iphone vest open_20170114190122

Mobile Phone Radiation

Problems associated with mobile phone use:

  • DNA damage
  • reduction in sperm count
  • leucaemia, cancer
  • changes in brain wave patterns
  • impact on brain function
  • opening of blood-brain barrier
  • red blood cells roll up, change shape
  • free radicals, oxidising stress
  • melatonin production changes
  • headaches, drowsiness
  • tinnitus
  • damage to cell structure
  • sleeping problems

>>>> Latest News >>>>>>>>>>>

The Palestinian-American director Talal Jabari has made a documentary on the health problems caused by cellular phones and cell phone towers. You can watch the trailer for this award winning movie on the official movie website http://fullsignalmovie.com/index.html. Some brief interviews can be listened to here: http://fullsignalmovie.com/news.html.

see European parliament working on report on microwave radiation

see 60 Minutes from 5.4.09  >click here<

ARTICLES:

               1.  Mobile Phone Radiation (1999)
               2.  Increased cancer risk for mobile users: studies
               3.  Cancer risk
               4.  Memory loss
               5.  Sperm count reduced
               6.  Radiation in Perspective

               7. How safe is your mobile phone?  (2.10.09)

               8. Exposure to radio-frequency radiation linked to tumour formation in rats (2016)

 

More can be found on the LINKS page and the NEWS page.

See an  introduction video into the topic, above..

SAR values can be found at http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6602_7-5020355-1.html?tag=lnav

!

Mobile Phone Radiation

!

This is an older article, published in the Wellbeing magazine (1999).

One in two Australians owns a mobile phone already, and they are here to stay. They are becoming less of a status symbol and more of a necessity of modern ‘connected’ life. That means, we need to come to terms with this new technology, whether we own one or not, and make the best of it.

In my practice as a Building Biologist, I have often come across clients, who reported health problems caused by their mobile phones and I was able to give them helpful hints on how to reduce their impact.

With this article, I hope to bring more clarity on the topic and assist readers in making informed choices. This necessarily involves a certain amount of technical information, which may be daunting for some, who may want to go straight to ‘The Good News’.

 

How they work

A low frequency pulse, carrying the information, travels on a high frequency microwave. As the pulse is digital (on/off) and ‘rhythmic’, it penetrates very powerfully with little energy input (the antennae on the transmission towers only have the approx. wattage of a light bulb, 50 W). This is sometimes called the Jackhammer Principle. By pulsing, a relatively small and light jackhammer is able to break through the hardest rock.

It is the pulse action, that makes mobile phone radiation considerably more dangerous to living systems (as well as technological systems, like airplanes, heart pacemakers, hospital installations), than the far more powerful TV/radio/... signals, which are emitted with up to 100,000 Watts of power. These emissions are not pulsed, however and vary in frequency and modulation, thereby causing relatively less damage.

Increased Cancer Risk for Mobile Phone Users

!


People who have used mobile phones for 10 years or more have an increased risk of brain tumours, three European research groups have found.

The separate studies add new fuel to the debate over mobile phone safety.

A correlation between the tumour's location and the side of the head where people reported they held the phone was found in two of the studies.

One also suggests the greatest risk is in people who began using the phones before age 20. Researchers said the study group was small and more research should be done.

Two of the studies, one in England and one in Germany, are part of the 13 nation Interphone Study, an effort sanctioned by the World Health Organisation to assess possible health risks from the radiation emitted by mobile phones.

Both studies found an increased risk of glioma, an often deadly brain cancer, in people who had used mobile phones 10 years or more.

An earlier Interphone study, reported in October 2004 by researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, found an increased risk for a non-cancerous brain tumour called acoustic neuroma after 10 years of mobile phone use, but not for glioma.

"When you put the three large Interphone results together - the German, English and Swedish - they tell a story, and it begs for attention," said Louis Slesin, publisher of Microwave News, who has been reporting on the health effects of such radiation for two decades.

