Canada opens way for class action against cell phone makers

Updates

From Prof. Andrew Michrowski, P.A.C.E., Canada

Canada opens way for class action against cell phone makers

Screenshot 2022-09-26 at 16.08.33.png
Screenshot 2022-09-26 at 16.07.08.png
Screenshot 2022-09-26 at 16.07.39.png

RFK Jr. one of the lawyers suing Telecom for Glioblastoma that killed 49-year old father and minister

Attorneys RFK Jr and Hunter Lundy are on the legal team representing the family of the late Reverend Frank Aaron Walker. Walker died Dec. 31, 2020, at age 49, from a glioblastoma brain tumor — or what Lundy referred to as a “cellphone tumor.”  . who died of a glioblastoma, in a lawsuit against Motorola, AT&T, ZTE Corporation, Cricket Communications and the Telecommunications Industry Association as defendants.   Public ‘Not Being Told the Truth’ About Cellphone Radiation, Attorney Tells RFK, Jr. • Children’s Health Defense (childrenshealthdefense.org) Kennedy shared that there is a series of patents going back to the 1990s that show the telecommunication industry was patenting technology to “protect human tissue from radiation that they knew was emanating from their cellphones and destroying human cells, mutating them and it causing tumors.”

Since the industry would have to admit what it did was wrong, the patents ended up being shelved. Lundy’s law firm is in possession of those old patents and is using them as evidence in the Walker case.

RFK Jr was a lead attorney in the landmark lawsuit that found that Monsanto’s Round-Up was carcinogenic and caused the non-Hodgkins Lymphoma of a school custodial worker in California, which opened the door for many similar lawsuits against Monsanto/Bayer for glyphosate Bayer Needs More Than an Aspirin to Cure Its Monsanto-Sized Headache • Children’s Health Defense (childrenshealthdefense.org)

The important legal case, Murray v. Motorola, case no. 2001 CA 008479 B in D.C. Superior Court, is holding evidentiary hearings before Judge Irving beginning this morning and running through September 30. This is a lawsuit filed in 2001 by a group of plaintiffs who got brain cancer from their cell phones. The defendants are virtually the entire telecommunications industry. After 21 years it looks like it will finally go to trial.

The phone numbers to listen to these hearings are 202-860-2110 (local) or 844-992-4726. After dialing the number, enter the Meeting ID which is 129 685 3445. I have not yet tried it.

The New Hampshire State House Subcommittee of the Science, Technology, and Energy Committee has voted for further policy action regarding the issue of radio-frequency radiation. (WiFi) 

The New Hampshire State House Subcommittee of the Science, Technology, and Energy Committee has voted for further policy action regarding the issue of radio-frequency radiation. (WiFi)  

The New Hampshire State House Subcommittee of the Science, Technology, and Energy Committee has voted for further policy action regarding the issue of radio-frequency radiation. (WiFi) 

CNN SPECIAL REPORT – THE TRUTH BEHIND THE HAVANA SYNDROME

September 22nd, 2022

CNN SPECIAL REPORT – “IMMACULATE CONCUSSION: THE TRUTH BEHIND HAVANA SYNDROME”

Dr. Sanjay Gupta investigates the controversial health mystery impacting US covert personnel, diplomats and service members around the globe, Special airs Sunday, September 25th at 8pmET/PT

In a CNN Special Report Immaculate Concussion: The Truth Behind Havana Syndrome, airing Sunday at 8pmET/PT, CNN Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta investigates one of the most complex and controversial health mysteries in recent years known as “Havana Syndrome.”

The special explores a cluster of unexplained health incidents resembling concussion-like injuries, which were first reported by American officials and covert personnel serving in Havana in late 2016. The victims describe suffering from vertigo, headache, brain fog, and in some cases, pain or ringing in the ears without any apparent mechanism of injury. Since 2016, similar incidents have been reported by US government officials around the world. Investigations by the FBI, CIA, and the US Department of State have yet to fully explain what happened to these individuals who fell ill while serving their country. The lack of clear answers has led to growing tensions between victims, US lawmakers and the government agencies investigating these incidents.  Critics say these agencies too easily dismissed these cases despite working theories that a foreign government, or proxy, may have coordinated intentional Cold War style attacks on American officials using directed energy weapon.

Gupta interviews several patients, including a former CIA senior medical officer who traveled to Cuba to investigate the incidences only to fall ill himself, as well as a former Trump official who believes they were injured at the White House. Both are sharing their stories for the first time.

Gupta also speaks with Cuba’s top scientists and diplomatic officials, who conducted their own investigation and remain skeptical of the reported incidents on their soil. However, prominent US brain experts Dr. Michael Hoffer of the University of Miami, and Dr. Douglas Smith, director of the Center for Brain Injury and Repair at the University of Pennsylvania, who have examined  many of the patients, explain why they believe their injuries are very real.

But what causes the mysterious illness? Dr. David Relman, who co-authored the influential American Academy of Sciences report, concluded that microwave energy is a plausible explanation. This finding takes Gupta’s journey down an eye-opening road into how microwave energy interacts with the brain and what types of directed energy technologies are potentially capable of doing this.

CNN Special Report Immaculate Concussion: The Truth Behind Havana Syndrome will stream live for pay TV subscribers via CNN.com and CNN OTT and mobile apps under “TV Channels,” or CNNgo where available. The doc will also be available On Demand beginning Monday, September 26th, to pay TV subscribers via CNN.com, CNN apps, and Cable Operator Platforms.

https://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2022/09/22/cnn-special-report-immaculate-concussion-the-truth-behind-havana-syndrome/


 

Emotional and behavioural problems – could your wireless device be a trigger?

Emotional and behavioural problems – could your wireless device be a trigger?
Depression, anxiety, irritability, inattention, stress – are these problems that you or someone close to you experiences? Did you know that wireless devices could be contributing to these and other emotional and behavioural problems, too? Studies have shown that wireless radiation can have harmful effects on the brain and nervous system. It’s been found to affect neurotransmitters that are involved in psychiatric disorders, stress, attention/concentration, irritability, sleep, mood, regulating emotion and depression. Children exposed to mobile phone radiation seem to have more than their fair share of behaviour problems. A Korean study found that children who made the most calls on their mobile phones or who spent the most time playing games on their mobile phones had more chance of developing ADHD. A Danish study found that children whose mothers used mobile phones before and after giving birth were 50 percent more likely to have behavioural problems. Even mice exposed to mobile phone radiation developed behaviours consistent with hyperactivity. Interestingly, one Sydney High School reported that, after it banned students’ use of mobile phones at schools, teachers observed ‘a dramatic decrease in behavioural issues, and a boost in physical activity. ’It’s not just mobile phones that are causing these problems. So is heavy use of the internet. Research has shown that internet addiction is related to depression, anxiety, impulsivity and reduced psychological wellbeing. Moreover, it’s been shown to cause structural changes in the brain in areas responsible for behaviour, personality and regulating emotions. Dr Nick Kardaras, author of Glow Kids: how screen addiction is hijacking our kids – and how to break the trance says that using wireless devices at school can interfere with kids’ ability to pay attention and cause a host of other problems. And Professor David Levy of the University of Washington refers to the ‘popcorn brain’ to describe a brain so used to stimulation that it can no longer function at a normal pace. Emotional and behavioural problems can cause enormous stress in families. Reducing triggers such as wireless radiation and wireless device use is important for overcoming the problem and creating a healthy emotional life. You can hear me talk about emotional and behavioural problems and wireless radiation in an interview with Kerre Burley here. Kerre is CEO of The Goulding Process and teaches families tools for overcoming dysfunctional behaviours.
References:
EMR and the Brain Microwave symptoms explained The Devolving brain Wireless-Wise Families Canberra Times, ‘Dramatic results after school’s mobile phone ban’ 11.08.22
What can you do?
Reduce your family’s use of radiating devices and see what changes you notice. Identify the sources of wireless radiation in your home with our meters for measuring radiofrequency radiation. Learn how to make your home radiation free with our online course, Your electromagnetic-safe Home.
What else can you do? forward this email to others to inform them, toosee the latest news in our August-September newsletter EMR and Health here book a phone consultation to find answers to your questions here

Warm regards
Lyn McLean
Director
EMR Australia PL
A business that doesn’t discriminate
www.emraustralia.com.au
02 9576 1772

