Misc. news reports file commenced 1999 02 02 :
UK government is in characteristic 'I'm all right Jack' (Blair Harman syndrome) mode, in relation to the rights of children in schools and apartment blocks with phone company base stations on the roofs. There is patent contempt for the Precautionary Principle of the Treaty of Maastricht, for the doctrine of tortious duty of care vis-a-vis vulnerable children, and for common sense.
Recent research shows that short term exposure to radiation levels generated by base stations has physiological effects including blood pressure changes and that prolonged exposure to low levels of the same non ionising radiation at the frequencies used by the mobile phone industry, can cause damage to chromosomes and alter DNA.
UK ruling party power bases such as "censored" Town Hall, in characteristic resource racketeering mode, continue to dole out public protection afforded by Environmental Health legislation as an asset to be distributed, or not, as patronage.
Frank Dobson, Tony Blair 's Secretary of State for Health and former boss of "censored" Town Hall, has supervised a shift of resources away from children's health services and preventive medicine since he was appointed Secretary of State for Health.
Effect of phone radiation on blood pressure click on Lancet1 June 1998.
General biological effects of non ionising radiation HERE
Swedish precautionary principle and related "reasonable cost" practice - click HERE
Notes from a Royal Society of Canada report on human biological effects of radio frequency radiation HERE
A campaign report - used info in public domain outside secretive UK that lacks freedom of information act.
THE BBC :
"Radiation emissions from mobile phones could place users at risk of brain conditions including Alzheimer's Disease, according to new reports.
Researchers in Sweden have found that just two minutes' exposure to energy waves from a handset can disable a defence mechanism in the body designed to prevent harmful proteins and toxins in the blood from entering the brain.
In what is the latest in a series of mobile phone health scares, once the proteins enter brain tissue there is a higher risk of brain and nerve diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and multiple sclerosis developing."
BBC March 1st 1999
Health Scientists cut their mobile phone use
Researchers have tested the impact of microwaves on brain function
Leading scientists have have cut down or modified their personal use of mobile phones as fears mount that they can damage health.
New research to be published next month links mobile phone use to memory loss.
The use of mobile phones has already been linked to headaches, fatigue, damage to the immune system and cancer.
However, there is no firm evidence yet that mobile phones cause any harm.
Professor Colin Blakemore, Waynflete professor of physiology at Oxford University and a member of the official body that regulates the use of mobile phones in the UK, is one of those who have cut back their use of mobile phones.
Professor Blakemore said there was growing evidence that mobile phones could affect the functioning of the brain.
He said there are other reasons not to use mobile phones, such as cost and annoyance to other people.
Professor Blakemore said nerve cells were influenced by electromagnetic radiation of the type produced by mobile phones.
He said the phones were also placed close to areas in the brain that regulated short-term memory, as well as areas that controlled heart function and blood pressure.
He told News Online: "It would not surprise me if there was a small temporary effect on the electrical response of nerve cells when the phone is in use which could impact on the brain's ability to process information."
Professor Blakemore said he had experienced problems concentrating while using mobile phones.
"I have experienced by attention being distracted rather more than it should have been just by the conversation I was having," he said.
However, Professor Blakemore said the effect of mobile phones was likely
only to be temporary, and relatively small. He said reports that suggested mobile phones
could cause permanent damage should be treated with great caution.
4 sep 99 SAFE TALK : from New Scientist
NERVOUS CELLPHONE USERSwill be pleased to learn that Nokia of Finland has developed an aerial that is supposed to direct most of the radiation away from the caller. Instead of the normal helical shape, the wire runs up the outside of the aerial in series of ever smaller zig-zags (GB 2 330 951). Most of the radiation comes from the smallest zig-zags, which can be kept to one side of the tubular antenna. So if the aerial is filled with a dielectric or insulating material, the radiation reaching the user is reduced (why bother if the radiation is harmless as NRPB would have citizens believe?).
FoE - refers to the gulf in thinking between the NRPB and other scientific bodies/governments. It is difficult to imagine how the NRPB can continue to maintain that an investigative exposure level of 10000µW/cm2 (100W/m2) is safe when in 1995 the New Zealand Environment Court (as the Planning Tribunal) in the case of MacIntyre vs BellSouth set a level of 2µW/cm2 as a precautionary approach - a level 5000 times less than set by the NRPB.
