of electrical service for most causes examined. Conditions linked to electrification included cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and suicide.

Dr, Milham says the era of cell phones and WI-FI is really the 2nd major wave of electromagnetic exposure to humans, the first being the introduction of electrification in the early 1900s. Most of America was not electrified until 1956, which allowed Dr. Milham to do this important research comparing health statistics in urban areas, rural electrified areas and rural non-electrified areas, and allowing for the important discovery of the role of electrification in disease.

and

Certain People are Especially at Risk

It is estimated that 3-8 percent of populations in developed countries experience serious electrohypersensitivity symptoms, while 35 percent experience mild symptoms, according to Dr. Thomas Rau, medical director of the world-renowned Paracelsus Clinic in Switzerland.

Dr. Rau also believes that 'electromagnetic loads' lead to cancer, concentration problems, ADD, tinnitus, migraines, insomnia, arrhythmia, Parkinson's and even back pain. You can listen to an audio interview with Dr. Rau on www.electromagnetichealth.org.

For people with Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Syndrome (EHS), just walking into a coffee shop that is WI-FI equipped can be debilitating, triggering a wide array of symptoms including headache, fatigue, nausea, burning and itchy skin, and muscle aches.

Some students have to drop out of school or are unable to continue on to graduate programs once they become electrically sensitive, irrespective of their intelligence and capabilities. Even just briefly standing on line at the post office, or traveling on public transportation, can be a debilitating experience for some people, sometimes taking hours to restore balance.

Because the symptoms are subjective and vary between individuals, it makes the condition difficult to study, but with the work of Magda Havas, PhD, of the Environmental & Resources Studies Department at Trent University, Canada and others, acceptance is slowly growing and the real health effects of EMF are becoming harder to deny.

For instance, recent research from Dr. Havas revealed that a cordless phone base station placed about two feet from your head and plugged in for three minutes at a time can significantly disrupt your heart rhythm, leading to increases in heart rate, arrhythmias and other disturbances in heart rate variability.

This is among the most solid proof that the effects of EMF radiation are real, as are the symptoms that some people readily experience when they're around such microwave-emitting devices. The biological effects on the heart in the Havas study were found at .3% of the FCC exposure limits.

Researchers have, in fact, found that there are a number of factors that influence the degree to which you may be affected by EMFs. For example, according to research by Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt, your physical body, such as your body weight, body-mass index, bone density, and water and electrolyte levels can alter the conductivity and biological reactivity to EMFs.

Heavy metals in your brain also act as micro-antennas, concentrating and increasing reception of EMF radiation. Likewise, any kind of metal implants and/or amalgam tooth fillings will significantly increase reception of microwaves, and the mircrocurrents from cell phones and other ambient fields. This is yet another major reason for having your mercury fillings removed by a trained biological dentist.

People who suffer from diseases that cause myelin loss, such as muscular sclerosis, Lyme disease, and other autoimmune diseases are also at greater risk of electro-sensitivity.

Children are also particularly vulnerable.Dr. Klinghardt has noted this radiation can easily flip certain genes in the mitochondria. If this gene sequence is altered in a pregnant woman, she can pass her damaged mitochondria on to her child. The child can then develop a mitochondrial disorder, which can include muscular atrophy and severe developmental problems.

While there are now EMF-Free Zones forming around the globe, such as in southern France, Spain and Italy, these areas are not yet widely available so virtually everyone is still exposed to EMF, even if they're hypersensitive to it. Or if people are severely hypersensitive, they often must go off and live in the mountains or very rural areas where it is easier to find refuge.

What is truly needed is a strong worldwide initiative that focuses on green buildings, green electronics, green IT and new energy technologies that acknowledge the health consequences of these technologies and take steps to effectively reduce them.

Today, much of the green movement is focused on reducing the carbon footprint without considering the biological effects of the new technologies employed, many of which are hazardous, such as 'green buildings' filled with sensors, solar panels installed without recognizing and filtering the dirty electricity generated, wind farms whose vibrations impact the neighbors' health, etc.


From 2011:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/01/12/cordless-phone-emfs-trigger-heart-rhythm-abnormalities.aspx
Cordless Phone EMFs Trigger Heart Rhythm Abnormalities

An international team of researchers recently discovered that in some individuals, the 2.4 GHz pulsed signals emitted by a cordless phone system produce significant disruptions in cardiac rhythm.

The researchers demonstrated that 40 percent of healthy volunteers in their study showed marked increases in heart rate, arrhythmias, and other disturbances in heart rate variability following exposure to active cordless phone base stations.

Many wireless routers and other forms of Wi-Fi technology also emit fields at this frequency.

Holistic Primary Care reports:

"This is the first objective evidence of cardiovascular effects associated with wireless EMF exposure, and it lends quantitative vindication to the concept of 'electrohypersensitivity,' the sense some people have that they become physically ill when close to EMF fields from cell phones, microwave ovens, computers, fluorescent lighting systems, and WiFi networks."



