EMR information item

Free Web Hosting Provider - Web Hosting - E-commerce - High Speed Internet - Free Web Page

Microwaves and radiowaves are utilised by the telecommunication systems used by all essential services such as ambulance, fire, air-sea-rescue and our armed services.

These same electromagnetic energies generated by radio frequencies and microwaves (RF/MW) also operate the mobile and cordless telephone systems used by non-essential, commercial and private telecommunications. While the convenience, personal security and industry profitability of the mobile phone in its present form is clearly evident, these advantages however, may well have a hidden cost we cannot support.

The extensive and ongoing scientific investigation into human exposure to electric power line frequency (50HZ) electromagnetic field radiation (EMF/R) in domestic and occupational settings has to date, resulted in advice to consumers to practice a policy of prudent avoidance. Power industry authorities are making an attempt to reduce EMR exposure within the confines of their prudent avoidance policy.

There is currently a great deal of community concern and discussion regarding the possibility of cancer and other harmful effects resulting from exposure to the EMR in the microwave/radio frequency (MW/RF) range of the electromagnetic spectrum - utilised by wireless technology.

Discussion has been prompted by scientific reports of biological effects resulting from exposure to the RFR at levels that are below the 'heating' or thermal levels, which cause the obvious effects of shock, heating or burns.

There appears to be very good reason to question the safety of this technology in its' present form and to suspend its' use in the wider community, until the questions are satisfactorily answered and the products designed to reduce the risk to human health.

RF/MW emissions from mobile and cordless phones occur in close proximity to the human head. It has been established that 40 % of the power operating a phone is absorbed into the skin, skull and the brain. Recently, exposure has been found to alter brain function - health may well be compromised as a result.

Brain tumours are believed to be associated with mobile phone radiation emissions.

A growing number of cases have been reported world-wide, of fatal brain tumours having developed after constant user of a mobile phone. Cases brought to court have been unsuccessful so far, due to the uncertainty of the accepted science, as to how MW/RFR can cause cancer.

Causing some confusion are conflicting scientific reports, some studies contradicting the results of others, and the lack of recognition of the health implications of the 'non-thermal' (non-heating), cumulative effects.

That there are positive indications AT ALL, that there is a danger to health from MW/RFR exposure, should be sufficient to warrant a halt to the use of this energy for all but non-essential services.

When a child's toy is marketed and it is found that there could be a health hazard associated with the toy, there is an immediate market recall of that product . Obviously legislation is in place to deal with this situation. and rightly so. Yet the mobile phone, is permitted and indeed encouraged to be used in close proximity to vulnerable people with no warning of a probable adverse health impact.

Disturbing scientific and anecdotal evidence, reinforcing the growing concern, regarding human exposure to MW/RFR energy, continues to emerge. Accessibility of the phones to people whose health is already compromised is of some concern. Especially vulnerable, are those who are;

Certain EMR frequencies are known to alter the action of some drugs, potentiating the effect of some and reducing the effect of others. More research is urgently needed in this area.

Due to rapid cell development, the young child and the infant in the womb are particularly susceptible to harmful impact from environmental factors such as MW/RFR.

When in standby mode, the mobile phone, usually carried at the waist on a belt or in a pocket - emits a locating signal, in close proximity to vital organs.

Dr Michael Repacholi, of the World Health Organisation (WHO), when asked recently if this could be a health problem, replied that " the energy from the mobile phone in this case is insufficient to penetrate deeply enough into the body to affect vital organs. "

This reply is based on the premise that the heating or thermal effect of RFR is the only effect, which may impact adversely on health.

It also presumes that there is little or no connection, where a radio signal however weak, is concerned, between the surface and outer layer of the body and the internal organs.

Artificial heart pacemakers are located in the chest near the collarbone and their operation can be effected due to electromagnetic interference (EMI) from a mobile phone situated in a shirt pocket. It is thus not unreasonable to propose that body tissues including the human heart, could also be effected in an adverse way by the same EME fields.

The human heart in vivo has been found to more greatly effected by external electrical stimulus than heart tissue in vitro. (Reference to be included when located.)

The a-thermal , or non-heating levels of RFR, on which Dr Michael Repacholi based his reply regarding the vital organ exposure, is now considered a 'grey' area by Dr George Carlo who previously had been adamant that only e-thermal effects could have any significance in this issue. Dr Carlo is now prepared to concede that there may, just may, be a need for caution with this level of RFR.

Research conducted into RFR and health is performed on inanimate plastic models (called phantoms), filled with substances that resemble body tissues and fluids in some limited respects, such as density and conductivity. Measurements are taken , the results calculated mathematically and then extrapolated to the human system to explain how RFR will behave in the living human system.

But such comparison between inanimate plastic models and living, breathing human beings is not exact at all. The true sensitivities of the living system at the celluar level are just not taken into account by such testing. Using the results of such research to generate a health safety Standard is a highly questionable endeavour and hardly inspires confidence in the safety assurances about RFR made by officials.

Such anecdotes demonstrate how EMR may affect living systems in ways other than via the EME thermal effects, which is the only mechanism currently officially recognised and for which safety standards have been set by authorities.