............the NRPB levels are based solely upon the thermal(= cooking) effects of exposure to radiation - the extent to which the body heats up as a result of exposure to these fields. Currently a rise of 1°C is the maximum permissible rise in body temperature, measured as an average over the whole body over a 15 minute period (by the system of averaging it is of concern that there will be times when the temperature rise is actually 2°C). This is called the specific energy absorption rate (SAR) and is measured in Watts per kilogram (W/kg). Currently, in the UK, the SAR allows us to absorb 10W/kg in the head, compared with an SAR of 1.6W/kg in the U.S.A. and of 2W/kg with CENELEC.
..........It was previously thought that the only possible danger to human health through exposure to microwave radiation was the thermal/heating effect. There is a growing body of scientific evidence, internationally, to indicate, however, that there may be some very serious health concerns from non-thermal effects i.e. long term exposure to very low levels of radiation. The NRPB do not recognise the scientific merit of these studies as they have failed to prove a categorical link between long term exposure to low levels of radiation and ill health. The crux of the problem is categorical proof . Even when there is growing evidence, accepted internationally within sections of the scientific community, we only need to look at the smoking debate to see how long it can take to prove a categorical causal link. If, in time, a categorical link is proven then it will be of little consolation to the many thousands of people across the country currently being exposed to the present permissible levels, especially when all it would take to avoid this unnecessary exposure is the introduction of a more cautionary approach to the siting of transmitters.
Conversely, whilst refusing to acknowledge that there could be a problem with non-thermal exposure, the NRPB launched a 3 year UK National Research Study into Occupational Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields in November 1998. It explains that this research follows concern about the possible relationship between exposure to EMFs and cancer or leukaemia and should provide the high quality research data which the NRPB feel is needed. The NRPB stated as recently as March 1992 that there was "no firm evidence" of a carcinogenic hazard from exposure to EMFs for those "in the electrical, electronic and telecommunications industries", amongst others (a view shared by the International Commission on Non-Ionozing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) - of which the NRPB is a member), and yet now they find it necessary to re-examine this issue. This reinforces our opinion that there is, quite simply, not enough known about the possible health effects of exposure to this form of radiation and that a far more cautionary approach should be adopted now. To claim that there are no non thermal mechanisms for the interaction of weak RF/MW signals with human and animal organs and cells is simply not scientifically credible.
...........Research Findings Not Intended to Enter the Public Domain
In 1990 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded a two year study into the possible links between EMF radiation and cancer. A leaked draft report, entitled 'Evaluation of the Potential Carcinogenicity of Electromagnetic Fields', covering the frequency range 3Hz-30GHz, concluded that Extra Low Frequency magnetic fields are "probable human carcinogens".
..........the NRPB recognise that levels of radiation emissions should be lower for people with compromised health.
The U.K. already has an obligation under the Maastricht Treaty 1993 (Article 130r) to take a precautionary approach and this was re-inforced more specifically by a recent European Parliament recommendation, 10 March 1999, which stated that people living in member states should be protected from the "potentially harmful long term effects" of electromagnetic fields, as generated by these transmitter masts
........We appreciate that it would not be practicable to lower the public exposure limit below 2µW/cm2, but would advise that this limit is adopted until more is known
Chip the size of a dot to replace masts - http://www.blazeinet.com/thewatchman/000086.html(target for industry "wargaming")
Glasgow health board calls for ban on masts near schools -http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/4-10-1999-23-29-44.html
A significant hazard of microwave radiation is injury to the eyes, especially damaging at frequencies above 800 MHz. Since the lens of the eye does not have an adequate vascular system for the exchange of heat, even a slight rise in temperature can cause protein coagulation, and opacities in the lens may form. This may already be defined as a cataract, however in clinical practice the term cataract is normally not used unless the opacity has progressed so much as to interfere with visual acuity. Experimentally cataracts in animals develop after exposure to power densities above 100 mW/cm². Missing was exact information on duration. It is safe to assume a short pulse was sufficient , since most researchers feel strongly that repeated exposure of the lens to lower doses of radiation can result in accumulation of injury
There is electrophonic effect of microwave on hearing. Humans can perceive a buzzing or clicking sound in the back of their heads at exposure to power densities as low as 0.1 mW/cm² of pulsed microwave radiation (200-3000 MHz) , depending on the pulse repetition frequency and the peak power density (around 300 mW/cm²). The absorbed energy produces a thermoelastic expansion of the brain tissue causing an acoustic pressure wave which is detected in the cochlea by the hair cells of the organ of Corti. The energy needed to produce this effect is so small that it does not actually increase the mean temperature of the brain, yet the acoustic sensation is strong enough to be clearly perceived in an ambient noise level of circa 65 dB. Due to this fact microwave hearing does not cause an apparent physical reaction within the head, but it is well known that humans suffer general stress reactions when they are exposed to higher levels of sound. Noise cannot only be an annoyance, but when it consists of pulsed sounds it affects heart beat and metabolic rates.  The subliminal aspects of noise levels are here not even considered despite the recognized physiological effects of acoustic noise
Outcome of 5 year US air force test program and follow ups:
