Welcome to The Electrosensitive Society. This website is dedicated to helping people who have electro-hyper-sensitivity (EHS). EHS is an environmentally-induced disability that has been around for the past 100 plus years. It used to be called neurasthenia, in the early 1900s, which means weakened nervous system. During World War II, it was called radio wave sickness or microwave illness for those people who reacted to radar, which generates microwave radiation. Screen dermatitis was the name given to women who worked in front of video display terminals in the 1980s, and this manifested itself by skin rashes. During the 1990s it was called electromagnetic sensitivity and later electromagnetic hypersensitivity or electrohypersensitivity because there are some members of society who react strongly to even low levels of this radiation. The World Health Organization (WHO) held a meeting in 2004 in Prague and at that meeting they stated the following about EHS.
“. . . a phenomenon where individuals experience adverse health effects while using or being in the vicinity of devices emanating electric, magnetic, or electromagnetic fields (EMFs).”
“ . . . EHS is a real and sometimes a debilitating problem for the affected persons . . . Their exposures are generally several orders of magnitude under the limits in internationally accepted standards.”
Our members are individuals from around the world that have come to realize that our body is bio-electric and thus is sensitive to the negative effects from over-exposures to electromagnetic fields from our modern technology. Here in these pages, we share information and resources on how to live safely in this ever expanding wireless world.
By John Weigel
World renown researchers into the toxic effects of microwave technology – from cell phones to wi-fi and digital television – are fighting back against what appears to be a concerted effort tosimultaneously close their research facilities across Europe
The pattern of shutting down experiments began earlier this year as three noted researchers, Drs. Olle Johansson, of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm; Dimitris Panagopoulos, of Athens University; and Annie Sasco, Bordeaux; had their positions threatened and their research premises requisitioned for other purposes, effectively silencing them.
The total value of the cell phone / microwave-based industry is an estimated $153 billion and involves the economic might of leading technology firms such as Motorola, Intel, AT&T, Apple, Nokia and Ericsson. Many of the firms hold close ties to the world’s military establishment.
Motorola developed and tested the Terrestrial Trunked Radio (Tetra) signal used by police and emergency services which uses a pulsed frequency matches the electromagnetic frequency of the human brain. Intel created the WiMAX signal which has been purchased by Sprint, The United States third largest telecommunications company.
Both signals were developed in Ireland where the government has a policy to invite overseas companies to test their technologies in alive environment. There is no provision for studying the health effects of the tests. Last week, Eamon Ryan, Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, announced the roll-out of digital television.
The silencing of scientists for political and economic reasons began to form a pattern when a large number of scientists died prematurely or under unusual circumstances The much-documented pattern included the death of British UN weapons expert David Kelly in 2003. As questions about his death persisted, this year the Attorney General for England and Wales, Dominic Grieve, indicated that he remained “concerned” about the case and interested in exploring how to take the matter forward. The pattern of requisitioning offices and labs appears to be drawn from human resources techniques where institutions can exercise their right to manage their own space.
Prof. Johansson was told his lab was required to house ferrets while Dr. Panagopoulos’s office was reduced to a three by five foot room the size of a cupboard and Dr. Sasco has remained silent to date on the reasons for losing her post in France. A fourth scientist who claims harassment, Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy of the Imperial College, London, has retired.
The timing of the actions against the scientists appears to be silent testimony of a move against them and comes after they participated via a teleconference call to the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Health (HESA) to hear from witnesses on the dangers of wireless technology in Ottawa last April.
The significance of closing down scientific research is to limit growing public concern over safety issues relating to the mushrooming use of information-carrying microwave technology. Ordinary users appreciate the heat-generating properties of microwaves in their kitchens and feel safe because microwave ovens have sealed protective doors. Information-carrying microwaves, because they are broadcast into the environment offer no such protection and are attributed to lower property values, various diseases, infertility and death.
With Panagopoulos, Sasco and Goldsworthy either accepting decisions, remaining silent or slipping into retirement, Johansson has become the focus of the current conflict between industry and academia, lifting the bar to the issue of interference with academic freedom of enquiry. Just what is expected of an academic, Johansson is kindly in manner, hard-headed and used to controversy. In the 1970s his research led to higher standards for computer VDUs when his research revealed a threat to pregnant women using computer monitors and their unborn babies.
The current controversy began less than a year ago following a public meeting in Ireland where Johansson revealed DNA and cell changes to skin after only a half-hour’s exposure to microwaves and infertility in the fifth generation of mice following exposure. The meeting was held in Leixlip, home to Intel’s European headquarters. Within months, Johansson was informed by Prof. Staffan Cullheim, Chair of the Dept. of Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institute that his offices and lab were required for storing ferrets – an animal related to skunks and polecats.
The Karolinska Institute is home to the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine selected by the Nobel Assembly of 50 faculty members.
When Johansson refused to vacate his premises discussions were abandoned until last May when Cullheim informed Johansson that hispremises were again to be requisitioned, this time for an imaging facility. In addition to noting that Johansson’s premises were too large for his requirements, Cullheim noted that there had been staff rumblings that Johansson had received preferential treatment. Johansson’s work is independently funded.
Cullheim gave Johansson a deadline of July 31 to vacate his premises, immediately before he was to begin replication studies, an integral part of the scientific process, of work done by Dr. Magda Havas, of Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario. It was on the strength of Havas’ work that the City of San Francisco abandoned the Google / Earthlink contract for wi-fi in favour of fibre-optic cabling and this year required the labeling of cell phones for health purposes.
A similar situation arose for Dr. Dimitris Panagopoulos, a biophysicist with the University of Athens and lead author of “Cell death induced by GSM 900-MHz and DCS 1800-MHz mobile telephony radiation” published in 2006. His group’s research outlines DNA fragmentation and cell death following exposure to microwaves. On May 6 construction work began in space adjoining his office following notice a week earlier that he was to leave. Panagopoulos says he was “out because he did not follow … instructions” to not participate in the Canadian conference. “I spoke as an individual reporting the results of my published works”, he says.
Anticipating difficulty, Panagopoulos removed his equipment and found that the lock on his office had been changed. Although he has asked for an explanation from the President of the Biology School, as of last week he had no response and works from a windowless cupboard.
Speaking on behalf of Prof. Johansson, Panagopoulos said, “As a biophysicist myself specialized in the Biological Effects of Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiations, I am very familiar with the pioneer works of Dr. Johansson in this field. In fact a lot of people within the international scientific community and me personally, know his work and consider him as one of the leading international experts in this field. Moreover, Dr. Johansson is one of the most active scientists involved to the moral aspect of this scientific field which is directly related to human health and the protection of our natural environment.
“The world needs scientists like Dr. Johansson not only for his groundbreaking research on the effects of man-made electromagnetic fields/radiations on human health (cancer induction, electrohypersensitivity etc.) but also for his courage to fearlessly speak the scientific truth, a matter of vital importance for the public health and the moral values which are in great danger in our modern society.”
Panagopoulos is not alone in his concerns. He has been joined in a chorus of support from around the world – from New Zealand, to California, to Virginia, the United Kingdom and Ireland. Irish supporters of Prof. Joansson have lobbied the Nobel Assembly, warning “If you fail to assist Prof. Johansson, which member of the Nobel Assembly will be the next victim of this process?” and have referred the issue to Amnesty International in London which is investigating the circumstances.