Dr. Mercola's Comments:


A cordless phone base station placed about two feet from your head and plugged in for three minutes at a time can significantly disrupt your heart rhythm, according to a new study led by Magda Havas, PhD, of the Environmental & Resources Studies Department at Trent University, Canada.

In all, 40 percent of the volunteers had increases in heart rate, arrhythmias and other disturbances in heart rate variability after exposure to a cordless phone base station emitting a 2.41 GHz pulsed microwave signal. This is the same type of cordless phone that many people use in their homes and the same frequency as everyday wireless routers that millions of people in homes, offices and schools.

Proof That EMF Health Effects are Real

This study was completely objective, directly measuring volunteers' heart responses to radiation while the volunteers were unaware of whether or not they were being exposed -- and still an effect was noted.

This is among the most solid proof that the effects of wireless radiation are real, as are the symptoms that some people readily experience when they're around other microwave-emitting devices.

As written on Dr. Havas' Web site:

"The sympathetic nervous system up regulated and the parasympathetic nervous system down regulated during exposure, which is the typical "flight-or-fight" stress response. Feelings of anxiety as well as pain or pressure in the chest were associated with the rapid or irregular heart beat among some of the participants tested.

This test is objective and directly measures the heart's response to radiation and is unlike subjective testing, where scientists ask individuals if they know whether a device is turned on or off and then determine their "sensitivity" based on perception of exposure, which is just that perception and NOT sensitivity.

It clearly documents that some individuals are hypersensitive to specific frequencies and supports complaints people have when they are exposed to radiation, including a racing or fluttering heart, pain or pressure in the chest, and feelings of anxiety that resemble the onset of a heart attack."

The graphic below shows this effect very clearly:
Real Time Monitoring of Heart Beat

Source: Magda Havas, PhD. Note, Subject B was electrically sensitive and Subject A was not. Subject B experienced almost a doubling of the heart rate on exposure and re-exposure to microwave radiation from a portable phone.

Much of the research surrounding harmful effects of wireless radiation involves cell phones, and there is reason for concern in this area. However, what is often overlooked is the fact that cordless phones can have the same effects as cell phones or even potentially worse.

DECT (2.4GHz and 5.8GHz) phones use a digital pulsed signal even when no call is being placed. In fact, the base station of a DECT phone always transmits at full power, while the cell phone transmits during a call and only when the user is actively talking. Portable phones, we hear, are in development that do not constantly radiate but are not yet available for the U.S. market. They have recently been introduced in Germany.

The transmission power is approximately 250mW, which is well under federal "safety" guidelines (1000 microW/cm2), yet Dr. Havas' study showed potentially serious health effects. In addition to the radiation, the pulsed signal is approximately 100Hz, which is within the biological range and therefore likely to cause adverse health effects as well.

Further, the cordless phone base station used in the study uses the same frequency -- a pulsed digital signal at 2.4 GHz -- as the Wi-Fi in many schools. If this level of exposure has the potential to disrupt adult heart rates, what effect might it be having on children?

Growing Credibility for Electrohypersensitivity Symptoms

The graph below, created by Dr. Havas based on a research study by Santini et al, illustrates the frequency of electromagnetic hypersensitivity symptoms based on a person's distance to a cell phone base station (cell phone tower).

It is based on a Spanish study published in 2001 in the journal La Presse Medicale, which clearly showed that the closer you are to the base station, the greater your chances are of exhibiting a number of health-related symptoms, such as fatigue, sleep disturbances, visual and auditory disturbances, and cardiovascular effects, just to name a few.

It's worth noting that these symptoms are just for ONE type of exposure, at a distance. It does not necessarily include the effects of other technologies that are emitting radiofrequency radiation as well, such as cell phones, cordless home phones, Wi-Fi networks in your office or your child's school, the exposures one gets from wireless laptops, etc.. Total and cumulative exposures to electromagnetic radiation from all sources must be taken into consideration in evaluating any health challenge.
Electro-Hypersensitivity chart

Source: From "Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution" by Havas and Rees

It is estimated that 3-8 percent of populations in developed countries experience serious electrohypersensitivity symptoms, while 35 percent experience mild symptoms, according to Dr. Thomas Rau, medical director of the world-renowned Paracelsus Clinic in Switzerland.

Dr. Rau also believes that 'electromagnetic loads' lead to cancer, concentration problems, ADD, tinnitus, migraines, insomnia, arrhythmia, Parkinson's and even back pain. You can listen to an audio interview with Dr. Rau on www.electromagnetichealth.org.

For people with Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Syndrome (EHS), just walking into a coffee shop that is Wi-Fi equipped can be debilitating, triggering a wide array of symptoms including headache, fatigue, nausea, burning and itchy skin, and muscle aches.