In the face of a continuing flood of such reports it is absolutely essential that we obtain at least some understanding of the potential non-thermal biological effects of exposure to EME may have to damage human health before allowing EME emitting products to continue to be marketed in the uncontrolled way that they are today.

In assessing environmental factors and health, it makes little sense for the body not to be considered as a whole. Internal vital organs need to be considered as part of the whole and not as isolated from the surface of the body. The skin is a very large, sensitive organ continually sensing and interacting with signals from our environment. We might consider:

* The Electroencephalogram (EEG), obtained via electrodes attached to the skin at surface of the skull detects the operation of the brain within.

* The Electrocardiogram, (ECG) via electrodes, attached to the surface of the chest, detects the electrical activity of the heart.

EME signals clearly propagate throughout the body from such internal generators. Can we be sure that external EME sources, orders of magnitude greater in power than those produced by the firing of neurones in the brain, do not have important effects on body organs ?

We may now well ask - is the specific absorption rate ( SAR ) the only valid means of determining how RFR interacts with the human body ? And just how important is the frequency of that radiation in regard to health effects?

Scientists admit we know so little of the interaction of electromagnetic energy and human tissue, yet we see statements by some, and by commercial interests, based on incomplete science. We are often only told that we 'need not be concerned' about safety over such interactions.

Surely there is a case to apply extreme caution over human exposure to EME environmental factors, which have the potential to disrupt normal cell function?

Responsible media reports and TV programmes highlighting environmental factors associated with human health are indeed welcome, as was the UK produced , Panorama TV programme featuring mobile phone use, presented in Australia on ABC Four Corners (6/7/1999).

Dr Ross Adey and Professor Henry Lai, two world-renowned scientists and researchers in the MW/RFR and health area were interviewed. They commented on the serious health implications of mobile phone use. Telecommunication industry spokespersons, as expected, reaffirmed their position, that there were no health problems associated with MW/RF emissions from their products. The industry is complying with the current local guidelines/standards, outdated though these standards/guidelines may be.

The recent work of Dr Alan Preece of Bristol University, UK shows that brain activity appeared to be speeded up in a group of young healthy volunteers while exposed to MW/RFR of mobile phone frequency. There was also evidence of a change in the ability to make choices.

The change in brain function due to mobile phone use could have immense repercussions to society in general, as this device is now standard equipment for the busy executive and the decision-makers in industry and government. It may not be too extreme to wonder if, today, as a result, decisions that greatly effect many peoples' lives may well be being made by individuals whose ability to do so could be somewhat impaired.

Brain scans show that non-thermal, non-ionizing radiation (MW/RFR) exposure can, in time, induce permanent effects in the brain. It appears that after repeated exposures, brain tissue eventually adapts to such stimulus, losing the ability to show any future response.

Dr Gunnar Heusan (USA), a specialist in neurotoxicology and immunotoxicology has observed the brain scans of those who have experienced the effects of repeated toxic chemical exposure, from inhalation of volatile substances, and how these effects are recorded on the scans.

He speaks of the "kindling" effect of repeated small exposures to toxic chemicals and how after many "kindlings" it takes but one exposure to cause a major adverse response, such as an epileptic type seizure.

When asked whether the 'kindling' effect of chemical exposure could be seen as analogous to the biological effects associated with MW/RFR exposure, Dr Heuser replied that he had no trouble at all with that analogy.

MW/RFR factor biological effects was analogous to the "kindling" effect associated with toxic chemical exposure, Dr Heuser replied that he believed the analogy was valid.

It appears that, eventually, chronic exposures of either EMR or toxic chemicals creates a biological condition that may become irreversible. The person's system having adapted to the repeated exposures (inhalations or EMR) until it can adapt no longer - it then takes but one future exposure episode and the individual responds in a very adverse and irreversible way.

Science has revealed that the blood brain barrier (BBB) is rendered permeable due to RFR exposure, which in turn allows chemicals, normally denied access, to flow to the brain cells where damage may occur. The brain is most clearly an electro-chemical system in nature

The food industry is now utilising microwave technology to speed up chemical reactions in food processing. A question one may be prompted to ask is: Does externally applied MW/RF energy speed up the normal chemical reactions in the brain and other organs?

Standards for human exposure to MW/RFR set energy levels that can produce measurable heating effects in human tissue.

And biological effects in studies where much lower power MW/RFR energy is used are said by authorities to have no significance in regard to human health..

Yet the anecdotal evidence emerging from people exposed to MW/RFR and who, as a result, experience-disturbing health effects, is just ignored by the authorities.

Anecdotal evidence is said to be "unscientific". PROOF is sought from the scientific laboratories. However, those scientific studies that do reveal a more than probable risk to health from MW/RFR exposure - are simply not taken into account in the Standard setting procedures. The only mention they get is that there are fewer such studies than those, which show 'no effect'. Could this be a repeat of the type of thing that went on for decades over smoking , where a industry sponsored Tobacco Institute pumped out thousands of 'scientific' papers showing that smoking did not cause health damage?