John Walls, vice president of public affairs for CTIA, The Wireless Association, a mobile phone industry trade group in Washington, said the increase in glioma in people who had used the phones more than 10 years was "statistically insignificant".

There is no cause for concern, he said.

The German study, conducted by Joachim Schuz and colleagues at the University of Mainz, was published online by the American Journal of Epidemiology.

The researchers compared a group of 749 brain tumour patients with 1,494 similar people who had not used mobile phones and found a doubling of the risk of glioma after 10 years of use.

They said the number of people in the study who had used the phones for 10 years was small, and the findings needed to be confirmed by other studies.

The British researchers compared a group of 966 brain tumour patients with a group of 1,716 healthy patients who had not used mobile phones.

They found a 20 per cent increase in cancers among long-term users, but no overall increased risk in people who used mobile phones.

The study, funded largely by the mobile phone industry and published online by the British Medical Journal, found a significantly increased risk for tumours that developed on the side of the head to which patients said they most often held the phone.

But lead researcher Patricia McKinney said that finding probably was due to many patients not accurately recalling which ear they'd used most of the time.

Critics said conclusions drawn by the researchers were "highly misleading" and might give mobile phone users a false sense of security

Cancer Risk

!

Research into tumour promotion in transgenic mice
using GSM-pulsed cell-phone exposures for up to 18 months
at relatively normal power-density levels
by Stewart Fist.
Quick Summary

The $1.2 million Adelaide Hospital research project is more than just significant -- both to humans and to cell phones. As reported, the results are above the 1% level of confidence usually credited by scientists as being "Highly Significant.", and humans get cancers in the same way as mice.

(Note: A parallel project into ELF power-line frequencies, using the same mice and same techniques, was done for the Electricity Supply Association of Australia, and the report has not yet been published)

In fact, in the 10,000 odd research reports said to have accumulated on this problem, there are few other studies in this field with such a clear-cut result -- or so relevant -- and certainly none have been so well conducted on so many animals. A very high degree of confidence can be put in the results for a number of reasons, listed below.

And it must not be seen in isolation, because it also follows (among many others) the Lai-Singh study in Seattle which showed a radical increase in double-strand DNA breaks in rat-brains following 2 hours of exposure to microwaves. This confirms Lai-Singh and other studies showing genetic alterations in cells following reasonably low level exposures to cell phone radiations.

The Adelaide study showed a doubling of the number of tumours in mice following one hour of exposure per day, over a 9 to 18 month period.

This study doesn't exist in isolation. It just adds an extremely worrying finding to a mass of similar evidence that already exists.

Memory Loss

!

Rats Dive into Cell Phone Debate
3:00 a.m. 3.Nov.1999 PST
 Cell phones may cause long-term memory loss, a recent study on laboratory rats indicates.

Dr. Henry Lai, a research professor in bioengineering at the in Seattle has linked long-term memory loss and diminished navigating skills in rats with the microwaves emitted by mobile phones.

"This is the first study that shows that radio frequencies can affect long-term memory functions in rats," Lai said. Previous studies have focused mainly on short-term memory.

Lai placed 100 rats in a large tank of water and taught them to swim to a platform in the middle of the tank. He mixed powdered milk into the water so the rats couldn't see the platform. Instead, they had to navigate their way and remember the route. After swimming to the platform six times, the rats were easily able to find their way to it.

Next, half of the rats were exposed to microwaves similar to those emitted by mobile phones. All of the exposed rats forgot the way. The unexposed rats, once again, had no problem swimming to the platform.

"Then we played a trick on them -- we took the platform away," Lai said. "The normal rats went to the location and swam around in that area. They seemed to be scratching their heads, wondering what happened to the platform."

The irradiated rats, on the other hand, swam around randomly, and did not approach the former location of the platform.

"The rats that got exposed somehow could not make a map inside their head," Lai said.

"What Lai is showing is that there is a change in the learning, and there is a change in reference memory," said Louis Slesin, editor and publisher of .

"We have to be careful extrapolating the results to humans," Slesin said. "But the amount of energy going into these animals is really small and not all that different, potentially, from a cell phone."

