Electromagnetic Fields Affect Body Cells
October to December 2000 news update
Electromagnetic fields (EMF or non ionising radiation) have a biological effect on body cells, an effect that can contribute to the complex cellular process that leads to cancer, research at Michigan State University shows.
The work of James E. Trosko, a professor of pediatrics and human development, and colleagues is published in the October issue of Environmental Health Perspectives, the journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
"Our studies have contributed to what many other studies have shown, and that is that there is a biological effect of the energy imparted by EMF (non ionising) radiation on living systems," Trosko said.
Until now, he said, some studies on the biological and health effects of EMF had been "inconclusive or contradictory."(and war gamed by industry - Ed. F-t P)
"Until now, the weight of the theoretical and experimental evidence has suggested(and industry has until recently claimed - Ed.F-t P) that EMF did not have the ability to interact with genetic material to damage it, thereby causing mutations, which we know can lead to cancer," Trosko said.
Trosko and his colleagues studied the effects of EMF on mouse leukemia cells that had the potential to mature into cells producing hemoglobin after exposure to a chemical. Hemoglobin is the substance which is needed to bind oxygen in blood. They found that electromagnetic fields of strengths ranging from .05 to 10 gauss interfered with the chemically induced maturation process in the mouse cells and allowed the cells to continue to proliferate.
After four days of exposure, about 35 percent of the chemically treated cells that were exposed to EMF showed these effects.
What Trosko and his colleagues found is that EMF is not a tumor initiator, but rather a potential tumor promoter.
"EMF may not mutate genes, which could convert a normal cell to an 'initiated' cell," he said. "But it can turn them on and off at inappropriate times, causing these initiated cells to proliferate when normally they would just sit there quietly doing nothing."
"The whole point of our study was not to see if EMF causes cancer, but if it changes gene expression," Trosko said. "The bottom line is we showed there is a biological effect of EMF as measured by altering the expression of the hemoglobin-producing gene.(There follows, a para of irrelevant pseudo argument, presumably intended to protect jobs/income/pensions from industry admitted "wargaming" - of unpopular researchers by giant predatory transnational industry players - as disclosed in a BBC Panorama broadcast dated 24-05-99) :
"I think it's important to note that there is a distinction between a biological effect and a health effect. Just because I am exposed, and just because that exposure alters some biological activity in my body, that doesn't automatically mean I'm going to get cancer. And even if I should get cancer, it does not necessarily mean that EMF caused the production of that particular cancer."
Trosko pointed out that the process in which a cell changes from a regular, healthy cell to a cancerous one is long and complex, involving different molecular/biochemical steps.
"These initiated cells need promoting agents to bring about cancer," he said. "They could be natural, such as hormones or chemicals in the food we eat. Or they could be man-made chemicals, drugs or pollutants.
"Most importantly, in order to act as a tumor promoter, many conditions must be met, including the ability of the promoter to overcome natural suppressing effects on cell proliferation, timing of the exposure to the promoter, absence of anti-promoters, and exposure for regular and long periods of time."
Other members of Trosko's research team were Gang Chen, Brad L. Upham, Wei Sun, Chia-Cheng Chang, all of the MSU Department of Pediatrics and Human Development; Edward J. Rothwell and Kun-Mu Chen, of MSU's Department of Electrical Engineering; and Hiroshi Yamasaki of the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France.
The work was funded by a grant from the Electrical Power Research Institute.
Contact: James E. Trosko, Pediatrics and Human Development (517) 353-6346or Tom Oswald, University Relations(517) 432-0920
The case of peculiarly difficult to find research report
Zurich Oct 2000 : a report on research conducted by the Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology in Zurich, cannot be unearthed. The Institute is part of the University of Zurich and the research outcome is reputed to be the most conclusive European proof (in corroboration of the above US report) yet, that non ionising radiation at frequencies and power levels transmitted by mobile phones and base stations, does cause biological effects in humans.
On the grapevive, it is known that the UK Department of Health is on record as admitting "This effectively means that people will have to accept that mobile phones do have a biological effect. This a far cry from 10 years ago when the whole thing was dismissed. This is an important study by highly respected scientists. It cannot be ignored".
NRPB still maintains that mobile phone radiation is "well within safety limits" - that's disreputable quackspeak for 'mobile phone radiation doesn't cook people'! Why such outrageous conduct by an arm of government? Why, at the same time that this latest proof of biological effects of phone radiation begins seeping out through official information suppression systems, did a servant of NRPB scandalously broadcast disparaging references to "quackery" (facilitated by station income from an expensive concurrent Orange advertising campaign broadcast from the same stations)?