“Imagine a world,” said Panagopoulos, “where pollution of all kinds is destroying our planet and spreads terrible diseases, where some people get huge amounts of money out of this destruction and no one dares to speak the scientific truth. This would be the living Hell.”
In defense of Paganopoulos, Daryl Vernon who writes a blog for the Green Party in Toronto asked the Greek ambassador to enquire into Panagopoulos’ circumstances. “Will you express the great dismay felt here, and the desire to avoid further internationally embarrassing repercussion? Will you intervene to restore our confidence that an institution such as the University of Athens not be a venue where inappropriate influences on academic independence are had, but rather continue to provide scholarship of world importance,” she said.
Writing to Prof. Harriet Wallberg-Henriksson, President of the Karolinska Institute, biophysics writer Blake Levitt observed, “Over the years, I have followed Dr. Johansson’s important professional contribution to what must be the most contentious area of science & public health policy today — that of the health and environmental effects of non-ionizing radiation. This is a critically important subject with over 4 billion cell phone users now and all of the wireless infrastructure needed to make those technologies function. The human race has never been exposed to this form of radiation before, with its odd signaling characteristics, at such intensities, and with long, chronic exposures. We are in the throes of a massive global experiment with no end in sight, and little cautionary intelligence being brought to bear.”
Agreeing with Levitt is Dr. Martin Blank, Associate Professor of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics at Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons and past president of the Bioelectromagnetics Society. “I urge you to reevaluate your decision, and change the current plans to enable Dr. Johansson’s vital research program to continue,” he said. Neither Wallberg-Henriksson, Cullheim nor Dr. Bernd Huber, chairman of the League of European Research Universities have responded to requests for comment.
Cautioning Profs. Wallberg-Henriksson and Cullheim of the possible consequences of appearing to suppress critical scientific research by Prof. Johansson, Dr. M.W. Brown-Beasley of Boston, a Harvard academicand research alumnus, formerly having been of service to Merck and Co. pharmaceuticals), (Royal Dutch) Philips Medical Systems (medical devices), and Lotus Development Corp., wrote, “It would be unfortunate – indeed a tragedy — for you to proceed on a course leading to your personal failure, leaving behind a legacy of embarrassment and shame not only for yourselves but staining the integrity and reputation of the institute as well.”
RALEIGH (WTVD) — The City of Raleigh is joining a growing number of cities looking at wireless signals from a health perspective.
On Tuesday, the Raleigh City Council will take part in a presentation on microwave radiation sickness and hear a testimonial.
The discussion stems from a growing number of people who say wireless signals make them physically ill.
Raleigh resident Andrew McAfee says it all started for him about seven years ago when he and his wife bought a house next to a television tower.
“After a couple of months living there, I started getting more headaches and bags under my eyes, my skin became like reptile leather,” he said.
McAfee says his symptoms kept getting worse and he eventually made the connection.
“Driving by the tower I’d just start feeling like, ‘wow, something hit me from the tower,'” he said.
They wound up moving, but McAfee says other electronics, including cell phones, had also begun to make him sick.
“It was very difficult to have this reputation that ‘oh, you can’t be around Andrew with a cell phone,’ and especially for my career, it’s been very difficult,” he said.
The studies on electro-magnetic sensitivity are inconclusive. But increasingly, cities are starting to take stories like McAfee’s seriously.
San Francisco just passed a law requiring cell phone retailers to post how much radiation their phones gives off. And many cities are considering moratoriums on building new towers.
McAfee is hoping Raleigh will do the same, but knows not much is likely to change anytime soon.
So in order to deal with it, he wears a lead hat when he travels by plane.
“It’s typically used by people after they get a radiation treatment to not let the radiation get out of their head; I’ve found it helps lessen the radiation that comes into my head when I’m around other people with cell phones,” McAfee said.
In Raleigh, one doctor’s office says they have treated multiple cases of electro-magnetic sensitivity and in that McAfee sees hope.
“There are now more and more of us, locally, that are supporting each other, so I don’t feel so alone anymore,” McAfee said.
Curiously, the cancer rate is 10 percent higher in the left breast than in the right. This left-side bias holds true for both men and women and it also applies to the skin cancer melanoma. Researchers Örjan Hallberg of Hallberg Independent Research in Sweden and Ollie Johansson of The Karolinska Institute in Sweden, writing in the June issue of the journal Pathophysiology, suggest a surprising explanation that not only points to a common cause for both cancers, it may change your sleeping habits.
For unknown reasons the rates of breast cancer and melanoma have both increased steadily in the last 30 years. Exposure to the sun elevates the risk of melanoma, but the sun’s intensity has not changed in the last three decades. Stranger still, melanoma most commonly affects the hip, thighs and trunk, which are areas of the body protected from the sun. What is responsible for the left-side dominance and increasing incidence of these cancers?
An intriguing clue comes from the Far East. In Japan there is no correlation between the rates of melanoma and breast cancer as there is in the West, and there is no left-side prevalence for either disease. Moreover, the rate of breast cancer in Japan is significantly lower than in the West; only 3 percent of what is seen in Sweden, for example. The rate of prostate cancer in Japan is only 10 percent of that in the U.K. and U.S.
The researchers suggest an explanation based on differences in sleeping habits in Japan and Western countries. Previous research has shown that both men and women prefer to sleep on their right sides. The reasons for this general preference are unclear, but sleeping on the right side may reduce the weight stress on the heart, and the heartbeat is not as loud as when sleeping on the left. Still, there is no reason to suspect that people in Japan sleep in positions that are any different from those in the West. The beds in Japan, however, are different. The futons used for sleeping in Japan are mattresses placed directly on the bedroom floor, in contrast to the elevated box springs and mattress of beds used in the West. A link between bedroom furniture and cancer seems absurd, but this, the researchers conclude, is the answer.
The first line of evidence they cite comes from a 2007 study in Sweden conducted between 1989 and 1993 that revealed a strong link between the incidence of melanoma and the number of FM and TV transmission towers covering the area where the individuals lived. Despite epidemiological correlations like this one suggesting the possibility that electromagnetic radiation from FM and TV broadcasts stations could suppress the immune system and promote cancer, the strength of these electromagnetic fields is so feeble it has been difficult to imagine any biological basis for the correlation.
Consider, however, that even a TV set cannot respond to broadcast transmissions unless the weak electromagnetic waves are captured and amplified by an appropriately designed antenna. Antennas are simply metal objects of appropriate length sized to match the wavelength of a specific frequency of electromagnetic radiation. Just as saxophones are made in different sizes to resonate with and amplify particular wavelengths of sound, electromagnetic waves are selectively amplified by metal objects that are the same, half or one quarter of the wavelength of an electromagnetic wave of a specific frequency. Electromagnetic waves resonate on a half-wavelength antenna to create a standing wave with a peak at the middle of the antenna and a node at each end, just as when a string stretched between two points is plucked at the center. In the U.S. bed frames and box springs are made of metal, and the length of a bed is exactly half the wavelength of FM and TV transmissions that have been broadcasting since the late 1940s. In Japan most beds are not made of metal, and the TV broadcast system does not use the 87- to 108-megahertz frequency used in Western countries.