Wireless radiation and hearing problems


Wireless radiation and hearing problems


Did you know that some people can hear wireless radiation? know that some of our readers do, and you might be one of them. Dr James Lin published a paper describing the fascinating phenomenon of ‘microwave hearing’, whereby people perceive wireless radiation as a clicking, buzzing, zipping, chirping or knocking sound, or even as a tune. It can occur when subjects are exposed to a wide range of frequencies – from hundreds of megahertz to several gigahertz. Further, it occurs, not just in humans, but in some species of animals (such as rats) as well. Microwave hearing is not the hearing of sound (which is a different range of frequencies from wireless radiation). It does not occur in the way that conventional hearing does. Lin describes it this way. ‘The microwave auditory effect occurs from miniscule but rapid rise … of temperature … in the brain from absorption of pulsed microwave radiation. The sudden rise in temperature creates thermoelastic expansion of the brain matter, which can launch a pressure wave that propagates through the head and is detected by the sensory hair cells in the cochlea. The nerve signal is then relayed to the central auditory system for perception and recognition.’ According to Lin, the sound depends on the characteristics of the wireless radiation, for example, the width of the pulses. Microwave hearing was first recognised in World War II and was usually linked to radar signals. It was found that servicemen could hear sounds from radar whether they were inches or thousands of feet away from the transmitter. It was also discovered that shielding a hearer from the radiation stopped them from perceiving the sound. Lin says, ‘Since late 2016, there have been multiple reports that some diplomatic service personnel have been experiencing health issues associated with hearing loud buzzing or bursts of sound. It was hypothesized that the loud buzzing, burst of sound, or acoustic pressure waves may have been delivered using a targeted beam of high-power pulsed microwave radiation, rather than blasting the subjects with conventional sonic sources. Recently, the National Academies released a report, examining the causes of the illnesses, makes the point that “among the mechanisms the study committee considered, the most plausible mechanism to explain these cases, especially in individuals with distinct early symptoms, appears to be directed, pulsed RF (microwave) energy.”. He points out that the US government plans to undertake research into developing a wearable device for detecting exposure to RF weapons.Can microwave hearing be a problem for those who experience it? to Lin it can. Because the radiation is converted to sound inside the brain, it is possible that injury to the brain could occur, he says. J. C. Lin, “The Microwave Auditory Effect,” in IEEE Journal of Electromagnetics, RF and Microwaves in Medicine and Biology, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 16-28, March 2022, doi: 10.1109/JERM.2021.3062826; 
What can be done about it?
Some of our readers have told us that their tinnitus improved when they stopped using their mobile phone. of our readers reported that she stopped hearing her neighbour’s  WiFi when she installed a curtain made from our shielding fabric on her window. So reducing exposure and shielding wireless sources is a useful strategy.
What can you do?
See our blog on the ‘Havana Syndrome’. Reduce your use of radiating devices as much as possible. Use radiation-free equipment instead. Learn how to make your home radiation free with our online course, Your electromagnetic-safe Home.
What else can you do?
forward this email to others to inform them, too see the latest news in our August-September newsletter EMR and Health here book a phone consultation to find answers to your questions here
Warm regards
Lyn McLean
Director
EMR Australia PL
A business that doesn’t discriminate
www.emraustralia.com.au
02 9576 1772

Please share, distribute, translate and reprint the following document widely…Radio Wave Packet    What You Need to Know about Wireless Technology

Please share, distribute, translate and reprint the following document widely.Download as PDF             Share on Facebook             View on CPTF website________________________________________________________________________Radio Wave Packet    What You Need to Know about Wireless Technology by Arthur Firstenberg President, Cellular Phone Task Force First published September 2001
Revised August 2022 Contents                                 1. Some Biological Effects of Radio Waves
                                 2. Morbidity and Mortality from Wireless Technology
                                 3. Radio Wave Sickness
                                 4. References________________________________________________________________________The following chart was published in 2001 and has been updated to comport with current technology. SOME BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF RADIO WAVES  
 MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY FROM
CELL PHONES AND WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY

I. FLORA AND FAUNAAspens
In a backyard laboratory in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, where trembling aspens were declining and refusing to display their colors in the fall, Katie Haggerty decided to find out what would happen if she shielded some of them from radio waves. After just two months, her shielded seedlings were 74 percent longer, and their leaves 60 percent larger than either her unshielded seedlings or her mock-shielded seedlings. And in the fall, only her shielded seedlings displayed the bright colors for which aspens are famous. (Haggerty 2010)Songbirds At Germany’s University of Oldenburg, scientists who were shocked to find that the migratory songbirds they were studying were no longer able to orient toward the north in spring and toward the southwest in autumn, decided to find out what would happen if they shielded an aviary from radio waves. Suddenly the birds were able face north in spring for migration. (Engels et al. 2014)Amphibians On a fifth floor apartment’s terrace in Barcelona, a block away from a cell tower, Alfonso Balmori decided to test his conjecture that radio waves might be responsible for the worldwide decline and extinction of so many species of amphibians. For two months he cared for two identical tanks of tadpoles, one of which was shielded from radio waves by a thin layer of fabric. The mortality in the unshielded tank was 90%, and in the shielded tank only 4%. (Balmori 2006)Honey Bees A professor at Panjab University in India decided to test her conjecture that wireless technology might be responsible for colony collapse disorder in honey bees. She put cell phones in two of four hives and turned them on twice a day for 15 minutes at a time. After three months there was neither honey, nor pollen, nor brood, nor bees in the two colonies with cell phones. (Sharma and Kumar 2010)She then decided to find out what was happening in the bees’ hemolymph, which is what their blood is called. And she found that cellular respiration was brought almost to a standstill. After just ten minutes of exposure to a cell phone, the bees practically could not metabolize sugars, fats, or proteins. (Kumar et al. 2011) MiceIn the Greek village of Chortiatis, on the third floor of the Public Primary School, six pairs of mice were mated and observed through five pregnancies. The first three pregnancies produced an average of five offspring per female. After that all the mice were sterile, giving birth to no more offspring. Visible from the schoolroom window, about one mile away, was an antenna farm atop Chortiatis Mountain, broadcasting, in total, about 300 kW of power. Six more pairs of mice were bred in a wildlife preserve, Refuge of Hypaithrios Life, located on the mountain. These mice averaged only one newborn per pregnancy from the beginning, and were sterile by the third pregnancy. The sterility was proven to be permanent and irreversible. (Magras and Xenos 1997)Ants Marie-Claire Cammaerts, at the Free University of Belgium, brought thousands of ants into her laboratory, placed an older model flip phone under their colonies and watched them walk. When the phone contained no battery it affected them not at all. Nor did the battery alone. But as soon as the battery was placed in the phone—even though the phone was still turned off—the ants darted back and forth with vigor, as if trying to escape an enemy they could not see. When she put the phone into standby mode, the ants’ frenzy increased even more. When she finally turned the phone on, they all slowed down. Cammaerts next exposed a fresh ant colony to a smartphone and then a cordless phone. In each case their rate of changing directions doubled or tripled within one or two seconds while their actual walking speed drastically slowed. After they were exposed for three minutes, they required two to four hours before they appeared normal again. Other ants, after being exposed to a WiFi router for thirty minutes, took six to eight hours to recover, and some were found dead a few days later. When she placed a flip phone in standby mode under the ants’ nest instead instead of their foraging area, the ants all immediately left their nest, taking their eggs, larvae, and nymphs with them. (Cammaerts and Johansson 2014)Rats Neurosurgeon Leif Salford’s team at the University of Lund in Sweden exposed rats to an ordinary cell phone, just once for two hours, and sacrificed them 50 days later. The exposed rats had permanent brain damage from that single exposure—even when the power level of the phone was reduced a hundredfold. (Salford et al. 2003)Cows When cell towers were raised all across America in 1996, reports came in from farmers of farm animals suddenly sick and dying, and their offspring born with webbed necks and legs on backwards. (Hawk 1996). Wolfgang Löscher and Günter Käs, receiving similar reports in Germany, visited such farms and examined such cows. Cows were dying from acute heart and circulatory collapse with bleeding from several organs. When sick cows were removed to a distant location they recovered their health. (Löscher and Käs 1998)Fruit Flies For a science fair experiment, fifteen-year-old Alexander Chan, at Benjamin Cardozo High School in Queens, New York exposed fruit fly larvae daily to a loudspeaker, a computer monitor, or a cell phone and observe their development. The flies that were exposed to the cell phone failed to develop wings. (Serant 2004)Cress Seeds For another science fair experiment, a team of five ninth grade girls in Hjaller up, Denmark filled twelve trays with 400 cress seeds each. They placed six trays in a window next to three laptop computers and two WiFi routers, and six trays in a similar window but without computers or routers. After 6 days, none of the irradiated seeds had sprouted, and many of them never did. After 12 days, the control sprouts were twice as large as those next to the laptops and routers. (Nielsen et al. 2013)Pepper Plants Scientists at the University of Gaza grew 100 pepper seedlings under identical conditions, except that half of them were watered daily with tap water that had sat in a glass flask for one hour next to a WiFi router, and the other half with tap water that had sat in an identical glass flask but not next to a router. The plants grown with irradiated water were pale and stunted. After 200 days, the control plants were 25% longer, their stems 5% thicker, and their roots 40% longer than the plants grown with irradiated water. They also weighed 90% more, had 74% more leaves, were 12% more moist, flowered and fruited earlier, and produced 38% larger fruit. (Alattar and Radwan 2020)Radio Collared Animals Radio collared mammals, including rabbits, voles, lemmings, badgers, foxes, deer, moose, armadillos, river otters, and sea otters have suffered increased mortality, impaired digging ability, weight loss, reduced activity levels, increased self-grooming, altered social interactions, and reproductive failure. (Mech and Barber 2002)In a study of moose, calves without any ear tags and calves with plain ear tags had 10% mortality, while calves with ear tags that contained transmitters had 68% mortality. The only difference was the radio waves. (Swenson et al. 1999)In another study, water vole colonies that contained radio-tagged females gave birth to four times as many males as females. The researchers concluded that likely none of the radio-tagged female voles gave birth to any female offspring. (Moorhouse and Macdonald 2005)II. HUMANS Radio Wave Sickness During the 1950s clinics were established in Moscow, Leningrad, and other cities in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to study and treat thousands of workers suffering from a new occupational disease—a disease which was also reported in the United States but which was neither studied nor treated there. The new disease was named radio wave sickness. These patients manufactured, inspected, repaired or operated microwave equipment. Some worked at radar facilities, others for radio or TV stations, or telephone companies. Still others operated radio frequency heaters and sealers being used in an expanding number of industries using technology developed during World War II.These workers were exposed to microwave radiation only during working hours. And they were exposed to levels of radiation that were less than what the general public is exposed to now for hours per day, or even all the time, from their cell phones and other wireless devices. The patients at these clinics suffered from headaches, fatigue, weakness, sleep disturbance, irritability, dizziness, memory difficulty, sexual dysfunction, skin rash, hair loss, decreased appetite, indigestion, and occasionally sensitivity to sunlight. Some had heart palpitations, stabbing pains in the region of the heart, and shortness of breath after exertion. Many developed emotional instability, anxiety or depression, and a few had mania or paranoia. On physical exam they had acrocyanosis (blue fingers and toes), impaired sense of smell, sweating, tremors, altered reflexes, unequal pupil size, heart arrhythmias, and unstable pulse and blood pressure. They had abnormal EEGs and EKGs and, in advanced stages, signs of oxygen deprivation to the heart and brain. Some developed cataracts. Blood work showed hyperactive thyroid, elevated histamine, elevated blood sugar, elevated cholesterol and triglycerides, an increase in blood proteins, a decrease in the albumin-globulin ratio, decreased platelets and red blood cells, and abnormally high or low white blood cell count. Although only about 15% of microwave workers complained of their illness, and only 2% ceased working (Sadchikova 1960, Klimková-Deutschová 1974), laboratory work revealed abnormalities in the majority of workers. Blood cholesterol was elevated in 40% of microwave workers (Klimkova-Deutschova 1974), triglycerides were elevated in 63% (Sadchikova et al. 1980), fasting blood sugar was increased in 74% (Klimkova-Deutschova 1974), and 70% had abnormal thyroid activity. (Smirnova and Sadchikova 1960; Drogichina 1960). Objective cardiac changes were found in 18% to 35% of microwave workers, depending on the length of time worked.Because of the large number of publications about radio wave sickness coming out of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, a US/USSR scientific exchange on microwave radiation research was begun in the mid-1970s. And the US government commissioned Dr. Zorach Glaser to catalogue the world’s scientific literature—journal articles, books, conference proceedings—on reported biological and health effects of radio frequency and microwave radiation. By the end of the 1970s, Glaser’s bibliography included 5,083 documents (Glaser 1984).During the 1960s and 1970s, ophthalmol­ogist Milton Zaret, under contract with the US Army and US Air Force, examined the eyes of thousands of military and civilian personnel working at radar installations in the US and Greenland. Large numbers of them, he found, were developing cataracts. Most of these cataracts were caused by chronic exposure of the eye to radiation at power densities around one milliwatt per square centimeter—a level which is regularly exceeded by each of the 15 billion cell phones in use today (Birenbaum et al. 1969; Zaret 1973).During those years American biologist Allan Frey discovered that microwave radiation damages the blood-brain barrier (Frey et al. 1975), and he proved that humans and animals can hear microwaves (Frey 1961). One of the most active American researchers during the 1960s and 1970s, Frey caused rats to become docile by irradiating them at a power density of 50 microwatts per square centimeter (Frey and Spector 1976). He altered specific behaviors at 8 microwatts per square centimeter (Frey and Wesler 1979). He altered the heart rate of live frogs at 3 microwatts per square centimeter (Frey and Eichert 1986). At only 0.6 microwatts per square centimeter, 15 times less than levels commonly encountered today at a normal operating distance from