Why is it so difficult to get at content of this Zurich research report ? Why does NRPB or HSE or Dept. of Health not publish it?
Why is one reminded of the sacking, character assasination and discrediting of UK scientist Harash Narang, when he merely asked embarassing questions about BSE when it was his duty to so? Voters are entitled to ask these questions, and another one - how many cases like Zoe Jeffries will there be before arch hypocrite Blair orders free flow of information, as he promised pre-election?
Abstract of another paper, published 1998 and brought to our attention during October 2000, that dot gov dot UK pleads ignorance about!
Clinically relevant events of bioeffects by pulsed em-fields according to GSM- and DECT-technique at extremely low energy levels
Dr. Lebrecht von Klitzing, Dept. Clin. Research, Medical University Luebeck (Germany), D-23538 Luebeck
One explanation for why the bioeffects of electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields are being discussed so controversely is the ignorance towards the biocybernetic system of man. The safety guidelines consider only the energy transfer and the calculated tissue heating, they have not taken into consideration the subtile biosystem itself. At extremely low energy levels frequency dependent influences on biofunctions lead to additional effects, which can not be explained by generally accepted and well known physical laws.
We tested some physiological parameters of healthy test persons during exposure of low frequency modulated microwaves emitted by GSM- and DECT-telephones. We found that the EEG-data and the regulation of peripheral blood flow is influenced by shorttime exposure to these fields.
Presented as long ago as 1998 at:Mobile Phones and Health, Symposium, October 25-28, 1998, University of Vienna, Austria
Workshop/Symposium on biological and health effects of RF electromagnetic fields:
Project Team For Biomedical and Risk Research:
Carl Blackman, Environmental Protection Agency, USA, Blackman.Carl@epamail.epa.gov
Neil J. Cherry, Lincoln University, New Zealand, email@example.com
G. Käs, Bundeswehrhochschule Neubiberg, Deutschland
Lebrecht von Klitzing, Universität Lübeck, Deutschland, firstname.lastname@example.org
Wolfgang Kromp, Inst. f. Risikoforschung, Universität Wien, email@example.com
Michael Kundi, Inst. f. Umwelthygiene, Universität Wien, firstname.lastname@example.org
Henry Lai, University of Washington, USA, email@example.com
William Leiss, Queen's University, Kanada, firstname.lastname@example.org
Theodore Litovitz, Catholic University of America, USA, email@example.com
Kjell Hansson Mild, National Institute for Working Life, Sweden, firstname.lastname@example.org
Wilhelm Mosgöller, Inst. f. Histologie u. Embryologie, Universität Wien, email@example.com
Joachim Röschke, Psychiatrische Klinik, Universität Mainz, Deutschland, firstname.lastname@example.org
Felix Schinner, Inst. f. Risikoforschung, Universität Wien, email@example.com
Stanislaw Szmiegielski, Militärinstitut für Hygiene und Epidemiologie, Polen, firstname.lastname@example.org
Luc Verschaeve, Div. of Energy and Environm. Research, V.I.T.O., Mol., Belgium, email@example.com
Ulrich Warnke, Universität des Saarlandes, Deutschland, firstname.lastname@example.org
The preferred terminology to be used in public communication:
Instead of using the terms "athermal", "nonthermal" or "microthermal" effects, the term "low intensity biological effects" is more appropriate.
Preamble: The participants agreed that biological effects from low-intensity exposures are scientifically established. However, the current state of scientific consensus is inadequate to derive reliable exposure standards. The existing evidence demands an increase in the research efforts on the possible health impact and on an adequate exposure and dose assessment.
Base stations: How could satisfactory Public Participation be ensured?
The public should be given timely participation in the process. This should include information on technical and exposure data as well as information on the status of the health debate. Public participation in the decision (limits, siting, etc.) should be enabled.
Cellular phones: How could the situation of the users be improved?
Technical data should be made available to the users to allow comparison with respect to EMF-exposure. In order to promote prudent usage, sufficient information on the health debate should be provided. This procedure should offer opportunities for the users to manage reduction in EMF-exposure. In addition, this process could stimulate further developments of low-intensity emission devices.
For further information: http://www.irf.univie.ac.at/emf/,
Prof. Dr. Michael Kundi, Inst. f. Umwelthygiene, Email:email@example.com
Dr. Felix Schinner, Inst. f. Risikoforschung, Email:firstname.lastname@example.org
Dr. Wilhelm Mosgöller, Inst. f. Histologie und Embryologie, Email:email@example.com
Mobile phones to carry
government health warning.