Previous studies have shown that the chemical that controls this type of navigation in animals is called acetylcholine, according to Lai.

No one knows if the chemical also controls the navigation function in humans, Lai said. There is indirect evidence, however, that the chemical controls a similar function in humans. Alzheimer's patients -- who often show symptoms of forgetting their way to familiar places -- show a decrease in acetylcholine.

"If [radiation] is changing learning and reaction times, maybe we should take the trouble to do more work to get to the bottom of these questions," Slesin said.

In addition, the studies should be done by unbiased organizations, Slesin said.

"Too many interested parties are doing the work and they have too much to lose on the results," he said.

Several studies sponsored by the industry's Wireless Technologies Organization have found a correlation between cell phone emissions and a slightly higher incidence of human brain tumors, cell growth in human blood micronuclei, and DNA breakage in rats.

Sperm Count Reduced

!

Mobile phones cut sperm up to 30pc
By Helen Tobler
28jun04

MEN who regularly carry a mobile phone could have their sperm count reduced by as much as 30 per cent.

Those who place their phone near their groin, on a belt or in a pocket, are at greatest risk, new research has revealed.

The findings, to be presented at an international conference this week, are the first to suggest male fertility could be affected by the radiation emitted by mobile phones, also long suspected of causing cancer.

The study by Hungarian researchers found the sperm that did survive exposure to mobile phone radiation showed abnormal movements, further reducing fertility.

But Australian experts advised men not to panic yet.

Monash IVF's medical director Gab Kovacs said a man's sperm count "goes up and down quite a bit" and could vary greatly from one day to the next.

"You'd expect a 30 per cent variation just among men randomly," he said.

He said the test finding would need to be repeated in further research before they could be seen as conclusive.

"I wouldn't throw out my mobile phone at the moment," Professor Kovacs said.

David de Kretser, director of Andrology Australia and the Monash Institute of Reproduction and Development, said it was difficult to verify the research, as it was unclear how much radiation the men had been exposed to.

The research will be presented tomorrow at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology's annual conference in Berlin.

Researchers from the University of Szeged studied 221 men for 13 months and compared the sperm of those who used their mobile phones heavily with those who did not.

Researcher Imre Fejes of the University's obstetrics and gynaecology department wrote: "The prolonged use of cell phones may have a negative effect on spermatogenesis (sperm production) and male fertility, that deteriorates both concentration and motility."

Dr Fejes said further work was needed to confirm the finding and discover how it happens.

Unlike previous studies, the researchers believe mobile phones may cause damage while in stand-by mode, when mobiles are not in use but still make regular transmission to maintain contact with radio towers.

It had been assumed such transmissions were too short to cause harm.

                                                                                                                    The Sunday Times

Radiation in Perspective

!

NINE DEGREES OF HEALTH HAZARD FOR ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION EMITTED IN MOBILE TELEPHONY

This is a copy of a pdf file and therefore the formatting is a little difficult to follow, at times.

Miguel Muntané Condeminas. Barcelona. Industrial Engineer E.T.S.I.I.B. Nº 2500 Barcelona

 1. SCALE OF EVALUATION: NINE DEGREES OF POWER, AS DOSES, OF HAZARD.

This SCALE describes NINE DEGREES OF POWER, as DOSES, of long-term radiation on

“living organisms”. At extreme radiation levels this biological aggression causes irreversible health

alteration in the genetic system and cell. This practical SCALE evaluates the health hazard and

enables to establish a long-term “precautionary principle” for mobile telephone radiation.

· PRACTICAL UNIT OF CONTROL. Power Density: microW/cm2.

The fundamental “NATURAL Power fields” are basic to evaluate the health hazard as Dose.

Health hazard as proportional to “Natural Radiation” is a fundamental and vital reference level.

Documented by the WHO publication: Fact Sheet Nº 183 World Health Organisation.

How safe is your Mobile Phone?

!