a wireless laptop, he caused frogs’ hearts to develop arrhythmias, and sometimes caused the hearts to stop beating, by timing the microwave pulses at a precise point during the heart’s rhythm (Frey and Seifert 1968). Frey’s work was funded by the US Navy.In 1977 Paul Brodeur, in his book, The Zapping of America, warned that proliferating microwave towers and radar facilities were endangering public health. But compared to today, microwave and radio facilities were still very rare indeed.When in 1977 Apple sold its first (wired) personal computers, exposure to high levels of electromagnetic radiation spread to the general population, and electromagnetic illness ceased being only an occupational disease. In that year deaths from asthma in the US, which had been declining steadily for decades, began to rise for the first time.In 1981, Representative Al Gore chaired the first of a number of US Congressional hearings on the health effects of (wired) video display terminals (VDTs). These were held because two editors at The New York Times, young men in their 20s and 30s, had developed cataracts; half of all surveyed UPI and AP employees were complaining of visual problems or headaches; an unusual number of babies with birth defects had been born to employees at The Toronto Star; and clusters of miscar­riages were occurring among female VDT operators all over the US and Canada.The newspaper industry had been the earliest industry to be transformed by computer technol­ogy. During the 1981 hearings by the House Committee on Science and Technology, Charles A. Perlik, Jr., president of the Newspaper Guild, testified that had his member­ship known that VDTs were capable of dangerous emissions, “We would not have quietly permitted the transformation of an essentially benign workplace into a hazardous one.” In 1985 Canadian author Bob DeMatteo published a popular book titled Terminal Shock: The Health Hazards of Video Display Terminals.In the mid-1980s Olle Johansson, a neuroscientist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, discovered a new skin disease. Since only people who worked in front of computer screens got it, he named it screen dermatitis. Such patients often complained also of neurological symptoms such as memory loss, fatigue, insomnia, dizziness, nausea, headache and heart palpitations—the same neurological symptoms written about three decades earlier by Soviet doctors—but since Johansson’s specialty was skin diseases, he studied the skin of computer operators. His subjects ranged from those with only redness and itching, to those with severe, disfiguring skin lesions.In the mid-1990s the telecommunications industry embarked on a project that was to result in the exposure of the entire world to microwave radiation on a previously unimagined scale. They planned to place a cell phone and a wireless computer in the hands of every man, woman and child on Earth—and to dot our world with so many broadcast antennas that those phones and computers would work in every home and every office, on every street, in every country, on the highest mountain and in the deepest valley, on every lake, and in every national park, wilderness area and wildlife refuge, without exception. And so during the next decades every human being has become a source of microwave radiation wherever he or she goes. And ambient levels of radiation have increased a thousandfold or more, everywhere on Earth. Researchers began correlating symptoms such as sleep disturbance, fatigue, memory loss, headaches, depression, dizziness and tremors—the same symptoms reported to both Soviet and American doctors half a century previously—with both cell phone use and proximity to communication towers. By 2007, teams of scientists in 14 countries concluded that the health of as much as three quarters of the population of the Earth was significantly affected by wireless technology (Haugsdal 1998, Hocking 1998, Cao 2000, Oftedahl 2000, Chia 2000, Sandström 2001, Santini 2002, Navarro 2003, Santini 2003, Zwamborn 2003, Wilén 2003, Oberfeld 2004, Bortkiewicz 2004, Al-Khlaiwi 2004, Salama 2004, Meo 2005, Preece 2005, Waldmann-Selsam 2005, Szykjowska 2005, Balikci 2005, Balik 2005, Hutter 2006, Abdel-Rassoul 2007).Other scientists have reported that cell phones cause eczema (Kimata 2002), blindness (Ye et al. 2001), childhood asthma (Li et al. 2001), Alzheimer’s disease (Salford et al. 2003, Şahin et al. 2015), deafness (Oktay and Dasdag 2006, Panda et al. 2011, Velayutham et al. 2014, Mishra 2010, Mishra 2011), and multiple sclerosis (İkinci et al. 2015).The term “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” (“EHS”) was invented because no health authority in any Western country admits that electromagnetic radiation has any effect on the health of any normal person. EHS, therefore, refers to those people who have happened accidentally to find out what is making them sick, and who have bought into the fiction that they are abnormal and different from everyone else.Signs and Symptoms Neurological: headaches, dizziness, nausea, difficulty concentrating, memory loss, irritability, depression, anxiety, insomnia, fatigue, weakness, tremors, muscle spasms, numbness, tingling, altered reflexes, muscle and joint pain, leg/foot pain, “flu-like” symptoms, fever. More severe effects include seizures, paralysis, psychosis and stroke.Cardiac: palpitations, arrhythmias, pain or pressure in the chest, low or high blood pressure, slow or fast heart rate, shortness of breath, and heart attacks. Respiratory: sinusitis, bronchitis, asthma, and pneumonia.Dermatological: skin rash, extreme sensitivity to touch, itching, burning, facial flushing. Ophthalmologic: pain or burning in the eyes, pressure in or behind the eyes, deteriorating vision, floaters, cataracts. Auditory: Chirping, buzzing, ringing in the ears, and hearing loss.Decreased sperm count and motility; abnormal menstruation; infertility; miscarriage; birth defects. Hematological: Anemia, elevated blood sugar, low platelets, low or high white cells, elevated cholesterol. Other: digestive problems; abdominal pain; sweating; enlarged thyroid; adrenal exhaustion; testicular/ovarian pain; sexual dysfunction; dryness of lips, tongue, mouth, eyes; puffy lips; swollen throat; great thirst; dehydration; frequent urination; nosebleeds; internal bleeding; immune system abnormalities; redistribution of metals within the body; hair loss; brittle fingernails; pain in the teeth; deteriorating fillings; impaired sense of smell; light sensitivity. Impaired Metabolism and Resulting Obesity, Diabetes, Heart Disease and Cancer Radio waves interfere with electron transport in the mitochondria of every cell. This starves the cells of oxygen and impairs their ability to metabolize sugars, fats, and proteins, just like Kumar et al. (2011) demonstrated in honey bees (see above). The result is the modern pandemics of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. These diseases are also aspects of radio wave sickness. See Arthur Firstenberg’s The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life, chapters 11, 12 and 13.Power Level Is Irrelevant As the chart at the beginning of this document shows, exposure levels are irrelevant where it concerns radio waves. Biological effects are found at 10, 0.01, 0.00001, 0.00000001, and 0.0000000000001 microwatts per square centimeter.As Allan Frey wrote, living organisms use electromagnetic fields (EMFs) for everything from cellular communication to nervous system function. “Electromagnetic fields are not a foreign substance to living beings like lead or cyanide. With foreign substances, the greater the dose, the greater the effect—a dose-response relationship.” Instead, he said, a living being is like a radio receiver. “The EMF signal the radio detects and transduces into the sound of music is almost immeasurably weak.” Similarly, even an immeasurably weak radio signal can interfere with biological functions. (Frey 1990, 1993)Dr. Ross Adey, at Loma Linda University School of Medicine, wrote that our cells “whisper” to each other with electromagnetic signals. He said that EMFs act at the atomic level and that “a threshold might not exist” for the effects of radio waves. (Adey 1993)Biophysicist Neil Cherry, at Lincoln University in New Zealand, wrote that radio signals “can interfere with hearts, brains and cells at extremely low intensities, approaching zero exposure” (Cherry 2000). He later presented “conclusive evidence” that “the safe level of exposure is zero.” (Cherry 2001)For some effects, there is even an inverse dose-response, i.e. the lower the exposure level, the greater the harm. In other words, the more the external signal approaches the infinitesimal strength of our bodies’ own internal signals, the more it is recognized by the body, and the more it interferes with life. Thus, Leif Salford’s team at Lund University found that the greatest damage to the blood-brain barrier occurred at the lowest dose of radiation (reduced ten thousand-fold), not the highest dose. (Persson 1997).Numerous researchers, including Carl Blackman at the US Environmental Protection Agency, have found that microwave radiation causes calcium to flow out of brain cells. For this effect, these researchers have found power windows of maximal effect, i.e. the effect decreases at both lower and higher levels (Blackman 1980, 1986; Bawin 1977; Dutta 1986; Kunjilwar and Behari 1993). And it is the lowest power windows, not the highest, that have the greatest effect: the effect at an SAR of 0.0007 W/kg was quadruple the effect at an SAR of 2.0 W/kg (Dutta 1986).Maria Sadchikova and her Soviet colleagues consistently reported in the 1960s and 1970s that among people occupationally exposed to microwave radiation, the sickest were those exposed to the lowest, not the highest levels. (Sadchikova 1960, 1974).Igor Belyaev, at Stockholm University, found a genetic effect that occurred at specific frequencies. The magnitude of the effect did not change with power level over 14 orders of magnitude, all the way down to 0.00000000001 microwatts per square centimeter. (Belyaev 1996)Nikolai Kositksy and his colleagues in Kiev, Ukraine reiterated that external radio signals interfere with our bodies’ own internal signaling, and that it is the informational content of radio waves, and not their power level, that causes harm. They reviewed 40 years of research in the Soviet Union and concluded: “Biological effects associated with these interactions depend not on the strength of the energy carried into one or another system, but on the information carried into it.” (Kositsky 2001)Thus most of the effects of radio waves on our bodies are caused not by their power levels but by their frequencies, bandwidths, pulsations, waveforms, and all the other attributes that enable them to carry information and make them useful to cell phones and computers. It is the coherent nature of the radiation and the information that it carries that kills. And therefore light (LiFi) and any other carrier of the same information is just as harmful, as are lasers. A laser is coherent light. We evolved without microwaves and without coherent radiation. The microwave radiation from the Sun is not coherent, is not centered at any particular frequency, varies in total from .0000001 microwatts per square centimeter to .0001 microwatts per square centimeter when the Sun is most active, and we are only exposed to it during the day; at night, only the far weaker microwaves from the stars reach Earth. Living beings should not ever contact, or be near, any source of coherent radiation, or any source of microwave radiation. Not WiFi, not Bluetooth, not baby monitors, not microwave ovens, and not cell phones. Not even for a few seconds. Cell phones, because of their ubiquity and their proximity to the body, are causing by far the most harm to health, society, and planet. Number of People with:            Headache Disorders: 4 billion (Stovner 2022)
            Chronic Pain: 2 billion (Antunes 2021)