Thus, as we sleep on our coil-spring mattresses, we are in effect sleeping on an antenna that amplifies the intensity of the broadcast FM/TV radiation. Asleep on these antennas, our bodies are exposed to the amplified electromagnetic radiation for a third of our life spans. As we slumber on a metal coil-spring mattress, a wave of electromagnetic radiation envelops our bodies so that the maximum strength of the field develops 75 centimeters above the mattress in the middle of our bodies. When sleeping on the right side, the body’s left side will thereby be exposed to field strength about twice as strong as what the right side absorbs.
If this study is correct, the solution is simple: Replace the metal in our beds with a nonmetallic mattress or orient your bed, like an antenna, away from the direction of the local FM/TV transmission tower. Call it high-tech feng shui if you like, but if this new study has not identified the cause of left-side cancer, it will, for some, be the cause of insomnia.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
R. Douglas Fields, Ph. D. is the Chief of the Nervous System Development and Plasticity Section at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and Adjunct Professor at the University of Maryland, College Park. Fields, who conducted postdoctoral research at Stanford University, Yale University, and the NIH, is Editor-in-Chief of the journal Neuron Glia Biology and member of the editorial board of several other journals in the field of neuroscience. He is the author of the new book The Other Brain (Simon and Schuster), about cells in the brain (glia) that do not communicate using electricity. His hobbies include building guitars, mountain climbing, and scuba diving. He lives in Silver Spring, Md.
The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.
By Arthur Arthur Firstenberg
In 2002, Gro Harlem Brundtland, then head of the World Health Organization, told a Norwegian journalist that cell phones were banned from her office in Geneva because she personally becomes ill if a cell phone is brought within about four meters (13 feet) of her. Mrs. Brundtland is a medical doctor and former Prime Minister of Norway. This sensational news, published March 9, 2002 in Dagbladet, was ignored by every other newspaper in the world.
The following week Michael Repacholi, her subordinate in charge of the International EMF (electromagnetic field) Project, responded with a public statement belittling his boss’s concerns. Five months later, for reasons that many suspect were related to these circumstances, Mrs. Brundtland announced she would step down from her leadership post at the WHO after just one term.
Nothing could better illustrate our collective schizophrenia when it comes to thinking about electromagnetic radiation. We respond to those who are worried about its dangers — hence the International EMF Project — but we ignore and marginalize those, like Mrs. Brundtland, who have already succumbed to its effects.
As a consultant on the health effects of wireless technology, I receive calls that can be broadly divided into two main groups: those from people who are merely worried, whom I will call A, and those from people who are already sick, whom I will call B. I sometimes wish I could arrange a large conference call and have the two groups talk to each other — there needs to be more mutual understanding so that we are all trying to solve the same problems.
Caller A, worried, commonly asks what kind of shield to buy for his cell phone or what kind of headset to wear with it. Sometimes he wants to know what is a safe distance to live from a cell tower. Caller B, sick, wants to know what kind of shielding to put on her house, what kind of medical treatment to get, or, increasingly often, what part of the country she could move to to escape the radiation to save her life.
The following is designed as a sort of a primer: first, to help everybody get more or less on the same page, and second, to clear up some of the confusions so that we can make rational decisions toward a healthier world.
The most basic fact about cell phones and cell towers is that they emit microwave radiation; so do Wi-Fi (wireless Internet) antennas, wireless computers, cordless (portable) phones and their base units, and all other wireless devices. If it’s a communication device and it’s not attached to the wall by a wire, it’s emitting radiation. Most Wi-Fi systems and some cordless phones operate at the exact same frequency as a microwave oven, while other devices use a different frequency. Wi-Fi is always on and always radiating. The base units of most cordless phones are always radiating, even when no one is using the phone. A cell phone that is on but not in use is also radiating. And, needless to say, cell towers are always radiating.
Why is this a problem, you might ask? Scientists usually divide the electromagnetic spectrum into “ionizing” and “non-ionizing.” Ionizing radiation, which includes x-rays and atomic radiation, causes cancer. Non-ionizing radiation, which includes microwave radiation, is supposed to be safe. This distinction always reminded me of the propaganda in George Orwell’s Animal Farm: “Four legs good, two legs bad.” “Non-ionizing good, ionizing bad” is as little to be trusted.
An astronomer once quipped that if Neil Armstrong had taken a cell phone to the Moon in 1969, it would have appeared to be the third most powerful source of microwave radiation in the universe, next only to the Sun and the Milky Way. He was right. Life evolved with negligible levels of microwave radiation. ** An increasing number of scientists speculate that our body’s own cells, in fact, use the microwave spectrum to communicate with one another, like children whispering in the dark, and that cell phones, like jackhammers, interfere with their signaling. ** In any case, it is a fact that we are all being bombarded, day in and day out, whether we use a cell phone or not, by an amount of microwave radiation that is some ten million times as strong as the average natural background. And it is also a fact that most of this radiation is due to technology that has been developed since the 1970s.
As far as cell phones themselves are concerned, if you put one up to your head you are damaging your brain in a number of different ways. First, think of a microwave oven. A cell phone, like a microwave oven and unlike a hot shower, heats you from the inside out, not from the outside in. And there are no sensory nerve endings in the brain to warn you of a rise in temperature because we did not evolve with microwave radiation, and this never happens in nature. Worse, the structure of the head and brain is so complex and non-uniform that “hot spots” are produced, where heating can be tens or hundreds of times what it is nearby. Hot spots can occur both close to the surface of the skull and deep within the brain, and also on a molecular level.
Cell phones are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission, and you can find, in the packaging of most new phones, a number called the Specific Absorption Rate, or SAR, which is supposed to indicate the rate at which energy is absorbed by the brain from that particular model. One problem, however, is the arbitrary assumption, upon which the FCC’s regulations are based, that the brain can safely dissipate added heat at a rate of up to 1 degree C per hour. Compounding this is the scandalous procedure used to demonstrate compliance with these limits and give each cell phone its SAR rating. The standard way to measure SAR is on a “phantom” consisting, incredibly, of a homogenous fluid encased in Plexiglas in the shape of a head. Presto, no hot spots! But in reality, people who use cell phones for hours per day are chronically heating places in their brain. The FCC’s safety standard, by the way, was developed by electrical engineers, not doctors.
The Blood-Brain Barrier
The second effect that I want to focus on, which has been proven in the laboratory, should by itself have been enough to shut down this industry and should be enough to scare away anyone from ever using a cell phone again. I call it the “smoking gun” of cell phone experiments. Like most biological effects of microwave radiation, this has nothing to do with heating.
The brain is protected by tight junctions between adjacent cells of capillary walls, the so-called blood-brain barrier, which, like a border patrol, lets nutrients pass through from the blood to the brain, but keeps toxic substances out. Since 1988, researchers in the laboratory of a Swedish neurosurgeon, Leif Salford, have been running variations on this simple experiment: they expose young laboratory rats to either a cell phone or other source of microwave radiation, and later they sacrifice the animals and look for albumin in their brain tissue. Albumin is a protein that is a normal component of blood but that does not normally cross the blood-brain barrier. The presence of albumin in brain tissue is always a sign that blood vessels have been damaged and that the brain has lost some of its protection.