Sydney Morning Herald, 2.10.09

Handsets from high profile manufacturers such as BlackBerry and Motorola might be beaming out higher levels of radiation than those of some of their peers, says a recently published report.

The ranking of more than 1200 mobile phones was published online by The Environmental Working Group to draw attention to the issue of mobile-phone safety, which is the subject of vigorous debate among scientists.

The group ranked phones according to their radiation emissions. Topping the list was Motorola's Moto VU204, while BlackBerrys featured heavily at the top of the smartphone category. Four other Motorola handsets featured in the top 10, while the two lowest radiation emitters were the Samsung Impression and the Motorola RAZR V8.

Phones must have a maximum radiation rating of under two watts per kilogram to be considered safe by most international standards and the maximum levels for handsets in the EWG rankings ranged from 0.12 to 1.6 watts per kilogram.

The EWG cites research on its website linking prolonged use of mobile phones with brain tumours and other health problems as justification for publishing the figures. Because the rankings revealed a wide variety of radiation emissions, which it measures as the specific absorption rate (SAR), the organisation has called for these levels to be publicised at the point of sale.

"Because cell phones have become a virtual necessity, we're convinced that it's smart to buy devices with lower emissions, until the public health research catches up with these amazing products," it said.

According to the list, newer phones did not necessarily emit less radiation than older models with the Apple iPhone 3G S in the top third of the list with an output of 1.19 watts per kilogram.

Mobile handset makers such as Motorola claim there is no established link between health risks and mobile-phone use.

"All Motorola mobile phones comply with national and international safety guidelines for radio-frequency energy exposure. These standards provide wide margins of protection for users and the general public.

"Although SAR values for products vary, all SAR values for Motorola products are within safe exposure limits and all products are considered equally safe," the company said.

The Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association said there was a large body of research endorsed by public health organisations such as the World Health Organisation that "continue, without exception, to find there is no substantiated scientific evidence of health effects" from mobile-phone usage.

Chris Althaus, chief executive of the association, said he was not sure of the value of the EWG ratings as a benchmark, given the other variables that could influence phone emissions.

"The mere fact that a handset is on the market means that it is compliant with international and national standards that are conservative by their very nature," he said.

However, others in the scientific community insist that we need more research into the long-term effects of mobile-phone usage. Of particular concern is the affect of radiation on children's development, behaviour and brain tissue.

Professor Bruce Armstrong, chairman of the University of Sydney Cancer Research Network, said he had recently taken part in an international study on the safety of mobile-phone radiation. Until the findings of that study are made public this year, he said it would be "prudent for a person to do anything to minimise any risk that there might be".

"I don't think anyone can honestly say at this point that there is no risk and I certainly support this group's initiative to publicise this data. If I were buying a mobile phone and that information was available, I would certainly consider it in part of my decision-making process," he said.

 

Exposure to radio-frequency radiation linked to tumor formation in rats

!

Major Cell Phone Radiation Study Reignites Cancer Questions

Exposure to radio-frequency radiation linked to tumor formation in rats

By Dina Fine Maron on May 27, 2016

 

Federal scientists released partial findings Friday from a $25-million animal study that tested the possibility of links between cancer and chronic exposure to the type of radiation emitted from cell phones and wireless devices. The findings, which chronicle an unprecedented number of rodents subjected to a lifetime of electromagnetic radiation starting in utero, present some of the strongest evidence to date that such exposure is associated with the formation of rare cancers in at least two cell types in the brains and hearts of rats. The results, which were posted on a prepublication Web site run by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, are poised to reignite controversy about how such everyday exposure might affect human health.

Researchers at the National Toxicology Program (NTP), a federal interagency group under the National Institutes of Health, led the study. They chronically exposed rodents to carefully calibrated radio-frequency (RF) radiation levels designed to roughly emulate what humans with heavy cell phone use or exposure could theoretically experience in their daily lives. The animals were placed in specially built chambers that dosed their whole bodies with varying amounts and types of this radiation for approximately nine hours per day throughout their two-year life spans. "This is by far—far and away—the most carefully done cell phone bioassay, a biological assessment. This is a classic study that is done for trying to understand cancers in humans," says Christopher Portier, a retired head of the NTP who helped launch the study and still sometimes works for the federal government as a consultant scientist. "There will have to be a lot of work after this to assess if it causes problems in humans, but the fact that you can do it in rats will be a big issue. It actually has me concerned, and I’m an expert."