            Brain Diseases: 1.3 billion (American Brain Foundation 2022)_____________________________________________________________ REFERENCESAbdel-Rassoul, G. et al. 2007. Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations. NeuroToxicology 28(2): 434-40. Adey, W. R. 1993. Whispering between cells: Electromagnetic fields and regulatory mechanisms in tissue. Frontier Perspectives 3(2):21-25.Al-Khlaiwi, T. and S. A. Meo 2004. Association of mobile phone radiation with fatigue, headache, dizziness, tension and sleep disturbance in Saudi population. Saudi Medical Journal 25(6): 732-736.Alattar, E. and E. Radwan 2020. Investigation of the effects of radio frequency water treatment on some characteristics of growth in pepper (Capsicum annuum) plants. Advances in Bioscience and Technology 11:22-48.Altpeter, E.-S. et al. 1995. Study on health effects of the shortwave transmitter station of Schwarzenburg, Berne, Switzerland, Study No. 55, Swiss Federal Office of Energy.Altpeter, E.-S. et al. 1997. Do radiofrequency electromagnetic fields cause sleep disorders? European Regional Meeting of the International Epidemiological Association, Münster, Germany, September. Abstract no. 351.American Brain Foundation 2022. Brain Diseases from A to Z. https://www.americanbrainfoundation.org/diseases/Antunes, F. et al. 2021. Prevalence and characteristics of chronic pain among patients in Portuguese primary care units. Pain and Therapy 10:1427-1437.Balik, H. H. et al. 2005. Some ocular symptoms and sensations experienced by long term users of mobile phones. Pathologie Biologie 53(2): 88-91.Balikci K. et al. 2005. A survey study on some neurological symptoms and sensations experienced by long term users of mobile phones. Pathologie Biologie 53(1): 30-34.Balmori, A. 2006. The incidence of electromagnetic pollution on the amphibian decline: Is this an important piece of the puzzle? Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry 88(2):287-89.Balodis, V. et al. 1996. Does the Skrunda Radio Location Station diminish the radial growth of pine trees? The Science of the Total Environment 180:81-85.Bawin, S. M., A. Sheppard and W. R. Adey 1977. Possible mechanisms of weak electromagnetic field coupling in brain tissue. In The Physical Basis of Electromagnetic Interactions with Biological Systems, Proceedings of a Workshop Held at the University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, June 15-17, 1977, pp. 75-90. Belokrinitskiy, V.S. 1982. Hygienic evaluation of biological effects of nonionizing microwaves. Gigiyena i Sanitariya 6:32-34, JPRS 81865, pp. 1-5.Belokrinitskiy, V. S. 1982a. Destructive and reparative processes in hippocampus with long-term exposure to nonionizing microwave radiation. Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine 93(3):89-92.Belyaev, I. Y. et al., 1996. Resonance effect of millimeter waves in the power range from 10–19 to 3 x 10–3 W/cm2 on Escherichia coli cells at different concentrations. Bioelectromagnetics 17:312-321.Birenbaum, L. et al. 1969. Effect of microwaves on the eye. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 16(1):7-14.Bise, W. 1978. Low power radio-frequency and microwave effects on human electroencephalogram and behavior. Physiological Chemistry and Physics 10(5):387-398. Blackman, C. F. et al. 1980. Induction of calcium-ion efflux from brain tissue by radiofrequency radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 1:35-43.