Here is what these researchers have found, consistently for 18 years: Microwave radiation, at doses equal to a cell phone’s emissions, causes albumin to be found in brain tissue. A one-time exposure to an ordinary cell phone for just two minutes causes albumin to leak into the brain. In one set of experiments, reducing the exposure level by a factor of 1,000 actually increased the damage to the blood-brain barrier, showing that this is not a dose-response effect and that reducing the power will not make wireless technology safer. And finally, in research published in June 2003, a single two-hour exposure to a cell phone, just once during its lifetime, permanently damaged the blood-brain barrier and, on autopsy 50 days later, was found to have damaged or destroyed up to 2 percent of an animal’s brain cells, including cells in areas of the brain concerned with learning, memory and movement.1 Reducing the exposure level by a factor of 10 or 100, thereby duplicating the effect of wearing a headset, moving a cell phone further from your body, or standing next to somebody else’s phone, did not appreciably change the results! Even at the lowest exposure, half the animals had a moderate to high number of damaged neurons.
The implications for us? Two minutes on a cell phone disrupts the blood-brain barrier, two hours on a cell phone causes permanent brain damage, and secondhand radiation may be almost as bad. The blood-brain barrier is the same in a rat and a human being.
These results caused enough of a commotion in Europe that in November 2003 a conference was held, sponsored by the European Union, titled “The Blood-Brain Barrier — Can It Be Influenced by RF [radio frequency]-Field Interactions?” as if to reassure the public: “See, we are doing something about this.” But, predictably, nothing was done about it, as nothing has been done about it for 30 years.
America’s Allan Frey, during the 1970s, was the first of many to demonstrate that low-level microwave radiation damages the blood-brain barrier.2 Similar mechanisms protect the eye (the blood-vitreous barrier) and the fetus (the placental barrier), and the work of Frey and others indicates that microwave radiation damages those barriers also.3 The implication: No pregnant woman should ever be using a cell phone.
Dr. Salford is quite outspoken about his work. He has called the use of handheld cell phones “the largest human biological experiment ever.” And he has publicly warned that a whole generation of cell-phone-using teenagers may suffer from mental deficits or Alzheimer’s disease by the time they reach middle age.
Unfortunately, cell phone users are not the only ones being injured, nor should we be worried only about the brain. The following brief summary is distilled from a vast scientific literature on the effects of radio waves (a larger spectrum which includes microwaves), together with the experiences of scientists and doctors all over the world with whom I am in contact.
Organs that have been shown to be especially susceptible to radio waves include the lungs, nervous system, heart, eyes, testes and thyroid gland. Diseases that have increased remarkably in the last couple of decades, and that there is good reason to connect with the massive increase in radiation in our environment, include asthma, sleep disorders, anxiety disorders, attention deficit disorder, autism, multiple sclerosis, ALS, Alzheimer’s disease, epilepsy, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, cataracts, hypothyroidism, diabetes, malignant melanoma, testicular cancer, and heart attacks and strokes in young people.
Radiation from microwave towers has also been associated with forest die-off, reproductive failure and population decline in many species of birds, and ill health and birth deformities in farm animals. The literature showing biological effects of microwave radiation is truly enormous, running to tens of thousands of documents, and I am amazed that industry spokespersons are getting away with saying that wireless technology has been proved safe or — just as ridiculous — that there is no evidence of harm.
I have omitted one disease from the above list: the illness that Caller B has, and that I have. A short history is in order here.
In the 1950s and 1960s workers who built, tested and repaired radar equipment came down with this disease in large numbers. So did operators of industrial microwave heaters and sealers. The Soviets named it, appropriately, radio wave sickness, and studied it extensively. In the West its existence was denied totally, but workers came down with it anyway. Witness congressional hearings held in 1981, chaired by then Representative Al Gore, on the health effects of radio-frequency heaters and sealers, another episode in “See, we are doing something about this,” while nothing is done.
Today, with the mass proliferation of radio towers and personal transmitters, the disease has spread like a plague into the general population. Estimates of its prevalence range up to one-third of the population, but it is rarely recognized for what it is until it has so disabled a person that he or she can no longer participate in society. You may recognize some of its common symptoms: insomnia, dizziness, nausea, headaches, fatigue, memory loss, inability to concentrate, depression, chest discomfort, ringing in the ears. Patients may also develop medical problems such as chronic respiratory infections, heart arrhythmias, sudden fluctuations in blood pressure, uncontrolled blood sugar, dehydration, and even seizures and internal bleeding.
What makes this disease so difficult to accept, and even more difficult to cope with, is that no treatment is likely to succeed unless one can also avoid exposure to its cause — and its cause is now everywhere. A 1998 survey by the California Department of Health Services indicated that at that time 120,000 Californians — and by implication 1 million Americans — were unable to work due to electromagnetic pollution.(4) The ranks of these so-called electrically sensitive are swelling in almost every country in the world, marginalized, stigmatized and ignored. With the level of radiation everywhere today, they almost never recover and sometimes take their own lives.
“They are acting as a warning for all of us,” says Dr. Olle Johansson of people with this illness. “It could be a major mistake to subject the entire world’s population to whole-body irradiation, 24 hours a day.” A neuroscientist at the famous Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Dr. Johansson heads a research team that is documenting a significant and permanent worsening of the public health that began precisely when the second-generation, 1800 MHz cell phones were introduced into Sweden in late l997.(5,6) After a decade-long decline, the number of Swedish workers on sick leave began to rise in late 1997 and more than doubled during the next five years. During the same period of time, sales of antidepressant drugs also doubled. The number of traffic accidents, after declining for years, began to climb again in 1997. The number of deaths from Alzheimer’s disease, after declining for several years, rose sharply in 1999 and had nearly doubled by 2001. This two-year delay is understandable when one considers that Alzheimer’s disease requires some time to develop.
If cell phones and cell towers are really deadly, have the radio and TV towers that we have been living with for a century been safe? In 2002 Örjan Hallberg and Olle Johansson coauthored a paper titled “Cancer Trends During the 20th Century,” which examined one aspect of that question.7 They found, in the United States, Sweden and dozens of other countries, that mortality rates for skin melanoma and for bladder, prostate, colon, breast and lung cancers closely paralleled the degree of public exposure to radio waves during the past hundred years. When radio broadcasting increased in a given location, so did those forms of cancer; when it decreased, so did those forms of cancer. And, a sensational finding: country by country — and county by county in Sweden — they found, statistically, that exposure to radio waves appears to be as big a factor in causing lung cancer as cigarette smoking!
Which brings me to address a widespread misconception. The biggest difference between the cell towers of today and the radio towers of the past is not their safety, but their numbers. The number of ordinary radio stations in the United States today is still less than 14,000. But cell towers and Wi-Fi towers number in the hundreds of thousands, and cell phones, wireless computers, cordless telephones and two-way radios number in the hundreds of millions. Radar facilities and emergency communication networks are also proliferating out of control. Since 1978, when the Environmental Protection Agency last surveyed the radio frequency environment in the United States, the average urban dweller’s exposure to radio waves has increased 1,000-fold, most of this increase occurring in just the last nine years.8 In the same period of time, radio pollution has spread from the cities to rest like a ubiquitous fog over the entire planet.
The vast human consequences of all this are being ignored. Since the late 1990s a whole new class of environmental refugees has been created right here in the United States. We have more and more people, sick, dying, seeking relief from our suffering, leaving our homes and our livelihoods, living in cars, trailers and tents in remote places. Unlike victims of hurricanes and earthquakes, we are not the subject of any relief efforts. No one is donating money to help us, to buy us a protected refuge; no one is volunteering to forego their cell phones, their wireless computers and their cordless phones so that we can once more be their neighbors and live among them.
