5G DANGERS – SUMMARIZED FOR SOS MEMBERS WITH
LINKS, REFERENCES
HEALTH EFFECTS OF MICROWAVE
RADIATION
“THE WISEST ARE THE MOST ANNOYED AT THE LOSS OF
TIME.”
Henry
Lai’s Research Summaries
These are invaluable sets of abstracts (data-based to be
searchable) covering the RFR scientific literature, as well
as
collections of scientific abstracts on oxidative effects (from both RFR and
ELF), and a set specific to
Electrohypersensitivity.
New comet assay abstracts for RFR and ELF are added in 2017.
1.
RFR Research Summary (1990-2017)
2.
ELF-EMF/Static Field Free Radical (Oxidative Damage)
Abstracts (2019)
3.
RFR Free Radical (Oxidative Damage) Abstracts (2019)
4.
ELF-EMF Comet Assay Abstracts (2017)
5.
RFR Comet Assay Abstracts (2017)
6.
Graphic of Percent Comparison Showing ‘Effect vs No
Effect’ Free Radical Damage (2019)
7.
Electrohypersensitivity Abstracts (2017)
8.
ELF-EMF/Static Field Neurological Effects Abstracts
(2019)
9.
RFR Neurological Effects Abstracts (2019)
10.
Graphic of Percent Comparison Showing ‘Effect vs No
Effect’ Neurological Studies (2019)
LAWYER ACTIVE AGAINST 5G
Kirk Wines has been the Medina City Attorney for over
twenty-five years. As such, he was unwittingly drawn into his first cell tower
disputes. The first case filed under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was
against the City of Medina, Washington for passing a moratorium on cell sites
within the city. Kirk successfully defended that action and a subsequent series
of actions filed in Federal Court by Sprint Spectrum alleging that the city was
obligated to allow Sprint to erect a 100 foot monopole tower with a ring of
panel antennas at the top within the midst of a densely developed neighborhood
For more information on this particular case,
see The Medina Experience.
As a result of the successful conclusion of the above referenced
matters, Kirk has represented a number of private citizens and neighborhood
groups fighting to protect their property values by keeping unsightly cell
towers out of their neighborhoods. He has participated as a witness and an
attorney before hearing examiners throughout the Greater Seattle / King County
area. He has spoken at seminars for city officials, city attorneys, attorneys
in general practice and at a convention for one of the major provider's siting
employees. He has represented neighborhood groups in state courts. He has also
testified and/or lobbied on wireless issues before the King County Council and
the Washington State Legislature.
SEE LINKS AND EXCERPTS BELOW ;
www.wave-guide.org:
Now defunct but archived at archive.org; see especially the Library page
(accessible from the top menu on the archived site). Extensive background
information, relevant documents, essays, and talks. Includes Blake Levitt’s “A
Clear Call,” a talk by Dr. Henry Lai, and Cindy Sage’s “Studies Showing
Bioeffects” list. Excellent bibliography of books on microwave issues.
http://web.archive.org/web/20120202114019/http://www.wave-guide.org/
http://web.archive.org/web/20120207035224/http://www.wave-guide.org/library/index.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20120221174130/http://www.wave-guide.org/links/index.html
The existence of a “window effect” is well
documented, in which effects occur at certain frequencies and power densities
but not at those immediately above or below them. However, it’s not as simple
as just mapping these frequencies and power levels, because the local
geomagnetic field and individual susceptibility also influence the result.
Dr. Henry Lai, a well-known bioelectromagnetics
researcher at the University of Washington, Seattle, has compiled a 97-page
collection of abstracts from studies conducted between 1995 and 2000. The list,
in pdf format, can be found on the Research page of the EMR Network’s web site.
As the web site points out, “80% of these studies demonstrate some kind of
biological effect.”
The Physiological and Environmental Effects of
Non-Ionising Electromagnetic Radiation is a 34-page report issued in March 2001
by the European Parliament Directorate General for Research, Scientific and
Technological Options Assessment (STOA). Written by Dr. Gerard Hyland, it pulls
no punches in warning of the hazards of microwave radiation.