27-11-2000 (update below dated 08-12-2000)
Mobile phones sold in the run-up to Xmas will carry a UK government health warning.
Officials confirmed yesterday that they were finalising a leaflet that would warn buyers about mobile phones' health risks.
The leaflets will warn specifically that children should not spend too long on their mobiles. They are expected to be distributed to shops within the next two weeks to go out with the thousands of phones bought as Christmas presents.
Ministers decided to act after a report published earlier this year called for more research because of health risks. There are fears in Whitehall that the issue could develop into a BSE-style health scare in future years if no precautionary steps are taken now.
A Department of Health spokesman said: "...using mobile phones can have a harmful effect. We will produce advice for consumers shortly."
A government source said: "The truth is that we do not know enough about it and the leaflet will say there is to be more research, but in the meantime it is worth taking precautions." In the leaflets, parents will be told to limit the time children spend on the phone.
Research published earlier this year said that mobile phone use among children should be discouraged because their brains were more vulnerable than adults to radiation.
Responding to the report, the Government sent advice to schools discouraging pupils under 16 from using mobile phones. In addition, the Department of Health is in discussion with telecommunication companies to distribute health warnings to alert families who already have mobile phones. There is no news of legislation to outlaw irresponsible operation of powerful base stations that beam radiation at schools and playgrounds - or to reign in Environment Ministry inspectors who permit such developments in the face of health warnings and communitarian opposition.
Update 08-12-2000 : reproduced from the BBC : £7m (comparison of that amount with the tens of billions paid to government by industry for licenses to operate, is an appropriate measure of government's integrity in this matter - and of Blair's general lack of enthusiasm for children's health considerations ) for mobile health research :
Ministers and industry are to fund a £7m research programme into the health effects of mobile phone use, it was announced on Friday. In addition, leaflets informing the public about the known risks of using mobiles will be given out with each new one sold. If you use a mobile phone, you can choose to minimise your exposure to radio waves by keeping your calls short- it will advise users to keep calls short, and discourage children from using mobiles except for emergency calls.
The government is responding to the Stewart Inquiry, which recommended a precautionary approach after examining all the current scientific evidence on phone safety.
The leaflets will also contain advice about the risks of living or working next to mobile phone base stations and radio masts. An audit of base stations is to be carried out by the Radio Communications Agency, focusing particularly on those sited close to schools.
On the basis of the precautionary approach outlined in the Stewart report, the leaflets provide advice that, if you use a mobile phone, you can choose to minimise your exposure to radio waves by keeping your calls short. In the case of children and young people under the age of 16, the UK Chief Medical Officers strongly advise that they should be encouraged to use mobile phones for essential purposes only and to keep all calls short. The government advice is that consumers check the "specific absorption rate" (SAR) value which is given for each mobile.
This measures the rate at which radiation from the handset is absorbed by the body, and there are wide variations between different makes of phone. A European standard in SAR is due to be introduced next year.
A task force to oversee the research programme is to be chaired by Sir William Stewart, who led the original inquiry team.
'Subtle biological changes'
His report(heavily criticised by Dr. Cherry and others) said there was "preliminary" evidence that subtle biological changes take place.
The extra precautions for younger mobile users were recommended because any emerging health effects might well be more pronounced in the developing brains of young people. Their thinner skulls might also afford less protection against the radiowave radiation emitted by the phones. Statistics suggest that there are 25m mobile phones in use in the UK - a quarter of these belong to the under-18s.
Some claim that symptoms such as headache, memory loss and sleeping disorders could be caused by excessive mobile phone use. Other scientists believe that the phones cause brain tumours. Even hands-free kits, which claim to reduce exposure to the radiowave radiation by moving the handset further from the ear, have been criticised. Australian scientists claimed that the wire leading to the earpiece could actually intensify the radiation received by the brain rather than reduce it.
The industry maintains that the government is issuing simple advice, rather than a health warning.
Another Lancet report warns against neurological effects in children of exposure to "low level non thermal radiation" of the kind produced by from mobile phones and base stations.
Children who use mobile phones are at risk of memory loss, sleeping disorders and other health problems.
Dr Gerard Hyland of the University of Warwick says that children are particularly vulnerable to low level, non-thermal, radiation because their immune systems are still developing and their skulls are smaller and thinner than adults'.
Dr Hyland's research findings were published in the latest issue of the medical journal,The Lancet. He said: "Radiation is known to affect the brain rhythms and children are particularly vulnerable."