The worried and the sick have not yet opened their hearts to each other, but they are asking questions. To answer caller A: No shield or headset will protect you from your cell or portable phone. There is no safe distance from a cell tower. If your cell phone or your wireless computer works where you live, you are being irradiated 24 hours a day.
To caller B: To effectively shield a house is difficult and rarely successful. There are only a few doctors in the United States attempting to treat radio wave sickness, and their success rate is poor — because there are few places left on Earth where one can go to escape this radiation and recover.
Yes, radiation comes down from satellites, too; they are part of the problem, not the solution. There is simply no way to make wireless technology safe.
Our society has become both socially and economically dependent, in just one short decade, upon a technology that is doing tremendous damage to the fabric of our world. The more entrenched we let ourselves become in it, the more difficult it will become to change our course. The time to extricate ourselves, both individually and collectively — difficult though it is already is — is now.
1. Leif G. Salford et al., “Nerve Cell Damage in Mammalian Brain After Exposure to Microwaves from GSM Mobile Phones,” Environmental Health Perspectives 111, no. 7 (2003): 881–883.
2. Allan H. Frey, Sondra R. Feld and Barbara Frey, “Neural Function and Behavior,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 247 (1975): 433–439.
3. Allan H. Frey, “Evolution and Results
of Biological Research with Low-Intensity Nonionizing Radiation,” in Modern Bioelectricity, ed. Andrew A. Marino (New York: Dekker, 1988), 785–837, at 809–810.
4. California EMF Program, The Risk Evaluation: An Evaluation of the Possible Risks From Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMFs) From Power Lines, Internal Wiring, Electrical Occupations and Appliances (2002), app. 3.
5. Örjan Hallberg and Olle Johansson, “1997 — A Curious Year in Sweden,” European Journal of Cancer Prevention 13, no. 6 (2004): 535–538.
6. Örjan Hallberg and Olle Johansson, “Does GSM 1800 MHz Affect the Public Health in Sweden?” in Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop “Biological Effects of EMFs,” Kos, Greece, October 4-8, 2004, 361–364.
7. Örjan Hallberg and Olle Johansson, “Cancer Trends During the 20th Century,”
Journal of Australian College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine 21, no. 1 (2002): 3–8.
8. David E. Janes Jr., “Radiofrequency Environments in the United States,” in 15th IEEE Conference on Communication, Boston, MA, June 10–14, 1979, vol. 2, 31.4.1–31.4.5.
Arthur Firstenberg’s Bio
Arthur Firstenberg is the founder and president of the Cellular Phone Task Force and the author of Microwaving Our Planet: The Environmental Impact of the Wireless Revolution (Cellular Phone Task Force 1996). From 1997 to 2002, he was the editor of the journal No Place To Hide.
Since 1996, the Task Force has provided a global clearinghouse for information about wireless technology’s injurious effects, and a national support network for people disabled by this technology. In 1997 the Task Force was the lead litigant in a challenge brought by over 50 citizens groups against the FCC’s limits for human exposure to radio frequency radiation.
Articles by Firstenberg or about his work have appeared in Mother Jones, The Ecologist, Earth Island Journal, Vegetarian Times, Village Voice, Utne Reader, Santa Fe New Mexican, San Francisco Chronicle, and other newspapers and magazines. His work has been translated into Spanish, French, Portuguese, Dutch, Italian, Danish, Japanese, and Chinese.
After graduating Phi Beta Kappa from Cornell University with a B.A. in mathematics, he attended the University of California, Irvine School of Medicine from 1978 to 1982. Injury by
x-ray overdose cut short his medical career. For the past 29 years he has been a researcher, consultant and lecturer on the health and environmental effects of electromagnetic radiation.
Essays by Firstenberg
April 5, 2008: “Sebastopol’s brave rejection of WiFi.” Santa Rosa Press Democrat.
March 30, 2008: “Unsung casualties of a wireless war.” Sun News.
January 14, 2007: “Look Wi-Fi in the eye.” Santa Fe New Mexican.
January 2006: “The largest biological experiment ever.” Sun Monthly.
December 2005: “Danger: radiation,” reprinted in Voices of the New Earth.
September 2005: “Danger: radiation.” Total Wellness.
August 2005: “Everyone is affected by electromagnetic radiation.” Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients.
June 2004: “Killing Fields.” The Ecologist.
March 2004: “Telecommunications vs. the environment.” HopeDance.
August 2003: “Electrical sensitivity.” Human Ecology Study Group Newsletter.
July 2002: “Electrical sensitivity,” by Arthur Firstenberg and Susan Molloy. Latitudes.
Winter 2000-2001: “Radio waves: Invisible danger.” Earth Island Journal.
November 2001: “Wireless means radiation.” Lapis Lazuli Light, in Chinese.
November 2001: “Radio waves, the blood-brain barrier, and cerebral hemorrhage.” No Place To Hide.
October 2001: “Wireless means radiation.” Lapis News.
July 2000: “Measuring EMFs.” Our Toxic Times.
June 2000: Historical perspectives on EMFs.” Our Toxic Times.
Fall 2000: “The truth about cellular.” Progressive Health.
March 2000: “The problem of Internet pollution.” Alive: Canadian Journal of Health and Nutrition.
October 1999: “Microwaving the planet: Americans fight cellular towers in court.” Alive: Canadian Journal of Health and Nutrition.
September 1999: “Mortality statistics.” No Place To Hide.
September 1999: “Source of the Taos Hum.” No Place To Hide.
Summer 1999: “In the name of communication.” The Gazette.
June 1999: “About ringing in the ears – perception of electromagnetic waves.” AEVICEM Newsletter, in French.
June 1999: “The forgotten works of Bose and d’Arsonval.” AEVICEM Newsletter, in French.
March 1999: “Thousands of homing pigeons lose their way.” G∙A News (published by Tokyo Citizens for a Safe and Sane Environment), in Japanese.
March 1999: “Microwaving the planet.” Earth First! Journal.
January 1999: Cellular phone towers – mixed signals. Hearing Health.
1999-2004: Occasional contributor of op-ed columns in The Mendocino Beacon.
September 1998: “Influenza and electricity.” Japan Environment Monitor.
Summer 1998: “(Just about) nowhere is safe from the mobile phone” (edited reprint of “Microwaving our planet.”) The Third Opinion (Australia)
Summer 1998: “Microwaving our planet,” reprinted in Green Living.
September 1997: “Microwaving our planet.” HealthMap Magazine.
Summer 1997: “Microwaving our planet.” Earth Island Journal.
March 1996: “What does electromagnetic sensitivity have to do with porphyria? A biological detective story.” Electrical Sensitivity News
December 1995: “MTBE: A review of its good and bad points.” Our Toxic Times.
1994: “Economics, and human diversity.” Chapter in Earth Tones: Creative Perspectives on Ecological Issues, Belinda Subraman, ed., Vergin Press, El Paso, TX.
December 1981: “The effects of radiant energy on living organisms.” Paper presented at California College of Medicine, Irvine, CA.
Articles about Firstenberg and his work
Butler, Kiera. “This Is Your Brain on Cell Phones.” Mother Jones, July/August 2008.
Censored 1998, Peter Phillips and Project Censored, Seven Stories Press, NY 1998. Honorable Mention awarded to “Microwaving Our Planet,” Earth Island Journal, Summer 1997.