Blackman, C. 1986. Radiobiological approaches to electropollution. In Biological Effects of Electropollution, S. Dutta and R. Millis, eds., Information Ventures, Phila., pp. 39-46.Bortkiewicz, A. et al. 2004. Subjective symptoms reported by people living in the vicinity of cellular phone base stations. Medycyna Pracy 55(4): 345-351, in Polish.Brauer, I. 1950. Experimenta1 studies on the effect of meter waves of various field intensities on the growth of plants by division. Chromosoma 3:483-509.Brodeur, P. 1977. The Zapping of America. NY: W.W. Norton. Bundyuk, L. S. et al. 1994. Corrective action of millimeter waves on systems of various levels of hierarchy. Physics of the Alive 2(1):12-25.Cammaerts, M.-C. and O. Johansson 2014. Ants can be used as bio-indicators to reveal biological effects of electromagnetic waves from some wireless apparatus.” Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 33(4):282-88.Cao Z. et al. 2000. Effects of electromagnetic radiation from cellular telephone handsets on symptoms of neurasthenia. Wei Sheng Yan Jiu 29(6): 366-368, in Chinese. Cherry, N. 2000. Safe Exposure Levels. Lincoln University, April 25, 2000.Cherry, N. 2001. Evidence of brain cancer from occupational exposure to pulsed microwaves from a police radar. Lincoln University, August 15, 2001.Chia, S.-I. et al. 2000. Prevalence of headache among hand-held cellular telephone users in Singapore: a community study. Environmental Health Perspectives 108(11): 1059-1062.Chiang, H. et al. 1989. Health effects of environmental electromagnetic fields. Journal of Bioelectricity 8(1):127-131.DeMatteo, B. 1985. Terminal Shock: The Health Hazards of Video Display Terminals. Toronto: NC Press. Dolk, H. et al. 1997. Cancer incidence near radio and television transmitters in Great Britain, I. Sutton Coldfield transmitter. American Journal of Epidemiology 145(1):1-9.Drogichina, E. A. 1960. The clinic of chronic UHF influence on the human organism. In The Biological Action of Ultrahigh Frequencies, A. A. Letavet and Z. V. Gordon, eds., Academy of Medical Sciences, Moscow. JPRS 12471, pp. 22-24.Dumanskij, J. D., and M. G. Shandala 1974. The biologic action and hygienic significance of electromagnetic fields of super-high and ultrahigh frequencies in densely populated areas. In Biologic Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation, Proceedings of an International Symposium, Warsaw, 15-18 Oct. 1973, P. Czerski et al., eds, pp. 289-293.Dutta, S. K. et al. 1986. Microwave radiation-induced calcium ion flux from human neuroblastoma cells: dependence on depth of amplitude modulation and exposure time. In Biological Effects of Electropollution, S. Dutta and R. Millis, eds., pp. 63-69. Philadelphia, PA: Information Ventures.Eberhardt, J. L. et al. 2008. Blood-brain barrier permeability and nerve cell damage in rat brain 14 and 28 days after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 27:215-229.Engels, S. et al. 2014. Anthropogenic electromagnetic noise disrupts magnetic compass orientation in a migratory bird. Nature 509:353-56.Federal Communications Commission 2018. FCC SAR Test Report. Report No. SA180725W003-1. August 14, 2018.Firstenberg, A. 1997. Microwaving Our Planet: The Environmental Impact of the Wireless Revolution. NY: Cellular Phone Task Force. Firstenberg, A. 2020. The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green. Frey, A. H. 1961. Auditory system response to radio frequency energy. Aerospace Medicine 32: 1140-1142.Frey, A. H. 1963. Human response to very-low-frequency electromagnetic energy. Nav. Res. Rev. 1968:1-4.Frey, A. H., and E. Seifert 1968. Pulse modulated UHF energy illumination of the heart associated with change in heart rate. Life Sciences 7(Part II):505-512.Frey, A. H. 1970. Effects of microwave and radio frequency energy on the central nervous system. In Biological Effects and Health Implications of Microwave Radiation, Symposium Proceedings, Richmond, Virginia, September 17-19, 1969, S. F. Cleary, ed., pp. 134-139.Frey, A.H. 1971. Biological function as influenced by low power modulated RF energy. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, MTT-19(2):153-164.Frey, A. H., and R. Messenger 1973. Human perception of illumination with pulsed ultrahigh-frequency electromagnetic energy. Science 181:356-358.Frey, A. H. et al. 1975. Neural function and behavior: defining the relationship. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 247:433-439.Frey, A. H. and J. Spector 1976. Irritability and aggression in mammals as affected by exposure to electromagnetic energy. Proceedings of the 1976 Annual Meeting of the International Union of Radio Science, October 15-19, 1976, Amherst, Mass, p. 93.Frey, A. H. and L. Wesler 1979. Modification of tail pinch consummatory behavior in microwave energy exposure. In Program and Abstracts, National Radio Science Meeting, June 18-22, 1979, Seattle, Washington, p. 456.Frey, A. H. and E. S. Eichert 1986. “Modification of Heart Function with Low Intensity Electromagnetic Energy.” Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 5(2):201-210. Frey, A. H. 1988. Evolution and results of biological research with low-intensity nonionizing radiation. In Modern Bioelectricity, A. A. Marino, ed., pp. 785-837. New York, NY: Dekker.Frey, A. H. 1990. Is a toxicology model appropriate as a guide for biological research with electromagnetic fields? Journal of Bioelectricity 9(2):233-234.Frey, A. H. 1993. On the nature of electromagnetic field interactions with biological systems. FASEB Journal 7(2):272-281. Glaser, Z. 1984. Cumulated index to the Bibliography of reported biological phenomena (“effects”) and clinical manifestations attributed to microwave and radio-frequency radiation: report, supplements (no. 1-9), BEMS newsletter (B-1 through B-464), 1971-1981. Indexed by Julie Moore. Riverside, CA: Julie Moore & Associates. Grundler, W. and F. Kaiser l992. Experimental evidence for coherent excitations correlated with cell growth. Nanobiology 1:163-176.Haggerty, K. 2010. Adverse influence of radio frequency background on trembling aspen seedlings: Preliminary observations. International Journal of Forestry Research, article ID 836278.Haugsdal, B. et al. 1998. Comparison of symptoms experienced by users of analogue and digital mobile phones: a Swedish-Norwegian epidemiological study. Arbetslivsrapport 23, National Institute for Working Life, Umeå, Sweden.Hawk, K. 1996. Case Study in the Heartland. Butler, PA.Hocking, B. and I. Gordon 1996. Cancer incidence and mortality and proximity to TV towers. Medical Journal of Australia 165(11-12):601-605.Hocking, B. 1998. Symptoms associated with mobile phone use. Occupationa1 Medicine 48(6):357-360, and letter, vol. 48(7):472.Hutter, H.-P. et al. 2006. Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base stations. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 63:307–13.İkinci, A. et al. 2013. The effects of prenatal exposure to a 900 megahertz electromagnetic field on hippocampus morphology and learning behavior in rat pups. Journal of Experimental and Clinical Medicine 30:278. Abstract. Justeson, D. R. 1979. Behavioral and psychological effects of microwave radiation. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 55(11):1058-1078.Kimata, H. 2002. Enhancement of allergic skin wheal responses by microwave radiation from mobile phones in patients with atopic eczema/dermatitis syndrome. International Archives of Allergy and Immunology 129(4):348-50.Klimkova-Deutschova, E. 1974. Neurologic findings in persons exposed to microwaves. In Biologic Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation, Proceedings of an International Symposium, Warsaw, 15- 18 Oct. 1973, P. Czerski et al., eds., pp. 268-272.Kolodynski, A. A. and V. V. Kolodynska 1996. Motor and psychological functions of school children living in the area of the Skrunda Radio Location Station in Latvia. The Science of the Total Environment 180:87-93.Kondra, P. A. et al. 1970. Growth and reproduction of chickens subjected to microwave radiation. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 50:639-644.Kositsky, N. N. et al. 2001. Influence of high-frequency electromagnetic radiation at non-thermal intensities on the human body (a review of work by Russian and Ukrainian researchers)No Place To Hide 3(1) Supplement. Kumar, N. R. et al. 2011. Exposure to cell phone radiations produces biochemical changes in worker honey bees. Toxicology International 18(1):70-72.Kwee, S., and P. Raskmark 1997. Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and cell proliferation. In Proceedings of the Second World Congress for Electricity and Magnetism in Biology and Medicine, June 8-12, 1997, Bologna, Italy, F. Bersani, ed.Li, D.-K. et al. 2011. Maternal exposure to magnetic fields during pregnancy in relation to the risk of asthma in offspring. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 16(10):945-50.Lilienfeld, A. M. 1978. Evaluation of Health Status of Foreign service and Other Employees from Selected Eastern European Posts. National Technical Information Service, PB288-163.Lin, J. C. 1978. Microwave Auditory Effects and Applications. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.Löscher, W. and G. Käs 1998. Auffällige Verhaltensstörungen bei Rindern im Bereich von Sendeanlagen. Der praktische Tierarzt 79(5):437-444.Magone, I. 1996. The effect of electromagnetic radiation from the Skrunda Radio Location Station on Spirodela polyrhiza (L.) Schleiden cultures. The Science of the Total Environment 180:75-80.Magras, I. N. and T. D. Xenos 1997. RF radiation-induced changes in the prenatal development of mice. Bioelectromagnetics 18:455-461.McRee, D. I. 1980. Soviet and Eastern European research on biological effects of microwave radiation. Proceedings of the IEEE 68(1):84-91.Mech, L. D. and S. M. Barber 2002. A Critique of Wildlife Radio-Tracking and Its Use in National Parks. Jamestown, ND: U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center.Meo, S. A. and A. M. Al-Drees 2005. Mobile phone related-hazards and subjective hearing and vision symptoms in the Saudi population. International Jouranl of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health 18(1):53-57.Mishra, L. 2011. Heard this? Talking on the phone makes you deaf. Mumbai Mirror, October 26.Mishra, S. K. 2010. Otoacoustic emission (OAE)-based measurement of the functioning of the human cochlea and the efferent auditory system. Ph.D. thesis, University of Southampton.Moorhouse, T. P. and D. W. Macdonald 2005. Indirect negative impacts of radio-collaring: Sex ratio variation in water voles. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:91-98.Navarro, A. E. et al. 2003. The microwave syndrome: A preliminary study in Spain. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 22(2): 161–169.Nielsen, L. et al. 2013. Undersøgelse af non-termiske effecter af mobilstråling. 9.B Hjallerup skole 28-02-2013.Nittby, H. et al. 2008. Cognitive impairment in rats after long-term exposure to GSM-900 mobile phone radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 29:219-232.Oberfeld, G. et al. 2004. The microwave syndrome: further aspects of a Spanish study. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, Kos, Greece, October 4-8, 2004.Oftedal, G. 2000. Symptoms experienced in connection with mobile phone use. Occupational Medicine (London) 50:237-245.Oktay, M. F. and S. Dasdag 2006. Effects of intensive and moderate cellular phone use on hearing function. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 25:13-21.Olsen, R. G. 1980. Evidence for microwave-induced acoustic resonances in biological material. Bioelectromagnetics 1:219.Panda, N. K. et al. 2011. Auditory changes in mobile users: is evidence forthcoming? Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery 144(4):581-85.Persson, B. R. R. et al. 1997. Blood-brain barrier permeability in rats exposed to electromagnetic fields used in wireless communication. Wireless Networks 3:455-461.Perlik, C. 1981. Testimony in Potential Health Effects of Video Display Terminals and Radio Frequency Heaters and Sealers. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, Ninety-seventh Congress, first session, May 12, 13, 1981, p. 7.Preece, A. W. et al. 2005. The Akrotiri Military Antennae Health Survey. Dept. of Medical Physics and Oncology, University of Bristol, Final Report, June 2, 2005.Racini, S. M. et al. 2015. Simulation of psSAR associated with the use of laptop computers as a function of position in relation to the adult body. BioEM2015, June 14-19, 2015, Annual Meeting of the Bioelectromagnetics Society. Poster.Sadchikova, M. N. 1960. State of the nervous system under the influence of UHF. In The Biological Action of Ultrahigh Frequencies, A. A. Letavet and Z. V. Gordon, eds., Academy of Medical Sciences, Moscow, pp. 25-29.Sadchikova, M. N., et al. 1980. Significance of blood lipid and electrolyte disturbances in the development of some reactions to microwaves. Gigiyena Truda i Professional’nyye Zabolevaniya 2:38-39, JPRS 77393, pp. 37-39.Salama, O. E. and R. M. Abou El Naga 2004. Cellular phones : Are they detrimental? Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association 79(3-4): 197-223.Şahin, A. et al. 2015. Deleterious impacts of a 900-MHz electromagnetic field on hippocampal pyramidal neurons of 8-week-old Sprague Dawley male rats. Brain Research 1624:232-38.Salford, L. G. et al. 2003. Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Environmental Health Perspectives 111(7): 881-83.Sandström, M. et al. 2001. Mobile phone use and subjective symptoms. Comparison of symptoms reported by users of analogue and digital mobile phones. Occupational Medicine (London) 51:25–35, 2001.Santini, R. et al. 2002. Symptoms experienced by users of digital cellular phones: A study of a French engineering school. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 21:81-88.Santini, R. et al. 2003. Survey study of people living in the vicinity of cellular phone base stations. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 22: 41-49.Selga, T. and M, Selga 1996. Response of Pinus sylvestris L. needles to electromagnetic fields. Cytological and ultrastructural aspects. The Science of the Total Environment 180:65-73.Serant, C. 2004. A human science experiment. New York Newsday, May 10.Shandala, M. G., and G. I. Vinogradov 1978. Immunological effects of microwave action. Gigiyena I Sanitariya, no. 10:34-38, JPRS 72956, pp. 16-21.Sharma, V. P. and N. R. Kumar 2010. Changes in honeybee behaviour and biology under the influence of cellphone radiations. Current Science 98(10):1376-78.Shutenko, O. I. et al. 1981. Effects of superhigh frequency electromagnetic fields on animals of different ages. Gigiyena i Sanitariya, no. 10:35-38, JPRS 84221, pp. 85-90.Simonenko, V. B. et al. 1998. Influence of electromagnetic radiation in the radiofrequency range on the health condition of an organized collective. Voenno-meditsinskiy zhurnal 319(5):64-68.Smirnova, M. I. and M. N. Sadchikova 1960. Determination of the functional activity of the thyroid gland by means of radioactive iodine in works with UHF generators. In The Biological Action of Ultrahigh Frequencies, A. A. Letavet and Z. V. Gordon, eds., Academy of Medical Sciences, Moscow. JPRS 12471, pp. 47-49.Stark, K., et al. 1997. Absence of chronic effect of exposure to short-wave radio broadcast signal on salivary melatonin concentrations in dairy cattle. Journal of Pineal Research 22:171-176.Stovner, L. J. et al. 2022. The global prevalence of headache: an update, with analysis of the influences of methodological factors on prevalence estimates. The Journal of Headache and Pain 23, Article No 34.Swenson, J. E. et al. 1999. Effects of ear-tagging with radio transmitters on survival of moose calves. Journal of Wildlife Management 63(1):354-58.Szyjkowska, A. et al. 2005. Subjective symptoms related to mobile phone use – a pilot study. Polski Merkuriusz Lekarski 19(112): 529-532, in Polish.Velayutham, P. et al. 2014. High-frequency hearing loss among mobile phone users. Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery 66:S169-S172.Waldmann-Selsam, C. 2005. The Bamberg Report. Bamberg, Germany. Wieske, C. W. 1963. Human sensitivity to electric fields. In Proceedings of the First National Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation Symposium, Los Angeles, July 14-17, 1962.Wilén J. et al. 2003. Subjective symptoms among mobile phone users – A consequence of absorption of radiofrequency fields? Bioelectromagnetics 24(3): 152-159.Ye, J. et al. 2001. Low power density microwave radiation induced early changes in rabbit lens epithelial cells. Chinese Medical Journal 114(12) : 1290-94.Zaret, M. M. 1973. Microwave cataracts. Medical Trial Technique Quarterly 19(3):246-52, 1973.Zwamborn A. P. M. et al. 2003. Effects of global communications system radiofrequency fields on well being and cognitive functions of human subjects with and without subjective complaints. TNO report, FEL-03-C148. The Hague. 
 Arthur Firstenberg, President Cellular Phone Task Force P.O. Box 6216
Santa Fe, NM 87502
USA
phone: +1 505-471-0129
arthur@cellphonetaskforce.orgAugust 25, 2022To subscribe, go to www.cellphonetaskforce.org/subscribe or click on this link:  
 SUBSCRIBE