He explained that the body is an extremely sensitive electrochemical instrument and that the effect of microwaves on the body is a bit like interference on a radio. "It has an impact on the stability of cells in the body. The main effects are neurological, causing headaches, memory loss and sleeping disorders," he said.
His findings coincide with a government announcement that it is to set up a (mere) £7 million "task force" to investigate the possible dangers of mobile phones. The team will be chaired by Sir William Stewart, and will include "brain expert" Professor Colin Blakemore and the World Health Organisation's head of research Michael Repaccoli.
Vodafone sued over brain cancerBy C. Ayre, The Times 28-12-2000
British mobile phone suppliers are facing a billion-dollar legal action brought by US brain tumour victims.
The lawsuits, to be launched by one of America's most successful lawyers, are the biggest legal assault on the mobile phone industry and will be the most extensive examination yet of claims that radiation from mobile phones causes cancer.
Vodafone, the world's biggest mobile phone company, faces up to ten compensation claims, potentially for billions of dollars.
It is estimated that two thirds of all Britons now own a mobile phone after about five million people bought mobile phones this Christmas.
The cases will be filed by Peter Angelos, who recently helped to win $4.2 billion (£3 billion) in damages from the tobacco industry in Maryland.
John A. Pica, an attorney at Mr Angelos's law firm, said yesterday: "If these companies knew about the dangers of cellphone (mobile phone) radiation they should be punished and they should be punished dearly: not only for what they did to the public, but for the billions of pounds of profits they made."
Mr Angelos, whose law firm earned nearly $1 billion in fees from the Maryland tobacco industry settlement, is planning to launch two of the claims before March, and the remaining seven or eight within a year. They will be launched initially in California, Kentucky and Maryland. Each claim will be filed against a mobile handset manufacturer, a mobile phone network provider and a local "land-line" telephone company.
Mr Pica confirmed that Verizon Wireless, a joint venture between Vodafone and America's Bell Atlantic, would be named in nearly all of the legal actions. Verizon is the biggest mobile phone company in the US, with 26 million customers. The cases could prompt copycat claims in Britain and the rest of the world.
In each of his actions Mr Angelos intends to claim compensation for the pain suffered by brain tumour patients, plus the income that they lost as a result of the disease.
Mr Angelos is also seeking compensation for the families of mobile phone users who have died from brain tumours, and punitive damages.
Mr Pica yesterday refused to guess the total value of the compensation claims that his firm will make against mobile phone companies. He said that individual state laws would govern how much could be claimed in each case. He also said that even if the cases were successful they might secure only a fraction of the amount claimed.
Telecoms companies have so far defended themselves successfully against claims that mobile phones can cause brain tumours. This has not prevented a succession of claims over the devices' safety, mainly from former engineers who claim that they were overexposed to radiation from mobile phones through their jobs.
A spokesman for Vodafone said yesterday that he was not aware that Mr Angelos had become involved in the landmark legal actions. He said: "The Stewart report, the most comprehensive report of its kind so far (in Britain), gave mobile handsets and base stations a clean bill of health. But the link (between mobile phones and brain tumours) is something we can never disprove. We need more research." He added that he was not aware of any similar legal cases in Britain.
If successful, Mr Angelos's actions could have a devastating effect on the share prices of mobile phone companies. Companies such as Vodafone are already under intense pressure from investors because of the huge sums of money that they have invested in "third-generation" mobile phone licences.
In Britain, mobile phone companies paid £22.5 billion for five licences. These will allow their owners to launch high-speed Internet services via mobile phone handsets.
Mr Angelos is also renowned for his ownership of the Baltimore Orioles baseball team, which he bought with the fees generated by his successful compensation claims.
Huge lawsuits over mobile phones. BBC 28-12-2000
Some of the world's largest mobile phone companies and phone manufacturers are facing billion dollar lawsuits brought by brain tumour victims in the US.
The claims for compensation worth billions of dollars centre on suggestions that the use of mobile phones could trigger brain tumours, and that the phone companies knew about the risk.
According to the UK's Times newspaper, the lawsuits are about to be launched by one of the most successful litigation specialists in the US.
Law suits against tobacco firms brought big payouts for cancer victims - and their lawyers.
The law firm, run by Peter Angelos and based in Baltimore, Maryland, was involved in successful litigation against the tobacco industry.
Recently, the company earned nearly $1bn after helping secure $4.2bn in damages for smokers who suffer from cancer.
Mr Angelos made his name by winning large pay-outs after suing companies using and producing asbestos.
The firm employs 100 attorneys in 13 branch offices.
According to the Times, one of the mobile phone firms that could soon find itself in the firing line is Verizon, a 45% subsidiary of UK mobile phone giant Vodafone.