More than 90 percent of American adults use cell phones. Relatively little is known about their safety, however, because current exposure guidelines are based largely on knowledge about acute injury from thermal effects, not long-term, low-level exposure. The International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2011 classified RF radiation as a possible human carcinogen. But data from human studies has been "inconsistent," the NTP has said on its website. Such studies are also hampered by the realities of testing in humans, such as recall bias—meaning cancer patients have to try to remember their cell phone use from years before, and how they held their handsets. Those data gaps prompted the NTP to engage in planning these new animal studies back in 2009.

The researchers found that as the thousands of rats in the new study were exposed to greater intensities of RF radiation, more of them developed rare forms of brain and heart cancer that could not be easily explained away, exhibiting a direct doseresponse relationship. Overall, the incidence of these rare tumors was still relatively low, which would be expected with rare tumors in general, but the incidence grew with greater levels of exposure to the radiation. Some of the rats had glioma—a tumor of the glial cells in the brain—or schwannoma of the heart. Furthering concern about the findings: In prior epidemiological studies of humans and cell phone exposure, both types of tumors have also cropped up as associations.

In contrast, none of the control rats—those not exposed to the radiation—developed such tumors. But complicating matters was the fact that the findings were mixed across sexes: More such lesions were found in male rats than in female rats. The tumors in the male rats "are considered likely the result of whole-body exposure" to this radiation, the study authors wrote. And the data suggests the relationship was strongest between the RF exposure and the lesions in the heart, rather than the brain: Cardiac schwannomas were observed in male rats at all exposed groups, the authors note. But no "biologically significant effects were observed in the brain or heart of female rats regardless of modulation." Based on these findings, Portier said that this is not just an associated finding—but that the relationship between radiation exposure and cancer is clear. "I would call it a causative study, absolutely. They controlled everything in the study. It’s [the cancer] because of the exposure."

Earlier studies had never found that this type of radiation was associated with the formation of these cancers in animals at all. But none of those studies followed as many animals, for as long or with the same larger intensity exposures, says Ron Melnick, a scientist who helped design the study and is now retired from the NTP.

The new results, published on Web site bioRXiv, involved experiments on multiple groups of 90 rats. The study was designed to give scientists a better sense of the magnitude of exposure that would be associated with cancer in rodents. In the study rats were exposed to RF at 900 megahertz. There were three test groups with each species of each sex, tested at different radiation intensities (1.5, three and six watts per kilogram, or W/kg), and one control group. (The lowest-intensity level roughly approximates the levels allowed by U.S. cell phone companies, which is 1.6 W/kg.)  "There are only 90 animals per group, so because there is a trendand this is the purpose of these assays where you do multiple doses you extrapolate downward and calculate a risk for humans from those trendsso that information is useful. Probably what caused cancer at the high doses will cause cancer at lower doses but to a lesser degree," Portier says.

Rodents across all the test groups were chronically exposed to RF for approximately nine hours spread out over the course of the day. (Their entire bodies were exposed because people are exposed to such radiation beyond their heads, especially when they carry them or store them in their bras, says John Bucher, the associate director of the NTP.) During the study the rats were able to run around in their cages, and to eat and sleep as usual. The experiments also included both types of modulations emitted from today’s cell phones: Code Division Multiple Access and Global System for Mobile. (Modulations are the way the information is carried, so although the total radiation levels were roughly the same across both types, there were differences in how radiation is emitted from the antenna—either a higher exposure for a relatively short time or a lower exposure for a longer time.) Overall, there was no statistically significant difference between the number of tumors that developed in the animals exposed to CDMA versus GSM modulations. With both modulations and tumor types, there was also a statistically significant trend upward—meaning the incidence increased with more radiation exposure. Yet, drilling down into the data, in the male rats exposed to GSM-modulated RF radiation the number of brain tumors at all levels of exposure was not statistically different than in control males—those who had no exposure at all.  "The trend here is important. The question is, ‘Should one be concerned?’ The answer is clearly ‘Yes.’ But it raises a number of questions that couldn’t be fully answered, " says David Carpenter, a public health clinician and the director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany, S.U.N.Y.