The Odious Smell of Truth Corruption of the Scientific Literature Continues Why does confusion reign over RF/microwave radiation health risks?

Microwave News - A Report on Non-Ionizing Radiation

The Odious Smell of Truth Corruption of the Scientific Literature Continues Why does confusion reign over RF/microwave radiation health risks?

Don’t blame the public. Much of the misinformation comes from top experts in the field.

One of those responsible is Martin Röösli, an environmental epidemiologist at the University of Basel in Switzerland. And yes, he is a long-time member of ICNIRP.

Röösli serves on a number of other committees, including those that advise the German, Swedish and Swiss governments. He also sits on the editorial boards of Biolelectromagnetics and the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.

If you want to understand why we need change, please read my latest story, here.
Louis Slesin, PhDEditor, Microwave Newslouis@microwavenews.com 
http://microwavenews.com
@microwavenews.com
@LouisSlesin

Mobile phone towers – property owner risks

View in browser

Mobile phone towers – property owner risks
If a telecommunications company leases a landowner’s property to install a mobile phone base station and the radiation from that base station affects someone’s health, then who is responsible for meeting compensation claims? Is it the telecommunications company? Is it the property owner? Is it both? A recent judgment by a German court has shed light on this scenario and highlighted the risks that property owners can face. The District Court of Munster found that property owners who lease space to telcos for the installation of mobile phone base stations share legal liable for harm that the equipment may cause. The case was heard in the District Court of Munster. It concerned a local municipality who wanted to be released from its contract with a mobile phone company because of the risks that this contract posed to the municipality and its administrators. Among the risks identified by the municipality’s lawyers were: that the majority of scientific studies show that harmful effects occur at levels of radiation below those allowed by current radiation standards; that complying with these standards does not remove a municipality’s legal risk; that municipality administrators are not adequately insured for liability and there are questions about how much additional funding should be allocated for adequate cover.‘ Since even official bodies such as the European Parliament’s Research Service (STOA) point out that the limit values ​​for electromagnetic radiation are too high by at least a factor of 10, the owner takes a liability risk when he or she enters into an agreement with a operator of a mobile telephone system in this respect,’ said the municipality’s lawyer, Krahn-Zembol. The court refused the municipality’s request to terminate its contract and said that its liability would last for the full 30-year period of the contract. This means that the property owner is liable for any harmful effects that might occur from existing or future equipment on the property, including radiation from 5G technologies and those that haven’t been deployed yet. The court’s decision means that owners of properties with base stations attached would be obliged to pay compensation, even if the equipment on site complied with relevant radiation standards. The assessment of risk to owners of properties accommodating mobile phone base stations that was identified in this case is likely to apply to other jurisdictions and other countries as well.Of particular concern is that the longer the contract with the telco, the greater the chance that owners will be called to answer for adverse effects. This is because radiation-related health problems are often thought to be due to cumulative exposure and some health problems, such as cancer, can take decades to develop. It’s also possible that new, and potentially future, technologies could cause more problems than earlier generations of technology. For example, a world-first study by Professor Lennart Hardell and Mona Nilsson showed that radiation from a 5G mobile phone antenna caused more symptoms for exposed residents than radiation from 3G and 4G antennas. Further, courts in some countries have already issued judgments linking radiation from telecommunications equipment with health problems in humans and animals. Property owners wishing to protect themselves from liability need to be aware that many insurance companies do not provide cover for EMF-related problems.
‘Court: property owners partly responsible for health damage to mobile base stations’, Warning for municipalities, parishes and private owners, Diagnose: funk5G radiation – world-first study
What can you do?
Check your insurance to see if you are covered for EMR-related issues. your use of radiating devices as much as possible. Use radiation-free equipment instead. Learn how to make your home radiation free with our online course, Your electromagnetic-safe Home.
What else can you do?
Forward this email to others to inform them, to see the latest news in our July newsletter EMR and Health here book a phone consultation to find answers to your questions here
Warm regards
Lyn McLean
Director
EMR Australia PL
A business that doesn’t discriminate
www.emraustralia.com.au
02 9576 1772

The Microwave Debate Continues —in Norwegian Forty Years Later, Not Much Has ChangedA Challenge to ICNIRP

Microwave News - A Report on Non-Ionizing Radiation

The Microwave Debate Continues —in Norwegian Forty Years Later, Not Much Has Changed
A Challenge to ICNIRP

Close to 40 years after its first publication, The Microwave Debate, Nicholas Steneck’s history of research and regulation of microwave health effects, is back in print —this time in Norwegian.The new translation, the brainchild of Einar Flydal, comes with an epilogue by Thomas Butler, a professor at Ireland’s Cork University Business School, who has contributed seven chapters —about 30,000 words— to bring Steneck’s history up to the present.