A Vodafone spokesman in the UK said the company was not involved in a lawsuit, while its Verizon subsidiary was involved in just one lawsuit brought by a different law firm against the phone manufacturer Motorola.
The spokesman told the BBC that "the mobile phone industry is not the tobacco industry". He said that it was impossible to "rule out a health risk".
The US law firm wants to take two claims to court by March, and add a further seven or eight by the end of the year, according to the report.
The lawsuits are set to be filed in California, Kentucky and Maryland and will reportedly be filed each against a mobile handset manufacturer, a mobile phone network provider and a local land-line company.
The suits would hinge on the notion that mobile phone network operators and the manufacturers of the handsets knew of a health risk posed by the equipment they sold to customers.
In the UK, the government recently issued advice to mobile phone users to keep calls short, and to discourage children from using mobiles except for emergency calls.
The UK government is funding a tiny £7m research programme into the health effects of a mobile phone industry worth many billions of pounds in the UK alone.
The uncertainty over the health risks of mobile phones is illustrated by conflicting advice over the use of so-called "hands-free" sets.
These sets - a small ear piece and microphone on an extension lead - allow callers to keep the mobile phone away from their heads.
Only recently hailed as the best way to keep radiation away from the brain, scientists now warn it could actually amplify the radiation and channel it directly into the brain.
Orange and UK minister defend wave of legal actions. 31-12-2000
Nick Raynsford, Minister for Housing and Planning, contravened the European Human Rights Act when he wrote to council leaders telling them to ignore health issues when considering mast planning applications. Mast Action UK is raising funds to fight the case.
It has recently surfaced in the public domain that in Raynsfords letter to council leaders on June 29, he unscrupulously said that bans or moratoriums on mobile phone mast applications, prompted by fears that masts are linked to cancer, DNA damage, leukaemia, epilepsy and birth defects, were "wholly unjustified" (a deliberate lie - if justification is defined in terms other than the political interests of unscrupulous wilfully negligent opportunists and_or the financial interests of resource racketeers). He added that as long as masts met basic International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection guidelines (but calmly didn't mention that those "guidelines" relate to cooking effect of microwaves only, to the total exclusion of more pernicious biological effects - in an almost perfect match of the scandalous behavioural characteristics of agriculture and health ministers about BSE aka mad cow disease), "it should not be necessary for a planning authority to consider the health effects further".
The letter was written eight weeks after the Government raised £22.5billion by selling "third generation" licences to five mobile phone companies - and secret donations to Labour party funds, apparatchiks' private assets, ministerial private offices, et cetera, have continued to surface in the press thoughout the life of this government
Verizon Wireless, the US arm of Vodafone, is facing up to ten multibillion dollar lawsuits from brain tumour victims represented by the firm of lawyers who successfully claimed damages from the tobacco industry. They claim that their tumours were caused by mobile phone use. More than £3billion was wiped off Vodafones stock market value within 24 hours of the report which identifed the lawyer who will represent the claimants.
A lawyer representing Mast Action UK, said in December 2000, that the Raynsford letter had broken European law because it denied people the right to a "fair and proper hearing" when objecting to planning permission applications for masts. He had written to Mr Raynsford on December 14 but had not received a response. Mr Meyer added that although the international guidelines were recommended by the recent Stewart report into mobile phone health issues, they protected against the effects only of "thermal heating" from masts, not the more serious biological effects.
He will additionaly argue that planning inspectors are in any case not independent because they are employed by the Secretary of State.
It is also reliably reported that ORANGE ( the hot potato set up by HK racketeers, quickly passed from owner to owner until recently bought by France Telecom, was almost immediately put up for resale and is now the subject of a last resort attempt to launch independantly on the London stock exchange to realise the France Telecom investment) is facing a High Court objection to one of its mobile phone masts under the new European Human Rights Act, in the first of hundreds of similar pending cases.
David Lale, a company director from Harewood has recently lodged a High Court appeal against an Orange decision to put a mast next to his children's bedroom. Mr Lale claims that the Government did not allow him to object to the mast at a fair and proper hearing. He says this breaks Article 6 of the Human Rights.
Orange refused to comment on the impact of the Human Rights Act on the company. Instead, a spokeswoman said: "We choose sites that meet our technical needs, our customers coverage requirements, and that comply with regulations."
It isn't suggested that Raynsford's attempt to rig "the regulations" is motivated by 'influence' or inducement(s).
EnviroHealth review Oct 2000
return to orange index here
This site is evolving therefore you may wish to use refresh button each visit.