Potential and Actual Adverse Effects of
Radiofrequency and Microwave Radiation at Levels Near and Below 2 uW/cm2, is a
200-page report by Dr. Neil Cherry, of Lincoln University, New Zealand. The
introduction says, “Strong claims by industry representatives and their
consultants that there is no scientific evidence to justify the public’s fears
is scientifically demonstrably wrong.”
https://www.goodhealthinfo.net/radiation/links.htm
https://www.goodhealthinfo.net/radiation/health_efx_western.htm
https://www.goodhealthinfo.net/radiation/eu_report_2001.pdf
https://www.goodhealthinfo.net/radiation/health_efx_western.htm
https://web.archive.org/web/20111012033619/http://www.emrnetwork.org/
https://web.archive.org/web/20111023072600/http://www.emrnetwork.org/research.htm
RESEARCH
Research into the effects of radio frequency radiation (RFR) has been
conducted for decades - ever since the development and deployment of radar by
the military. Even early radar operators showed suspicious health effects from
their occupational exposure. Much of the research conducted by the military has
not been made known to the public.
May 12, 2003 - These two new articles by EMF researcher W. Ross Adey, M.D. were
published in The Internal Encyclopedia of Neuroscience, Third
Volume, B. Smith and G. Adelman, editors.
·
Brain interactions with RF/microwave
fields generated by mobile phones.
March 2003 Fact Sheet
entitled, "Studies
on Radiofrequency Radiation Emitted by Cellular Phones," from the National Toxicology
Program/National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NTP/NIEHS). The
NTP is in the design phase of a number of studies to be conducted on
Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR); this fact sheet describes the status of NTP
research efforts.
In recent years with the proliferation of the wireless telecommunications
industry and personal wireless devices (cell phones, digital phone, pagers,
etc.) consumers have begun to demand answers to questions about their own
exposures. We make available here comprehensive summaries of the research in
this field.
1. Elsevier's French journal entitled Pathologie
Biologie has published the study by Roger Santini et al. on the health
of people living near mobile phone base stations. It is the first published
study looking at exposures from mobile phone base station antennas. This is the
English translation of the complete study: "Study of the health of people living
in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations: I. Influences of distance and
sex."
A bibliography from Professor Roger Santini, researcher at the NationaI
Institute of Applied Science in Lyon, France: " PUBLICATIONS ABOUT THE HEALTH OF
PEOPLE LIVING IN VICINITY OF CELLULAR PHONE BASE STATIONS." He
has compiled this list to counter assertions that no studies exist on this
subject., that base station antenna radiation is too weak to affect those
living near them, or that studies on this subject are impossible to carry out.
2. See also the English translation of
Professor Santini's testimony presented on March 6, 2002, to the French
Parliamentary Office for Evaluation of Scientific and Technology Alternatives.
He testified at the request of Senators Jean-Louis Lorrain and Daniel Raoul.
The presentation is entitled, "Arguments in Favor of Applying the
Precautionary Principle to Counter the Effects of Mobile Phone Base Stations."
3. This is the statement on the state of
the science by the participants at the Vienna Conference.
4. Dr. Henry Lai, Ph.D., lead research for
several decades at the Bioelectromagnetics Research Laboratory, Department of
Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. He presented
this paper at: The IBC-UK Conference: "Mobile Phones-Is there a Health
Risk?" September 16-17, 1997 in Brussels, Belgium. (This is a PDF
document.)
Neurological Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic
Radiation Relating to Wireless Communication Technology
5. Dr. Henry Lai presented this paper at
the 1998 Vienna Conference: the "Workshop on Possible Biological and
Health Effects of RF Electromagnetic Fields", Mobile Phone and Health
Symposium, Oct 25-28, 1998, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. (This is a PDF
document.) Neurological Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic
Radiation
6. Dr. Henry Lai presented this paper at the
1999 World Health Organization (WHO) conference:
"The Biological Effects, Health Consequences and Standards for Pulsed
Radiofrequency Field", an international seminar sponsored by the
International Commission on Nonionizing Radiation Protection and World Health
Organization, at the Ettoll Majorare, Centre for Scientific Culture, Erice,
Sicily, Italy, November 21-25, 1999. (This is a PDF document.)