The findings are not definitive, and there were other confusing findings that scientists cannot explain—including that male rats exposed to the radiation seemed to live longer than those in the control group. "Overall we feel that the tumors are likely related to the exposures," says Bucher, but such unanswered questions "have been the subject of very intense discussions here."

The NTP released the partial findings on Friday after an online publication called Microwave News reported them earlier this week. The program will still be putting out other results about the work in rats and additional findings about similar testing conducted in mice. The NIH told Scientific American in a statement, "This study in mice and rats is under review by additional experts. It is important to note that previous human, observational data collected in earlier, large-scale population-based studies have found limited evidence of an increased risk for developing cancer from cell phone use." Still, the NTP was clearly expecting these findings to carry some serious weight: Ahead of Friday’s publication the NTP said on its Web site that the study (and prior work leading to these experiments) would "provide critical information regarding the safety of exposure to radio-frequency radiation and strengthen the science base for determining any potential health effects in humans."

In response to media queries, cell phone industry group CTIAThe Wireless Association issued a statement Friday saying that it and the wireless industry are still reviewing the study’s findings. "Numerous international and U.S. organizations including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, World Health Organization and American Cancer Society have determined that the already existing body of peer-reviewed and published studies shows that there are no established health effects from radio frequency signals used in cellphones," the CTIA statement said.

The Federal Communications Commission, which had been briefed by NIH officials, told Scientific American in a statement, "We are aware that the National Toxicology Program is studying this important issue.  Scientific evidence always informs FCC rules on this matter. We will continue to follow all recommendations from federal health and safety experts including whether the FCC should modify its current policies and RF exposure limits."

This animal study was designed primarily to answer questions about cancer risks humans might experience when they use phones themselves, as opposed to smaller levels of exposure from wireless devices in the workplace or from living or working near cell phone towers. But it may have implications for those smaller levels as well, Portier says.

The findings shocked some scientists who had been closely tracking the study. "I was surprised because I had thought it was a waste of money to continue to do animal research in this area. There had been so many studies before that had pretty consistently not shown elevations in cancer. In retrospect the reason for that is that nobody maintained a sufficient number of animals for a sufficient period of time to get results like this," Carpenter says.

Exposing rodents to radiation for this type of experiment is a tricky business. First, scientists need to be able to calculate exactly how much the rats should be exposed to relative to humans. Too much exposure would not be a good proxy for human use. And with finely calculated low-level exposure rates, scientists still need to be sure they are not going to heat the animals enough to kill them or to cause other health problems. (Subsequent work will be published on the animals’ temperatures.)

The fact that scientists were able to expose animals to nonionizing radiation (like that emitted by cell phones) and those animals went on to develop tumors but that exposure did not significantly raise the animals' body temperatures was "important" to release, Bucher says.

There are safety steps individuals can take, Carpenter says. Using the speakerphone, keeping the phone on the desk instead of on the body and using a wired headset whenever possible would help limit RF exposure. "We are certainly not going to go back to a pre-wireless age," he says. But there are a number of ways to reduce exposure, particularly among sensitive populations."

Editor's Note (5/27/16, 2:10 P.M.): This story was updated to reflect information provided during an NTP press conference and a statement from an industry group.

Rights & Permissions

ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)

Dina Fine Maron

Dina Fine Maron is an award-winning journalist and the associate editor for health and medicine at Scientific American. She is also a contributor to the publication's podcasts and Instant Egghead video series. She is based in Washington, D.C.

Credit: Nick Higgins