By BLAINE GRETEMAN/LONDON

This is the largest biological experiment in the history of the world,"
shouts Leif Salford, an unusually animated neurosurgeon at Lund
University, in Sweden. Salford's not talking about his own work. He's
talking about the 1.3 billion people around the world who regularly chat
away on their mobile phones, "freely pressing radiological devices to
their brains."

Salford's own research involves much smaller samples of mice, not men
but it is raising big questions about the safety of human mobile-phone
use. In a paper that will be published in April by the U.S. journal of
the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Salford's
research team suggests that even tiny levels of radiation from standard
European mobiles may cause neuron damage in the brain.

Since 1992, when David Reynard filed suit in Florida against the
mobile-phone industry for causing the tumor that killed his wife,
American trial lawyers have been dialing for dollars, convinced that
mobile phones could be the next tobacco. But unlike tobacco lawsuits,
which have cost the industry over $200 billion, Reynard's suit and the
host of others that followed were thrown out due to a lack of scientific
evidence that mobile phones cause cancer.

Indeed, after a large study last year at Adelaide's Institute of Medical
and Veterinary Science showed no increased cancer risk contradicting a
damning earlier study from the Royal Adelaide Hospital the industry
breathed a billion-dollar sigh of relief. "It may be reasonable to ask
if we are like tobacco," says Michael Milligan, secretary-general of the
European industry's representative group, the Mobile Manu- facturers
Forum. "But the most important thing for us is that while the World
Health Organization has always been very strongly against the tobacco
industry, they've been very involved with mobile phones and their view
is very balanced: there are no established health effects."

Yet Professor Salford's work may soon have lawyers heading back to
court. Unlike most studies done so far, Salford and his team at Lund did
not focus on cancer, but on the blood brain barrier (BBB) that protects
the brain from the chemicals, toxins and proteins that circulate in our
blood. Over 25 years ago, notes Louis Slesin, editor of New York-based
Microwave News, U.S. army and government scientists showed that
microwaves from sources other than phones could open up the BBB. "This
stuff sticks out like a sore thumb," says Slesin, "but nobody in the
mobile-phone industry has wanted to touch it."

They may no longer have a choice. With a series of studies beginning in
1992, the Lund group has shown that in laboratory rats, at least,
mobile-phone radiation opens up this barrier so molecules of the blood
protein albumin which should be far too large to penetrate can seep
through. These results have recently been duplicated in another
laboratory, and their latest study shows for the first time that when
the bbb is breached by albumin, the excitable brain cells that allow us
to think, talk and dial mobile phones namely neurons may die.

Many health-conscious consumers already shop around for the
lowest-radiation phones. But they'll get little consolation from the
Lund study: the neurons of rats died even when radiation levels were
1,000 times smaller than the current E.U.-allowed level, although the
rats were only exposed for two hours. "It's a damned small little
thing," says Salford. "These levels easily exist inside the brain of a
human when he has the antenna next to his head."

Or maybe even when he doesn't. The group has shown albumin leakage at
powers as low as 0.5 milliwatts a level that exists as far as 1.8 m away
from a mobile phone's antenna. "Passive mobile phoning, like passive
smoking, may also soon be an issue," notes Salford. An even bigger issue
may be the increasing use of wireless technology in everyday devices
like refrigerators, ovens and computers. These gadgets are expected to
provide manufacturers with much of their growth as mobile-phone use
reaches its saturation point; but they will also create a cocoon of
microwave radiation around our daily lives.

For the time being, though, the findings are probably most worrying for
parents of the 80% of European teenagers who use mobile phones. The Lund
research team used young rats (12 to 26 weeks of age), because their
developing brains and thinner, smaller skulls are comparable to those of
the teenagers for whom phones are a must-have accessory. "Just don't
give them to children," says Salford, affirming a message delivered in
2000 by the U.K.'s Stewart Commission on the health effects of mobile
phones. So far, however, such warnings have largely been ignored by the
young users who send billions of text messages every month and who feed
a thriving industry that pitches everything from mobile games to
cartoon-themed phone covers to children.

Phone makers say they're trying to take a responsible approach to these
concerns, rather than simply denying them, a la big tobacco. "We were
established to contribute to research on just these kinds of issues,"
notes Milligan, who says it's important to test this preliminary
research to confirm or disprove it.

Salford agrees, and is careful to emphasize that he thinks mobiles have
saved far more lives than they'll ever cost. But when he speaks on his
own phone, he uses a headset and places the handset as far away as
possible. And, just before hanging up, he adds, "I also keep my
conversations very short!" Until research settles the issue of mobile
phones and health more definitively, that may still be the safest call.

http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901030224-423487,00.html

"There is a problem with making any RF radiation voluntary consensus
health protection standard a law. The problem is that some parts of
these standards are NOT consistent with Maxwell's equations of
electromagnetism!

To put it very plainly, the existing voluntary consensus standards that
claim to protect human health against radio-frequency and microwave
radiation are a mixture of scientific truth and scientific error. They
are adequate to protect human health in some ways, but inadequate in
other ways.

I have already presented a paper before the American Physical Society in
which I presented my initial findings. [The abstract has been published
in the March, 2003, issue of the BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL
SOCIETY.] I am continuing my research and expect to be able to provide
more details in future, when my research is further advanced.

My field investigations suggest that there is a serious hazard to
mammalian health somewhere in the vicinity of 20 picowatts/sq. cm for
microwave radiation under the plane-wave approximation.