Memory and Behavior
7. Dr. Henry Lai's most recent summary of
current research. This includes studies funded by industry and non-industry
sources. 80% of these studies demonstrate some kind of biological effect.(This
is a large PDF document.)Recent studies (1995-2000) on the biological effects of
radiofrequency and cell phone radiation.
8. NeuroReport - Exposure to pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic
field during waking affects human sleep EEG: NeuroReport Volume
11, number 15, 3321-3325.
The aim of the study was to investigate whether the electromagnetic field
emitted by digital radiotelephone handsets affects brain physiology. The main
effect was the enhancement of the intensity of certain frequencies of the
brain's electrical signals (i.e. electroencephalogram, EEG) in the first 30
minutes of non-REM sleep.
9. Environment Contaminated by Microwaves - Dr.
Wolfgang Volkrodt: "Our environment is contaminated by microwaves. At
present, the consequences are largely unexplored; however, observations of
trees offer dire foreboding."
The following pdf files offer an introduction and selection of Dr.
Volkrodt's research and supporting documents:
·
Background Documents: A Collection
·
"Electromagnetic Pollution of
the Environment"
·
Are Microwaves Faced with a Fiasco
Similar to That Experienced by Nuclear Energy?
·
Microwave Smog and Forest Damage -
Movement in Bonn after All?
·
The Forest Dies as Politicians Look
On - Dr. Ulrich Hertel
·
Letter to Professor Wm. Smith, Yale
School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
The extensive use of mobile phones has given rise to public debate about
possible adverse effects on human health. A recent report of the Independent
Expert Group on Mobile Phones established by the British government summarized
the relevant studies on the biological effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF).
They proposed that a precautionary approach be adopted until more robust
scientific information becomes available. In a previous study, the authors
demonstrated that exposure to EMF during sleep reduced waking after sleep onset
and affected the EEG in non-rapid eye movement (non-REM) sleep.
In this present study, the authors investigated the effect of exposure
to pulsed high-frequency EMF during waking on subsequent sleep. Fields similar
to those emitted by mobile communications equipment of GSM type (global system
for mobile communication) were applied. To simulate the real-life exposure
conditions, the subjects were exposed on either side of the head. The EMF was
directed to either the right or left side of the head for 30 min. The
subsequent sleep episode was analyzed. As in a previous study, in which
mechanical stimulation of the right hand had been shown to induce unilateral
changes in the sleep EEG, the authors anticipated hemispheric differences.
Exposure to EMF affected neither the sleep stages, nor were significant
effects of EMF exposure observed for subjective assessment of waking after
sleep onset, sleep latency, and sleep quality.
The main effect of EMF exposure was the enhancement of the intensity of
the brain's electrical signals (EEG power density) in the frequency range of
9.750 - 11.25 Hz and in the 12.25 - 13.25 Hz in the first 30 minutes of non-REM
sleep. This effect was also present when the left and right exposure were
analyzed separately. The two sides of the brain were similarly affected after
left and right exposure. A comparison within individuals showed that the
spectral spindle peak frequency in the 10 - 15 Hz range was not shifted by left
and right exposure. The REM sleep spectrum was not significantly affected.
In this study the authors have shown for the first time that exposure to
EMF during waking affects the EEG during subsequent sleep. In the authors'
previous study, the EMF was directed towards the top of the head to expose both
sides of the brain. In the present experiment, the field was aimed at one side
or the other. Contrary to the authors' expectation, the change in the brain's
electrical signal intensity was similar for both sides of the head.
The present results lend support to previous reports on effects of EMF
on physiological and psychological variables. These include sleep and cognitive
function as well as blood pressure and heart rate. However, the present study
is unique in having confirmed previous results of an experiment performed under
similar conditions on the effect on sleep. The other findings still need to be
replicated or could not be reproduced.
This study demonstrates that a short exposure to an electromagnetic
field similar to those emitted by mobile phones has an effect on brain
physiology. Conclusions about possible adverse effects on human health are
premature because the underlying mechanisms are unknown. Further studies are
needed to determine the time course of the changes, to specify field strength -
response relationships, and to define the critical field parameters (e.g.
modulation, frequency).