Some students have to drop out of school or are unable to continue on to graduate programs once they become electrically sensitive, irrespective of their intelligence and capabilities. Even just briefly standing on line at the post office, or traveling on public transportation, can be a debilitating experience for some people, sometimes taking hours to restore rebalance.

Because the symptoms are subjective and vary between individuals, it makes the condition difficult to study, but with the work of Dr. Havas and others, acceptance is slowly growing and the real health effects of EMF are becoming harder to deny.

A word to the wise is to avoid these exposures as much as possible before symptoms become severe. There are now EMF-Free Zones forming around the globe, such as in southern France, Spain and Italy.

A good resource for physicians and others, published by the U.K. charity Electrosensitivity-UK, is "Electromagnetic Sensitivity and Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity." It is available for a nominal donation to the charity and you can learn more at www.electromagentichealth.org.

This overview of electrosensitivity contains an extensive review of symptoms, sources of exposure, pathological markers, treatment approaches, references for other illnesses linked to EMFs, and lists references to numerous resolutions on this topic by organizations of international scientists, medical doctors and psychologists.

Another good resource on the known biological effects can be found in the Ecolog Report, commissioned by the industry itself over a decade ago. The report lists scientific references showing DNA damage and links to immunological disorders, cancers and many other medical conditions. The Ecolog report is indisputable evidence that the telecom industry well knows of the harm wireless technologies are causing.

The Risks of a Portable Phone Are Not Worth the Convenience

The power from a DECT 2.4GHz cordless base does not just affect individuals within the same room, but actually will affect rooms above, below and adjacent.

So, ideally, if you want to avoid the radiation you should switch back to a wired landline and ditch your cordless phone entirely. If you must use a portable home phone, consider using a very early non-DECT version. Unfortunately, due to the lack of labeling, the only way to know for sure whether the type of phone you have is safe is to measure the amount of radiation emitted.

The Web site www.emfsafetystore.com offers a helpful summary of the various meters recommended.

Key Points to Follow If You Choose to Use a Cordless Phone

You need to know that nearly all of the danger is from the base station, not the receivers as the base station is the one that is constantly generating these signals. The handsets will cause a problem while you are using them but the majority of the problem is related to long-term exposure while you are sleeping or sitting near the base station. If you are sitting between the base station and the handset left across the room you are also vulnerable, as the base station is always sending out a signal looking for a 'handshake.'

So, if you do use a conventional cordless phone, be sure to keep the base station at least three rooms away from where everyone sleeps and where you spend the most time during the day. Or simply keep it off except in the limited circumstances where you feel you need to use it. Remember, the base station of a DECT phone always transmits at full power, so this is not a device you want sitting on your nightstand next to your bed, on your kitchen counter or even on at all if it is not necessary.

In order to keep the base station far enough away from your family, you would need a relatively large home and even still might not be able to put enough distance between you, your family and the base station to make it safe. You should also turn the device off at night, like you should do if you use a wireless router, but again the safest choice is to simply revert back to a wired landline and get rid of your cordless phone entirely.

You can buy a very long extension cord for any landline phone, and you can also buy a very long Ethernet cord with which to connect your laptop in any room to the Internet, making wireless far from a "necessity."

[ThePythonicCow]

Here's some numbers estimating the strength of the electro-magnetic fields from various phone devices, at various distances:

http://inspirationgreen.com/assets/images/Blog_Images_April/microwavestrengths.jpg
The above table was taken from this article: DECT Phone Safety (InspirationGreen.com) (http://inspirationgreen.com/dect-phone-safety.html). Notice that the phones close to the head, as when in use, apply higher power, not surprisingly. Distance matters, and a centimeter (fraction of an inch) is proportionately quite a bit closer than a meter (three feet.)

This same article also points out the Intelligent ECO mode (https://panasonic.ca/english/telecom/telephones/features.asp) on select Panasonic cordless phones, which reduces transmission power from the handset when it is sufficiently close to the base station. It doesn't reduce the base station power, however.

[Mad Hatter]

Nevertheless, there seems to be some anecdotal evidence (always a good indicator for serious research) to suggest that it might be real. But still no widely accepted double-blind conclusive studies - unless someone can show me otherwise.
International Experts’ Perspective on the Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) and Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR).

June 11, 2011. Below are some of the key resolutions/appeals released by expert scientific groups around the world since 1998, regarding the biological and health effects of both low frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) associated with electricity and radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic radiation (EMR) generated by wireless devices.


Anyone who reads these cannot be left with the illusion (or delusion) that this form of energy is without adverse biological and health consequences at levels well below existing guidelines. Children are particularly vulnerable. It is irresponsible of governments to maintain the status quo in light of thousands of studies that have been published and statements by these experts.


rest of the article can be found here...



http://www.magdahavas.com/international-experts%E2%80%99-perspective-on-the-health-effects-of-electromagnetic-fields-emf-and-electromagnetic-radiation-emr/



but hey, let's not let the facts get in the way of a good (scare) story!

Nick