The fact that there are any such studies AT ALL which indicate MW/RFR has a role in producing or effecting adverse health conditions, is surely sufficient to warrant a halt NOW to further human exposure and steps to ensure a reduction of human exposure in time.

There are studies being undertaken by the World Health Organisation (WHO) at the present time. Results will not be available for two years. Dr Michael Repacholi from that organisation says that if these studies are not done NOW there will not be a group of people on this planet that can be used as a control group for such studies, as the entire world population will be then under RFR exposure !

Manufacturers believe they are acting responsibly as all mobile phones are at present complying with the currently accepted standard for MW/RFR emissions of 10 milliWatts per square centimetre. Interestingly no two brands of mobile phones appear to emit the same amount of energy, but all the public is told is that emissions remain within the 10 mW range in compliance with the safety guidelines.

Phones do not carry labels to inform the customer of the actual emission levels.

It is interesting that people who have used an analogue phone for a time without a problem are now having difficulty with the digital phone. Headaches , 'hotspots' and memory lapses are reported. (See : Birds affected by RFR on this site.)

Dr Peter French, a Cell Biologist of St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, and researcher, cautions against long-term use of mobile phones, as does Dr Lennart Hardell of Sweden . (see below)

There is a recent report of a USA based phone company, very concerned with MW/RFR health reports, approaching a regulatory body regarding this issue but failing to get any response whatsoever. It would appear that , before authorities will take any responsible action, the voice of informed consumers need to be heard on this issue.

It is absolutely essential that we have a better understanding of how the reported biological effects of non-thermal MW/RFR exposure may damage human health before allowing even more MW/RFR emitting products to be marketed.

On this website we have posted an important paper authored by Professor Henry Lai. Neurological Effects of RFR. (April 1999) It is a paper well worth studying.

Szmigielski, S., Cancer Morbidity in Subjects Occupationally Exposed to High Frequency (Radiofrequency and Microwave) Electromagnetic Radiation. Science of the Total Environment Vol 180, pp 9-17, 1996.

Von Klitzing, L. Low Frequency Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields Influence EEG in Man Physica Medica, Vol 11 No2, pp 77-80 April/June , 1995

Lancet, June 20th 1998 Mobile Phone electromagnetic fields increases resting blood pressure.

At Gothenburg in Sweden in mid September 1999, a conference was held on The Mobile Telephone and Health - An Update on Science. A conference of vital importance, where studies were presented which appear to confirm the non-thermal (non-heating ) effect, this factor has been studiously overlooked in the health and safety standard-making process. The non-thermal effects have been totally denied by those with commercially vested interests. The conference reports are reinforcing the findings of Oscar et. al., in 1971. Included here are highlights from these reports.

Professor Bertil Persson and his team at University of Lund in Sweden exposed rodents for two hours to RFR with SAR values of 0.4W/kg to 3W/kg and found that albumen leaked through the blood brain barrier (BBB) into the brain.

The protein albumen, normally contained in the blood, has been found experimentally in small amounts to cause harm to the brain and in slightly larger amounts, to kill nerve cells.

Should the BBB become permeable, as has been found to occur by RFR exposure, allowing proteins normally denied access to find their way into brain tissue, auto immune diseases such as multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease can result. Damaged nerve cells can also lead to dementia and premature ageing. Inflamed brain cells can be indirectly linked to Alzheimer's disease.

The extremely low levels of RF that have been involved in these findings, 0.0001 - 0.001 of a Watt , showed albumen in the brains of 50% of the rats. These levels typical of that associated with radiation from a mobile phone tower are sufficient to affect the brain. A person in the vicinity of a mobile phone user, can also be affected by the radiation.

Professor Bertil's team is working with the US Air Force, investigating the Gulf war syndrome. It is believed that microwaves used in high-tech warfare could have compromised the BBB of personnel, allowing medication, which had been administered, for nerve gas protection, to enter the brain.

Dr David De Pomerai has found that microwave energy from mobile phones caused damage in nematode worms. This shows a true biological effect without heating, reinforcing the need for recognition and acceptance of the non-thermal effects of RFR on humans.

Prof. Szmigielski (Poland) reported occupational exposure to RFR increased the risk of irregular cardiac function.

Dr Mild from Institute of Working Life, reported that in a study on headaches and mobile phone use, 43% of participants reduced their usage of mobile phones and as a result 80% of these showed relief from symptoms.

Professor Lin, spoke of microwave standards of exposure that have already been reduced and that mobile phone standards also need to be re-examined.

Professor Roeschke , University of Mainz, has found interference with sleep patterns which could cause stress and fatigue, reduction in SOL sleep, REM sleep and prolonged REM latency, These reactions would act like a drug, e.g., an anti-depressant. There was also a significant increase in the amount of Cortisol produced

And from The Lancet June 30th 1999 - Mobile Phones Increase Resting Blood Pressure.

While it cannot be said that mobile telephony actually damages the brain, the researchers want their studies to be taken seriously. Anecdotal reports of harmful effects of mobile phone use continue to rise, reflecting the findings of the laboratory. Replication of the laboratory studies, may prove to be a mere formality.