This paper and accompanying In Focus article by a
journal editor is for a short period freely available on-line on this site. To
obtain a faxed pre-publication copy of this paper please contact:
Dr Phil J. Daly or Mr Ian Burgess
NeuroReport Editorial Office
Tel: +44-(0)20-7940-7500 (switchboard), -7521 (PJD), or -7518 (IB)
Fax: +44-(0)20-7940-7515
E-mail: pdaly@lww.co.uk
NOTE:
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc., is a leading international publisher
of professional health information for physicians, nurses, specialized
clinicians and students. LWW provides essential information for healthcare
professionals in print and electronic formats, including textbooks, journals,
CD-ROM, and via Intranets and the Internet. LWW is a unit of Wolters Kluwer International
Health & Science, a Philadelphia-based group of leading publishing
companies offering specialized publications and software in medicine, nursing,
pharmacy, science, and related areas. WKIHS also includes Ovid Technologies,
Inc., New York; Facts and Comparisons, St. Louis; Kluwer Academic Publishers,
The Netherlands; and Adis International, Auckland, NZ.
https://www.goodhealthinfo.net/radiation/fcc_standard.htm
[I]ndications that the technology is potentially less than safe
have been, and continue to be, studiously ignored, both by the
industry and by national and international regulatory bodies ... The concern of
the public is thus not unfounded ...
March 2001 report by the European
Parliament STOA
No.
The FCC standard was originally intended to prevent interference
between pieces of electronic equipment and was later modified to protect
workers exposed to microwaves from heating effects (the only effects recognized
at the time). It was not created to protect the general public, including those
most vulnerable (children, the elderly, the infirm). It was created by
engineers, not anyone with knowledge of physiology or biology. It was, and
still is, created with heavy industry involvement. Therefore, to suppose that
it provides adequate protection is erroneous.
The FCC standard is purely arbitrary and unrealistically high.
Many countries do not permit levels anywhere near the FCC standard, as can be
seen from the following listing. Only the U.K. is higher. The unit in which
microwave exposure is often measured is “microwatts per square centimeter”
(μW/cm2), referred to as the “power density.” The idea behind
this is that if you consider a transmitter a point source, microwaves radiate
from it in all directions, forming an imaginary sphere. The energy falling on a
square centimeter of the sphere at a particular distance is the power density
at that distance.
|
|
Exposure level (μW/cm2) |
|
United Kingdom |
1000–10,000 |
|
Canada, Germany, Japan, New Zealand,
U.S. |
|
|
Australia |
200 |
|
Auckland, New Zealand |
50 |
|
Italy |
10 |
|
China |
7–10 |
|
Bulgaria, Hungary, Russia, Switzerland |
2–10 |
|
Salzburg, Austria (pulsed
transmissions) |
0.1 |
|
New South Wales, Australia |
0.001 |
Source: Radio Wave Packet,
Cellular Phone Taskforce
What the FCC standard protects you from is high levels of
radiation. If you’re worried about being fried by microwaves, the FCC standard
is just the ticket. If your next-door neighbor installs an army-surplus radar
station pointed directly at your home and you call the FCC, they’ll be there in
minutes to make your neighbor take it down — no question about it.
But what about lower levels of radiation? At a distance of one
meter, the output of these microwave meters (about 2–4 nanowatts, or
thousandths of a microwatt) is about 200,000 times lower than the FCC standard.
However, extensive research has shown adverse health effects as a result of
long-term, low-level exposure (see the Health Effects — Western page).
The industry chooses to ignore this—understandably, since no industry will
voluntarily admit that its product could cause adverse health effects.
|
Here’s an analogy. You might expect that if you touch a
480,000-volt high-tension wire, you could experience an adverse health effect.
You could probably touch a 110-volt (U.S.) household power line briefly and
feel only a mild jolt. But would you want to touch it 24 hours a day, even
though it’s thousands of times lower than the power from the high-voltage line?
And what about something much less—a 1-volt battery, say. Would
you be willing to have it hooked up to you around the clock? Does anyone
seriously think there wouldn't be any effect over the long term, even though
it’s nearly 500,000 times less than the high-voltage line? What about a tenth
of a volt? A hundredth of a volt?