1. Single and double strand DNA breakage - double starnd breakage leads to mutations - result of 2hr exposure
2. Melatonin suppression.
3. Immune system malfunction.
4. Increase in malignant endocrine tumors and benign adrenal gland tumors.
5. Increase in B-cell lymphomas.
6. Carcinogenic action of pulsed radio frequency radiation.
7. Leakage through blood brain barrier at ONE HUNDRETH of the permitted exposure level.
8. Microwave and radar personnel had sharp increases in cancer inducing lymphomas, melanomas, leukemias, brain tumors, high blood pressure, headaches, memory loss, brain damage, immune system suppression.
9. 1982 : at .01microW/cm sq : altered brain permeability
at .03microW/cm sq increased brain amine levels
at .04microW/cm sq neuro endocrine effects
at rising levels up to 28 microW/cm sq reduced sperm count, genetic effects, paragenetic effects (cancer).
Motorola brandished in 1997 a report to the effect of immune system ENHANCEMENT without disclosing that further exposure resulted in immune system suppression.
Children 3 times more likely to get sick.
Military personnel exposed to non ionising radiation (= 8 times more likely to develop cancer.
Children, feotuses, and embryos far more sensitive and have far longer 'express time' (meaning they may not show the damage for thirty or more years or in later generation(s).
Russia 1994 : Reduction of blood cholisterase reduced to 70 per cent of pre-exposure level. Exposure no greater than .01mW/cmsq and for 7hrs daily for a duration of 4 months (similar to a typical child's sleep pattern during a school term, in bedroom bathed in radiation from a rooftop station). 70 per cent reduction is the effect of illegal exposure to organophospahates.
US Navy 1950s : "Broad spectrum of biological effects, on microwave and radar personnrel" of non ionising radiation across a wide range of frequencies and power levels.
BBC Nov 6 1999 : "Two minutes exposure ... disable a defence mechanism which exists to prevent harmful proteins in the blood from entering the brain ... higher risk of Alzheimers, Parkinsons, Multiple Sclerosis .........."
In summary : for the average citizen forced to live too near a powerful transmitting station , health effects include lower quality and shorter duration of life with probable effects passed on to succeeding generations, absence of peace of mind and presence of fear.
Medscape General Medicine. WASHINGTON, Aug. 1, 2000
"The legitimate questions about safety that have arisen from recent studies make claims of absolute safety no longer supportable," Dr. George L. Carlo and Rebecca Steffens.
In fact, a recent British report recommended that children younger than 16 be discouraged from using wireless phones. The panel said the developing nervous system is more vulnerable to functional genetic damage both because of the higher rate of cell division and the thinness of the skull, which allows more penetration of radio frequency radition into the brain.
In addition, children may be more vulnerable because they would presumably be using cell phones over a longer period of time than adults... the risks associated with exposure increase over time.
The report made several recommendations, including:
Establishment of a system to capture health complaints among wireless phones users so that reliable data can be gathered and analyzed; Adult-onset leukemia should be added to the outcomes potentially related to radio frequency exposure, along with the brain cancer and salivary gland tumors now being studied; Specific studies of children for health concerns related to radio frequency emissions; Studies of the impact of radio frequency radiation on pregnant women and fetuses.
14 oct 2000 : Remote site updating relevant news reports - click on http://autoworx.freeyellow.com/updates.htm(use browser 'back' button, to return to this site).
18 Oct 2000: Subject: Electromagnetic Fields Affect Human Cells
Electromagnetic fields (EMF or non ionising radiation) have a biological effect on human 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)
"Until now, the weight of the theoretical and experimental evidence hassuggested (and industry has until recently claimed) 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, to protect jobs/income/pensions from industry admitted "wargaming" - of unpopular researchers by giant predatory transnational industry players - disclosed by "Orange Ltd." a BBC Panoramabroadcast 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
Return to orange index here
This site is evolving therefore you may wish to use refresh button each