Curiel, Jonathan. “Worries cell phones could damage your cells.” San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 14, 2007.
Culbert, Michael. “Electrical sensitivity: hidden illness spreads.” International Council on Health Freedom Newsletter, Summer 1999.
Culbert, Michael. “Those cell phones – miracle or menace?” International Council on Health Freedom Newsletter, Spring 2000.
Culbert, Michael. Regular mention of Firstenberg’s work in International Council on Health Freedom Newsletter until it ceased publication in 2004.
Davis, Kevin. “The zapping of America; Can we survive the wireless revolution?” Utne Reader January-February 1998.
De Vita, Sabina M. Electromagnetic Pollution: A Hidden Stress to Your Health, Wellness Institute, Brampton, ON, 2000. Chapter on “The Electronic Workplace,” pp. 40-41.
EMF Health and Safety Digest. “In Brief.” Report on the federal lawsuit brought by the Cellular Phone Taskforce et al., April 1999.
Geske, Anne. “Hang Up and Listen.” Utne Reader, Jan./Feb. 2005.
Gilbert, Evelyn. “Lethal lampposts? Cellular phone antennas may threaten your health.” Village Voice, April 26, 1997.
Gilbert, Evelyn. “Cell phone static.” Vegetarian Times, August 1998.
Gitchel, Mel. “About the towers.” Journal Opinion, Bradford, VT, July 19, 2000.
Mittelman, Jerry, DDS. Special Report on Cell Phones. Holistic Dental Digest 1999.
Mooney, Elizabeth V. “Federal judges hear RF emissions debate.” RCR (the weekly newspaper for the wireless communications industry), April 12, 1999.
Nelson, Erik. “Radiation is one more reason cell-phone users can make you sick.” Long Island Voice, Dec. 3-9, 1998.
Rogers, Sherry, MD. “Cell phones cause leaky brain syndrome.” Total Wellness, Sept. 2005.
Sanders, Gabriel. “No strings attached.” Time Out New York, July 19-26, 2001.
Smith, Gar. “Zapped from space.” Earth Island Journal, Winter 1998.
Wilcox, Richard and Wilkinson, Jens. “Life in a Cellular Paradise.” The New Observer, Dec. 1999.
Williams, Rose Marie (President, American Cancer Coalition). “Cell phone controversy.” Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, June 2005.
Williams, Rose Marie. “Cell phones and children.” Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, July 2005.
“Microwaving Our Planet: The Environmental Impact of the Wireless Revolution is an essential reference tool.”
– Daryl T. Bean, National President, Public Service
Alliance of Canada, September 14, 1998.
“Firstenberg is to be congratulated on the quality of his publication! He also has courage to take up military technology.”
– Rosalie Bertell, PhD, Editor-in-Chief, International
Perspectives in Public Health, April 1, 1999
“We feel that reading the No Place To Hide newsletter could extend your life with healthier years.”
– Jerry Mittelman, DDS, editor, The Holistic Dental
Digest, Sept./Oct. 1999
“He is one of my valued contributors and a personal hero.”
– Gar Smith, editor, Earth Island Journal,
October 24, 2000
“His work is absolutely essential and eventually it will be more widely appreciated.”
– William E. Morton, MD, PhD, Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, Epidemiology, Oregon
Health Sciences University, May 1, 2001
“Your cause is a most important one, without any doubt. You mustn’t give up.”
– Teddy Goldsmith, founder, The Ecologist,
July 27, 2001
“At age 81, it’s normal for me to start losing my memory. But everybody I tell this to, says, ‘Well, I seem to be losing my memory, too.’ And I tell them about the work of Arthur Firstenberg.”
– Pete Seeger, April 21, 2000
“Firstenberg is a pioneer in the sense that Rachel Carson was a pioneer.”
– Chellis Glendinning, PhD, author of When
Technology Wounds, March 17, 2007
Unlike air pollution, electrosmog is invisible to the eye so the best way to see the effects of cellphones, wifi, DECT phones and other microwave radiation devises to measure them with the appropriate meter. NoRadBlog has a great YouTube channel that will show you how to do it yourself.
Written by Thomas Corriher
I have long been known by certain friends and my entire family as that “crazy” guy. The term was usually meant to describe me as being odd and unusual, rather than insane. Although, a few of those people may have suspected the latter from time to time. I’m okay with that, for being ‘normal’ is greatly overrated. I am considerably smarter than most people, so I have often taken refuge in the fact there there has always been a fine line between genius and insanity. Crazy like a fox, or crazy like a nut? I guess it’s entirely a matter of perspective.
One of my episodes of “craziness” occurred during the presentation of my 7th grade science project. I was still in the public schools at that time, and the understanding of science by teachers and students alike was more than a little bit underwhelming. They knew that light was really fast, but their overall understanding seemed to stop shortly thereafter. When I began preaching to them about fluorescent lights emitting radioactive, electromagnetic fields that were guaranteed to increase a person’s cancer risk: well, everyone’s eyes seemed to glaze over as if I were speaking a foreign language.
I vainly explained that if these lights operated at high voltages, and these voltages were pulsed at high frequencies, then radioactive energy would be emitted, and moreover, they were already known for producing the full band of light energy (some of which is destructive, too). It is how radio waves are made: frequency pulses. The higher the frequency, the more dangerous overall, but voltage and proximity matter, too, in regards to its dangerous ionizing effects upon the human body. They just looked at me as if I were the stupid one. They had those ‘he’s so special’ looks on their faces, in most cases. Some had the ‘he’s so crazy’ look. It was incomprehensible to them that I actually understood the topic that I had tried to lecture them about. Thus, I had the problem.
I believe my teacher even failed me, while the dumbed-down science projects like “Do Plants Need Water?” were graded highly. It was the typical public school’s act of rewarding only mediocrity. Shortly thereafter, by some freak of the cosmos, it was actually proven by multiple independent studies that electrically-produced electromagnetic energy (radiation) from fluorescent lights and power lines were indeed a danger to health. This was long before cell phones existed, and these were considered ground-breaking findings. Eventually, my being ‘crazy’ (thinking independently and having a willingness to challenge authority) got me sent to military school to get “straightened out”. These traits would have been considered virtues in more noble times.
It is time for me to get crazy again, with a topic that has far more importance and significance than radiation from power lines and fluorescent lights. Please read the remainder of this article with care, for it is vitally important that all of us spread this message, and you should understand why, by the time you have completed your reading. I realize that few of our readers have backgrounds in electrical or electronics engineering, so I am going to attempt to explain some otherwise complex topics in plain English.
This article will explain that there is a new generation of light bulbs that produce radiation in a more dangerous manner than we have ever seen before. Thus, I need to explain some very basic laws of electricity, so that readers may understand the dilemma that we all face. Please patiently wade through this information, because you need to know it and understand it. I promise you this on my honor.
Electricity really only exists in motion. Nothing happens without power transmission (“current”), and therefore, there is no real power without its movement. A disconnected battery is like a ship in a bottle. The ship is not really a sea vessel, because it never has the motion of floatation. Both these things have the potential to be more (a sea vessel or power supply), but they are both just paper weights until that time.