What is the lowest level at which you can be assured of no
long-term effect? And what about vulnerable members of the population —
children, the elderly, and the infirm? They couldn't withstand even what others
could.
The point is that if you start with an arbitrary, unrealistically
high number, you can always say that something is a million times less, and it
will sound impressive, but it has no relation to actual effects. The body is a
low-voltage system, and effects have been documented at levels not previously
thought possible.
A more reasonable comparison is to naturally occurring background
radiation, which is 10–17 to 10–14 microwatts
per square centimeter, because the absorption rate of the atmosphere depends on
the frequency of the radiation. Then, instead of saying that the meter output
is 200,000 times lower than the FCC standard, we could point out that it’s ten
thousand to ten million times higher than natural background radiation — which
is what the human organism developed in. The amount of radiation we’re
receiving began to increase during the mid-1900s and has increased dramatically
in the last few years.
For a decades, it was thought that the only effects of microwaves
were due to heating of tissue: “thermal” effects. However, some research at the
time and much more recently has shown that so-called “nonthermal” effects occur
at levels where no measurable heat increase occurs. “Nonthermal” is a misnomer,
since some heating always occurs at the cellular level from molecular
excitation. However, the industry and the military still maintain that the only
effects possible from microwaves are due to heating and that “nonthermal”
effects do not exist.
Part of it is adopted from a standard set by a committee of the
Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers and later approved by the
American National Standards Institute. However, even the FCC recognizes that
the ANSI/IEEE standard is too high at higher frequency levels, so it also
incorporates part of the National Commission on Radiation Protection (NCRP)
standard.
The IEEE is a professional association with heavy industry
representation. Its Standards Coordinating Committee (SCC) 28 decides the standard.
The 1991 standard, which has been modified only slightly since, did not include
any studies later than 1986. Only a few were on non-thermal effects (many more
have been done since the mid-90s), and in any case, the SCC-28 committee still
does not seem inclined to take any notice of non-thermal effects.
Arthur Firstenberg, president of the Cellular Phone Taskforce,
submitted an affidavit to the Irish High Court in January 1998 regarding a
cell-tower case. The affidavit contained a copy of the ANSI/IEEE Ballot Summary
of May 14, 1991, for the adoption of the standard by the IEEE SCC-28 committee.
Firstenberg says, “The voting membership was overwhelmingly
dominated by military and industrial interests, to the total exclusion of the
general public and the health care community. Of the three health and safety
agency representatives on the voting committee, two voted ‘no’ on the adoption
of this standard.”
He also says the following:
Further, the ANSI/IEEE C95.1
1992 standard ... has been criticized on health grounds by every health and
safety agency in the United States which commented on its proposed adoption as
a national standard by the Federal Communications Commission. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency recommended “against adopting the 1992 ANSI/IEEE
standard because it has serious flaws that call into question whether its
proposed use is sufficiently protective of public health and safety.” ... The
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in its comments, said “... We do not
believe this standard addresses the issue of long-term, chronic exposures to RF
fields.” The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) was
“concerned about the lack of participation by experts with a public health
perspective in the IEEE RF standards setting process.”
The chairman of the SCC-28 committee is John Osepchuk, a Concord,
Massachusetts, resident who is a consultant and has acted as a representative
of the wireless industry at town meetings, attempting to assure boards and
residents that microwave antennas are safe. To some, this might seem a conflict
of interest: chairing a committee that sets safety standards for an industry
that pays him to represent it.
An editorial in the March/April 2001 issue of Microwave News said
this:
The Pentagon’s new microwave
weapon has been brought to you by the U.S. Air Force and Raytheon. ... These
are the same organizations that control the IEEE’s SCC-28 committee that writes
the standard for exposures to RF and microwaves.
Dr. John Osepchuk, the chair
of SCC-28, worked for Raytheon for most of his professional career. And three
of the other five members of the SCC-28 executive committee work either at
Brooks Air Force Base or for Raytheon.
...
It seems obvious, but it’s
worth repeating: Health standards should be written by medical and public
health professionals, not those who make weapons for the military-industrial
complex.