In the process, Butler takes aim at ICNIRP, which he calls “an immoral group of scientists who knowingly distort scientific truth to protect industry interests over the public good.”

Read all about it here.
 
Louis Slesin, PhD Editor, Microwave Newslouis@microwavenews.com 
http://microwavenews.com
@microwavenews.com

An avalanche of green reports won’t cool the climate

Who can trust industry claims about 5G’s sustainability?

#41

Posted on  by ksinger

An avalanche of green reports won’t cool the climate

Who can trust industry claims about 5G’s sustainability?

By Miguel Coma

Since 2020, the telecommunications industry has relentlessly published reports1 that present 5G as “sustainable” and “green.” 5G is the fifth generation of mobile telecommunications. Back in 2020, I reviewed a report from Huawei, the Chinese-owned international provider, claiming that 5G will reduce climate impacts. Since then, Accenture has issued several reports. One of these is for CTIA, the U.S. wireless industry. Today, I will analyse this U.S. report, 5G Connectivity – A Key Enabling Technology to Meet America’s Climate Change Goals.

The Accenture report clearly addresses the need to combat climate change. It also unveils the political agenda behind broadband networks such as 5G, an agenda confirmed in July 2021 by a US Senate Act to invest $65 billion (!) in telecom infrastructure. The Biden Administration has set aggressive targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: it aims for 50-52% reductions by 2030 and “net zero” emissions by 2050. Some of the Accenture report’s proposals are worth considering, including private 5G networks for industry–rather than massive deployment of public networks. To support sustainability, the Accenture paper has four sensible recommendations. Yet they can be misinterpreted and are extremely difficult to implement: develop and integrate a sustainability strategy and track against it; design operating models with sustainability at its core and technology as its enabler; recharge innovation as an organizational imperative; collaborate and rethink the ecosystem to boost the common good.

Unfortunately, these recommendations promote wireless technologies; and they ignore wired technologies’ potential to reduce climate impacts.

The CTIA report’s main message is that 5G is necessary to fighting climate change. But it never proves this point. Persistent repetition of this erroneous idea does not make it true. Accenture‘s claiming the same falsehoods presented in Huawei’s 2020 paper does not make them true.

Who paid for this report, and who wrote it?

CTIA, the U.S. Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association, now focused on promoting 5G, commissioned the report. Accenture, a global ICT consulting firm with clients in many sectors including telecommunications, wrote the report. I find conflicts of interest at every level: a report financed by the wireless industry, written by an industry provider, to support the industry’s interests.

A final acceleration before hitting the wall?

The report aims to justify wide deployments of new antennas; to keep the economy on the same track of unsustainable and exponential growth; and to convince the public and politicians that 5G is green and clean—and therefore deserving of public funding. Will politicians—or anyone—base their beliefs and decisions on this paper? Or will they recognize its commercial intent?

If I still worked in the mobile industry, this report might initially make me proud of my work’s importance for future generations. I would want to believe the report’s claim that 5G can help achieve one-fifth of the U.S.’s goals to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2025. Would I check on Accenture’s references? Would I keep loyal to the industry that provides my paycheck—or to the Earth? Would I acknowledge that wanting to believe something does not make it true?

5G for the Internet of Things: a myth?

I do still believe that cellular networks play an essential role in our economy. Yet, 5G networks provide just one way to connect the so-called Internet of Things (IoT). Then, assuming that the IoT is key reducing GHG emissions, other technologies2 can connect the IoT. Associating the IoT with 5G only promotes the myth that IoT requires 5G.

Over-enthusiastic and ignoring negative effects

When the CTIA assumes that 5G will provide the cornerstone of future networks, it ignores one of the technology’s essential flaws: by dramatically increasing wireless data, 5G will dramatically increase its consumption of energy, water and extractions. Called the “rebound effect,” this will likely outweigh 5G’s potential benefits significantly.

The report is silent about 5G’s negative impacts on climate. In 2020, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the digital sector represented a significant 3-4% of total global emissions. (Pre-Covid, aviation was 1.9%). Worse, numerous studies show that 5G will contribute to exponential increases in GHG emissions. 5G energy consumption is also expected to reach new records, according to the mobile industry’s own worldwide GSMA association.

Scientific report or 5G ad?

In any scientific paper, the author’s data, sources, methodology and results are reviewed and validated. This report claims to have analysed thirty-one use-cases leading to reductions in GHG emissions. Yet, Accenture does not list these scenarios; and the authors do not make the data or related calculations available. (Accenture did not respond to my request for their data and calculations.) Some use-cases are briefly described with no details. So, the claims are impossible to validate.

Scientific papers should not be overconfident in their findings. Statements such as: “We conclude that 5G is poised to be the greenest generation of network technology yet;” and “Current global emissions targets will only be achieved through the acceleration of innovative technologies;” and “5G will help increase work-life balance and help people manage their health, while reducing the need for travel…” are clearly advertisements, not evaluations reached by rigorous, due diligent, scientific evaluation.

Overlooked alternatives and side effects

5G will require manufacturing and operating hundreds of thousands if not millions of new cell sites. In the U.S., the number of cell sites is growing, fast. Most of these are being deployed in residential areas on public rights-of-way. In addition to 5G, the report advocates for autonomous electric vehicles (EVs) and “smart” energy management. These technologies will require manufacturing charging stations, grid reinforcements, “smart” meters and new power plants. None of these things “grows” on renewable, carbon-sequestering trees.

The report fails to account for the potentially huge impacts of these new infrastructures’ extractions, energy use—and emissions and toxic waste. The paper suggests that 5G is essential to each of the thirty-one use cases. Since, in most cases, other network technologies can achieve the same result, this is a major flaw.

5G can be a true game-changer when it operates as a private network for manufacturing or logistics. But public 5G networks offer little benefit to consumers and businesses. Building a new network will simply lead to more energy use, while existing networks can adequately satisfy public “needs.”

Repeatedly, the report advocates for investing in more, pervasive and new technology, preferably wireless. Denying the planet’s finite resources and the need for soberly revising our consumer “demands“ and habits, Accenture promotes exactly the opposite.

A narrow view on sustainability

Accenture’s assessment is strictly limited to 5G’s impact on climate. It does not mention or evaluate other essential dimensions that I would expect in a holistic report. For example, the depletion of non-renewable resources (such as metals), water use, air/water/soil pollution, waste generation, and overall energy use are simply ignored.

To move toward sustainability, rather than build a new generation of wireless network every decade, we should use existing networks and promote wired technology wherever possible.

The CTIA report promotes economic growth. It totally misses the point about our current decade’s technological challenges: we must re-think technology so that it is ecologically, economically and socially within our means. Can the digital industry use its innovative skills for the greater good, increase its corporate social responsibility and overall value to society?

Notes

1 Agoria’s (represents the Belgian technology industry) Digital4Climate, by Accenture, May 2022; Bitkom’s (represents the German digital industry) Digital Office Index, by Accenture, May 2022 ; CTIA’s (represents the U.S. wireless industry) 5G Connectivity A Key Enabling Technology to meet America’s Climate Change Goals, by Accenture, Jan 2022; GSMA’s (represents mobile network operators worldwide) Mobile Net Zero, 2022; Swisscom’s (mobile network operator) Next generation mobile networks: Problem or opportunity for climate protection?, Oct 2020; Huawei’s (mobile equipment manufacturer) Green 5G, Aug 2020; GSMA’s (represents mobile network operators worldwide) Enablement Effect report, Jan 2020.
2 Other technologies than 5G can connect devices of the IoT: cables, fibre optics, PLC, Zigbee, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, Wi-Gig, GPRS (2G), UMTS (3G) and LTE (4G) or technologies specific to the IoT such as LoRa, SigFox, Weightless, Ingenu, Wize, LTE-M (Long Term Evolution Machine), NB-IoT (NarrowBand IoT).

Miguel Coma is an engineer in telecommunications and an Information Technology architect. After over two decades of professional activity in various industries, he began to write, speak and consult about our digital environmental footprint. He believes in peoples’ potential to use technology wisely and create sustainable progress.

This article was originally published by Meer Magazine here: https://www.meer.com/en/70050-an-avalanche-of-green-reports-wont-cool-the-climate

https://www.ourweb.tech/letter-41/