The 3 Core Types of Electrical Current (Don’t Skip This)
There is D.C. (direct current). This is the steady state current: meaning that the voltage never changes while the current is flowing. This is the “cleanest” type of power. It may come from a filtered power supply or a battery. D.C. power will usually produce a tiny magnetic field along its wires; but overall, it will not bleed energy or effect other devices.
Next there is A.C. (alternating current). This is a current/voltage combination that is constantly changing, as if it were produced by a standard generator. It typically reverses itself (back flows) half of the time to show negative voltages and currents on equipment capable of measuring it. As alternating current cycles from its maximum to its minimum value, the time this takes in seconds is mathematically computed to produce the frequency calculation.
In other words, frequency is a calculated measurement of how fast the voltage/current is changing. For instance, the standard frequency for power in the U.S. is 60 Hz.. This means that the power peaks and then drops to its lowest value exactly 60 times per second. Some readers may find it fascinating to know that this means the generators are rotating exactly 60 times per second too (60 R.P.M.).
Finally, there is pulsating D.C.. Pulsating direct current is a combination of D.C. and A.C.. The voltage and current with pulsating D.C. do not change in values, except for changing from a state of being fully on or fully off. It is as if someone is quickly turning a switch on and off, but there are no middle voltages, or negative voltages. On precision equipment, the on pulses usually appear as blocks called “square waves”.
Why You Need To Know A Little Something About High Frequency Currents
You may be asking why would our readers need to know these things? That comes really soon, so be careful what you wish for. (Just kidding.) As I mentioned earlier, a new radiation threat is upon us all. In lieu of this, I must begin by emphasizing the ‘radio’ and ‘radiant’ roots for the word radiation. They ultimately are descriptions of the same phenomena: radiant energy in the form of electromagnetic waves of pulsating energy. So, how does the energy actually radiate itself outward? The truth is, we don’t really understand that part.
Physicists have pulled their hair out for decades over that question. What we do know is that when things vibrate at a nuclear level or have electrical current changes, then these changes of state ― these frequencies ― cause energy to be radiated outward at the same frequencies. This is how radio transmissions work. Radio transmissions merely mix the audio (voice) signal with an exact frequency that listening radios are “tuned” for, and viola! Or as my past electronics teachers would have said, in their fancy-smancy engineering terms: “It will have imparted intelligence upon the carrier wave”.
A good analogy of how frequencies operate is remembering the ripples from a time when you dropped a pebble into a small creek or pond. You may recall that the ripples were reflected from the banks at exactly the same rate and distance as the original waves that struck them. The whole point of this paragraph is to make clear that the very basis of radiant energy transmissions and all types of radiation on the entire electromagnetic spectrum boil down to one thing: frequencies. Frequencies determine how far the energy travels, how well it penetrates, and how it effects things.
The ultra high frequencies of gamma (ie. nuclear) radiation will quickly destroy a person through burns, cancer, or otherwise; while the low 60 Hz. of standard American power has little effect in typical exposure. Frequency determines if the energy is radio, microwave, infrared light, visible light, x-rays, gamma, or ultraviolet. There is real power in frequencies. No pun intended. As a general rule, the higher the frequency, the more dangerous the energy is. Nuclear radiation is at a really high frequency, for example.
For years, we have heard about how incandescent bulbs are bad for the environment. This made way for a whole new industry of “green” bulbs, marketed to the growing portion of people who seek to address environmental concerns. However, they actually compromise people’s health, and are ultimately more harmful to the environment.
Common Symptoms Resulting From Exposure To “Energy Efficient” Light Bulbs
There are lots of theories regarding how these bulbs can cause these effects, but they are speculative. Very little research has been done. Despite this, European countries are phasing out incandescent bulbs, and forcing the public to switch to the “energy efficient” alternative.
The new light bulbs stunningly emit two forms of radiation outside of the light spectrum: ultraviolet and radio frequency; and would you believe the F.D.A. is involved? The F.D.A. states that in addition to visible light (U.V.A.), these bulbs also emit U.V.B., and infrared radiation; but let’s not forget those radio transmissions! These bulbs are also said to have a flicker rate of 100-120 cycles per second, which seems low considering the U.V.B. light that they produce, and of course, those radio transmissions. In any case, even a flicker rate as low as 100 hertz is more than enough to trigger severe episodes of epileptic seizures. Video games are well known to do the same at a mere 60 Hz.
Judging from the multiple bands of radiation released, the flicker rate can be expected to be well beyond 120 hertz (including the light that we can’t actually see), so just start adding zeros to get the point about how likely they are to trigger epileptic seizures. These bulbs have negative effects on people with lupus too, which is something that has baffled everyone so far. That’s still not all. They are known to damage the skin too, and did we mention high frequency radiation? Watchdog organizations in the U.K. are clamoring about the issues mentioned above, and the fact that these bulbs also aggravate eczema and porphyria too.
Our staff has been doing this work long enough to spot the pattern. The radiation from these bulbs directly attacks the immune system, and furthermore damages the skin tissues enough to prevent the proper formation of vitamin D3. This will cause major cholesterol problems in time, and cripple the liver by preventing it from converting the cholesterol reserves inside the skin tissues (vitamin D2) into usable vitamin D3. This has the potential to cause or aggravate, not dozens, but hundreds of disease states. All that they had to do was shift the frequencies of otherwise benign light bulbs, and suddenly we have this mess. It is as if the whole mess with fluorescent light bulbs gave somebody inspiration for how to radiation poison us, while tricking us to beg for it, in order to “save the environment”.
The Energy Efficient Scam
One of my first lessons while studying Electronics Engineering was that energy efficiency is effected more by heat than any other factor. That’s why super conductors are always super cooled, and why your oven uses about 60 times more power than your television. Heat equals wasted power. That’s written in stone. Amazingly, standard light bulbs manage to be extremely energy efficient, despite the heat that they produce, and despite the fact that their light comes from heated elements. In fact, they manage to waste less than 10% of the power applied. This is because the heat resists the current flow in the wire coil ― to the point of practically cutting off the current.
You see, heat also increases resistance. This breaking effect upon a bulb’s current gives standard incandescent light bulbs their overall high efficiency. My first engineering project was testing light bulbs with high-end testing equipment, to study this rare property. I remember our teacher gleefully laughing at us as we sat befuddled by the fact that all of our calculations for voltages, currents, and power usage just did not add up. He thought it was almost hysterical when we began testing the equipment itself. The exercise was meant to be a memorable lesson about how heat may dissipate (or conserve) power in such a way that electrical devices at least appear to bend the rules of physics.
Another important lesson was that while theoretically incandescent light bulbs ought to be wasteful of energy, they actually increase their own resistance via heat to the point that very little of their energy is wasted. Take for example how long a standard flashlight will produce bright light with one or two small batteries. On the other hand, just try to power an oven with those same batteries for an exercise in futility. The whole thing was fascinating to the point that I knew this program of study was meant for me.
The new generation of bulbs is supposedly designed to save us from a problem that does not exist ― inefficient conventional bulbs, so this is where the story about them starts to reek like dead fish. The new bulbs, as you may have already noticed, do not produce a noticeable amount of heat. This is because the light from the new generation of bulbs is produced by injecting pulsating electricity (having a frequency) into a chemical gas to radiate light, as in radiation. Pay close attention to that frequency thing.