Existing voluntary consensus standards are adequate to protect against
THERMAL hazards from PLANE WAVE exposure. The inadequacies arise when
the exposure is to other than a plane wave, or when nonthermal health
effects (such as cancer) are of concern.

Giving an existing voluntary consensus standard the force of law will
not do much to protect human health, given the inadequacies of these
standards, and the scientific errors they embody at this time. All that
it will accomplish, in my judgment, is to protect the companies whose
transmitters are making the environment dangerous for human health, so
that members of the public will have no legal recourse to recover
payment for the damage done to their health!

It should be remembered that the original voluntary consensus standard,
ANSI C95, is sponsored by the electrical engineering profession, which
is NOT a health profession!

Other voluntary consensus standards that have tried to improve upon ANSI
C95 have nevertheless accepted its scientifically flawed assumptions,
and therefore also contain similar scientific errors.

In other words, making the ICNIRP standard law will NOT protect the
public; it will protect the harmful transmitters and the companies that
have put them there!

My conclusion is that both these experiments actually demonstrate that
microwave radiation is capable of being carcinogenic to living tissue,
under conditions of chronic irradiation at comparatively low radiation
intensity.

Marjorie Lundquist, Ph.D., C.I.H.
Bioelectromagnetic Hygienist
P. O. Box 11831
Milwaukee, WI 53211-0831 USA

Informant: Elektrosmognews, message from Roy Beavers

Question to the EMF community

Dear Roy,

After spending another sleepless night,(due to my illness) I have
decided to pose this question to the EMF community, AND SEND COPIES OF
THIS REQUEST AROUND TO SEVERAL OTHER PEOPLE IN OUR GOVERNMENT. Feel free
to spread it to the list.

Where can I find the right people who are truly interested in proving
just how dangerous cell phones really are?

I believe I am one of the most valuable recourses available to prove
this. I have records of the amount of time I spent on the cell phone and
where most all of that time was spent on the phone, and I have kept a
journal of my symptoms and experiences during the last three+ years.

I know there are others out there who are as sick or worse than I,and I
feel there isn't enough being done to recognize the importance of our delema.

I want desperately to find the right people to help me replicate what I
had done to myself.I know beyond doubt,that it can be demonstrated just
what hours of talking on a cell phone can do to a human ."I KNOW BECAUSE
I AM LIVING PROOF".

I am sure of one thing,I don't have a lot of time to make all this
happen alone,so if there are such people out there in the world please
be prudent.

For those of you who don't know who I am,let me give a brief update.
My name is Robert VanEchaute,and I am a trucker who lost everything he
cherished, a beautiful home on a mountain top, a growing business that
took twenty years in the making,and the most devastating was losing my
family (because of my ex-wife's lack of understanding). All because of
my talking on a cell phone.I used it to run my business and I talked to
my wife at night when I was out on the road. These hour or longer
conversations took place in the cab of tractor trailer.

I became extremely ill,and knew almost right away it was the cell phone
that made me ill. After several near misses on the road with my truck I
decided to stop putting the public at risk and gave up driving all together.

For over three years now, I have been suffering from an illness that is
identical in almost every way to Gulf War syndrome. I am also dealing
with the early onset of Alzheimers'. I am quite certain of this because
of the years of experience of taking care of my 80+ year old mother who
is now in the end stages of the decease.

The need to prove this issue is far greater than many people realize. As
a trucker who knows now just how dangerous it is to talk on a cell phone
and drive(and the real reason behind the poor driving while on a cell
phone), think of all the drivers out there who are behind the wheel of a
big rig and talking on the cell phone. It scares me and I don't scare easy.

I am not a man of greed,and I do not seek to sue any one, I just want to
save others from making the same horrible mistake I have in trusting
this technology to be safe.

Please!!! I beg all to stop thinking of $ and start thinking of the
tragic loss Human life that is going to continue, as long as people like
me are ignored.

Sincerely,
Robert (BEAR) VanEchaute
P.O.Box 341
Warnerville, NY 12187

Informant:
Robert Riedlinger, message from Robert (BEAR) VanEchaute to Roy Beavers

--------

RE: Lets help Sarah - Info on bad effect from rf/mw cell towers etc from fcc

This manuscript is to Sarah being accepted or already published in
Electromagnetrics Biology and Medicine, very recently

Dr. Gómez-Perretta
Valencia, Spain

and

Klaus,

This message is in reply to Sarah's request, since I don't know her
Email address. Dr. Ted Litovitz is a Profesor Emeritus at Catholic
University in Washington, D.C. His recent discovery that emission of
heat shock proteins (HSP) is first stimulated by absorption of RF radiation,
but, upon repeated or chronic exposure is eventually suppressed is very
important. Heat shock proteins have the ability to refold damaged
protein molecules, so they are a part of the cell's damage repair mechanism.
Drs. Reba Goodman and Martin Blank at Columbia University in New York City
were among the first to demonstrate that emission of heat shock proteins
can be stimulated by levels of RF radiation much too low to cause cell
heating, thus HSP emission is an example of nonthermal RF effects on
living organisms.
Regards, Bill
Bill P. Curry, Ph.D. Physics is fun
(630) 858-9377 Fax (630) 858-9159
EMSciTek Consulting Company

Interesting link from the archives of Stewart Fist

Blood-brain barrier: What causes headaches?

http://www.electric-words.com/cell/electaus/bbb.html

Informant: Colette O'Connell message from Robert Riedlinger to Roy Beavers