By the types of radiation that the new bulbs emit, we know that they must operate at frequencies astronomically higher than the 120 hertz that they are said to, so somebody is certainly lying about them. What’s more is that technically, there is no reason for the higher frequencies to be used. If a lower frequency produces the needed visible light, then why do these bulbs operate at unnecessary higher frequency bands too? These extra frequencies simply could not have been stepped up and oscillated (frequency generated) higher by accident, regardless of whether the oscillation is chemical or electronic.
Doing such a thing can make even an experienced engineer’s head spin, due to the overall technical difficulties in frequency tuning; especially on the high-end. Furthermore, are we expected to believe that none of the companies or regulators involved ever bothered to test these new light bulbs with an oscilloscope during the testing? What else could an engineer test a new light device with? A sound meter? It’s absolutely ludicrous to believe that they do not know. Thus, the only explanation is that these bulbs produce harmful radiation by design. They are designed to produce dangerous ionizing radiation outside of the range of visible light, which is known to be extremely harmful (ie. deadly) to humans, and it is all justified to solve an “environmental problem” that doesn’t even exist.
The proof is already before you to observe at your leisure ― how they interfere with radios, cordless phones, and R.F. remote controls. Can you smell it too? This writer is practically gasping for air.
It Gets Even Worse. Seriously.
This may be showing my age to some, but I had never heard of ‘dirty electricity’ when I was in college. It sounds like the super power for a comic book super villain, and in a way, it actually is. Guess what it involves? If you guessed frequencies, then great job. For those of you with some electronics training, it is similar to the topic of harmonics, but the rest of you need not worry about this point. Here’s the quick and dirty about ‘dirty electricity’. The new age bulbs do not just directly radiate radiation from themselves, which alone would be plenty bad and a reason for infamy.
Believe it or not, these bulbs actually inject frequencies back into the buildings’ electrical supply lines. This means that every wire in the building is also producing radiation too, like a spider web of giant antennas, and at even higher frequencies. Is there any reader out there who still believes the radiation poisoning is unintentional? All I can say is God bless Dr. Magda Havas, of Trent University, who cataloged these findings with empirical data about the frequency ranges for both the radiation coming from the bulbs, and the ‘dirty electricity’ radiation that pulses throughout entire buildings.
“The energy efficient compact fluorescent lights that are commercial available generate radio frequency radiation and ultraviolet radiation, they contain mercury – a known neurotoxin, and they are making some people ill. Instead of promoting these light bulbs governments around the world should be insisting that manufactures produces light bulbs that are electromagnetically clean and contain no toxic chemicals. Some of these are already available (CLED) but are too expensive for regular use.
With a growing number of people developing electrohypersensitivity we have a serious emerging and newly identified health risk that is likely to get worse until regulations restricting our exposure to electromagnetic pollutants are enforced. Since everyone uses light bulbs and since the incandescent light bulbs are being phased out this is an area that requires immediate attention.”
It’s ironic that people buy these bulbs to help the environment, because they emit mercury vapor when they break. In fact, they’re so toxic that you’re not supposed to put them in your regular garbage. They’re household hazardous waste. If you break one in the house, you are supposed to open all of your windows and doors, and evacuate the house for at least 15 minutes to minimize your exposure to the poisonous mercury gas. Don’t forget that mercury is a bio-accumulative toxin, so it remains in your body forever in ever growing amounts.
Most people put their trust in organizations like the Canadian Cancer Society to inform the public about the risks of the dangers of electrical powerlines and cell phones if there is one. If we can’t trust the Doctors that they hire to do research – who can you trust?
Dr. Mary McBride works for the BC Cancer Society and is in charge of studying the effects that cell phones and electrical power-lines have on the human body. Recently, an investigative reporter from the Canadian Television Network aired a news program that found Dr. Mary McBride is in fact – not a doctor! Now all of her research including the Canadian portion of the Interphone Study has come under suspicion because her studies are often funded by the wireless and electrical industries.
Read another article from 1999 to understand how far back she has misrepresented herself as a Doctor on the subject of electromagnetic radiation.
Wednesday, June 16, 1999
Hydro lines pose leukaemia risk in children: report Consistent patterns: Statistics paint picture, but there is no biological explanation
After nearly 20 years of study, Canadian and U.S. scientists have concluded that children exposed to the powerful magnetic fields created by hydro lines are nearly five times more likely to develop leukaemia than infants who are less exposed.
However, while the statistics paint a consistent picture of elevated risk, scientists can point to no biological explanation for what is happening.
Leukaemia is the most common childhood cancer in Canada. About one in 6,400 children under 15 years of age is diagnosed with the disease -- about 300 a year. Childhood leukaemia is fatal if untreated, but about 80% of cases of are now cured.
The studies released today are the most comprehensive since a 1979 report in Denver, Colo., caused widespread concern by linking hydro lines to leukaemia. In the ensuing decades, groups have sought to link the presence of transmission lines to a greater incidence of Alzheimer's disease, depression and birth defects.
But in a major report to Congress, the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences concludes that evidence linking human disease with electricity is "weak."
The sole exception is childhood leukaemia, it says, which study after study has associated with living near a major hydro line.
"These epidemiological studies demonstrate . . . a fairly consistent pattern of a small, increased risk with increasing exposure," the $60-million (US) study said. It was financed by the U.S. Congress, the electrical industry in the U.S. and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
In a separate Canadian study published today, researchers from the University of Toronto and Toronto Hospital for Sick Children appear to confirm the risk.
The researchers measured the magnetic fields in the homes of 201 children diagnosed with leukaemia in the Toronto area between 1985 and 1993, comparing them with those of 406 healthy children. When family relocations, power use and the child's medical history were taken into account, children exposed to high magnetic fields were 4.5 times more likely to develop leukaemia.
"The [power] lines weren't the only things we looked at, because we took measurements inside the home, and we put a personal monitor on a group of the children," said Dr. Lois Green, an epidemiologist at the university's department of public health.
Dr. Green's study is reported in two separate papers in the International Journal of Cancer and the journal Cancer Causes and Control.
Magnetic fields are invisible lines of force that surround all electrical devices and wiring.
In most Canadian homes, the average strength of magnetic fields ranges from 0.5 to 1 milligauss (mG). One mG is equal to 1/1000 the Earth's natural magnetic field. But homes located near heavy transmission lines and utility transformers, or which have poorly grounded wiring, often have a much higher magnetic field.
The Canadian study was funded in part by the Ontario Hydro Services Company and the Canadian Electricity Association.
Some studies quoted in the U.S. report to Congress suggest a dramatic increase in leukaemia risk for exposures between 4 and 5 mG, a strength that is not unusual in urban areas across North America.
For this reason, "industry should continue efforts to alter large transmission lines to reduce their fields, and localities should enforce electrical codes to avoid wiring errors that can produce higher fields," said Kenneth Holden, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
Until a biological reason for the association can be found, much skepticism about the statistical risk will remain. [....See guru's discussion below....]
Numerous studies, including a 10-year-long B.C. Cancer Agency study also partly funded by the Canadian Electricity Association and the U.S. Electric Power Research Institute, two lobby organizations for the power industry, found no significant association between magnetic field exposure and leukaemia, although the B.C. study, released in April, did find a link between the number of times a child moved and the disease.
Dr. Mary McBride, an epidemiologist, suggested that frequent moves may expose children to different patterns of viral infections, which may be linked to leukaemia.
"What we're seeing is positive results in some studies but not in others, so inconsistency points against a causal relationship," said Dr. McBride.