*
Mercola: Cancer Cell Study Revives Cell Phone Safety Fears - Hyland: Physics
and biology of mobile telephony - WHO Director-General elections 2003
(8/11/02)
Tramčs per Klaus Rudolph (Citizens'
Initiative Omega)
This will be of particular interest to some of you. However, the
very change of use from residential to telecommunications/commercial,
is a change of use and therefore should require planning permission. Also,
people should remeber the fire risk posed by transmitters. Those
who use mobile phones are aware of all the warnings about turning off
handsets in petrol stations because of risk of fire/explosion. The
transmitters pose the same risk and should not be located near petrol
stations or other explosive substances. See affidavit below and risk of
spark discharge. This danger is known and acknoledged in the discredited
and insuffice ICNIRP safaety guidelines
Regards,
Colette
I, Margaret Ahern, Of Aherla, Co. Cork, Aged 18 years and upwards DO MAKE
OATH AND SAY as follows; I make this Affidavit from facts within my own
knowledge save where otherwise appears and where so appearing I believe
the same to be true. In June 1995, Eircell erected a telecommunications
mast adjoining my house.
In December 1995, cables and equipment were installed; soon afterwards
I could hear a hum from the vicinity of the mast. At about the same time,
when entering or exiting my car I experience electric shocks when touching
metal parts of my car.
The shocks were mildly unpleasant and sent a tingle up my arm. They were
not quite as strong as the shocks from electric fencers. During this time,
at night when locking the car door with a key I saw a small blue flash
when the key touched the car. This happened on three occasions. In June
1996, the humming from the vicinity of the mast stopped. I no longer received
electric shocks when touching the car. To this day the problem has not
recurred.
SWON before me by the said Margaret Ahern who is personally Known to me
at Ballincollig, in the County of Cork this 7th day of August, 1997
DOUGLAS LUCEY
(Practising solicitor)
Informant: Colette O'Connell
Lancet Publishing Group
Home Search Journal Simple Results Text
Volume 356, Number 9244. 25 November 2000
Seminar
Physics and biology
of mobile telephony
G J Hyland
Lancet 2000; 356: 1833-36
See Commentary
Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK; and International
Institute of Biophysics, Neuss-Holzheim, Germany (G J Hyland PhD)
Correspondence to: Dr G J Hyland, Department of Physics, University of
Warwick, Coventry CV4 4AL, UK (e-mail:G.J.Hyland@warwick.ac.uk
)
Physics of mobile telephony
Biological impacts: thermal
Biological effects: non-thermal
Possible associated adverse health reactions
References
Although safety guidelines--to which mobile telephones and their base-stations
conform--do protect against excessive microwave heating, there is evidence
that the low intensity, pulsed radiation currently used can exert subtle
non-thermal influences. If these influences entail adverse health consequences,
current guidelines would be inadequate. This review will focus on this
possibility. The radiation used is indeed of very low intensity, but an
oscillatory similitude between this pulsed microwave radiation and certain
electrochemical activities of the living human being should prompt concern.
However, being so inherently dependent on aliveness, non-thermal effects
cannot be expected to be as robust as thermal ones, as is indeed found;
nor can everyone be expected to be affected in the same way by exposure
to the same radiation. Notwithstanding uncertainty about whether the non-thermal
influences reported do adversely affect health, there are consistencies
between some of these effects and the neurological problems reported by
some mobile-telephone users and people exposed longterm to base-station
radiation. These should be pointers for future research.
Public concern over possible adverse health impacts from exposure to the
radiation used in GSM (Global System for Mobile communication) mobile
telephony shows little sign of abating, despite assurances from the industry
and official bodies such as the UK National Radiological Protection Board
(NRPB) that all is well. In March, 1999, the UK Government set up the
Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, under the chairmanship of Sir
William Stewart. The Stewart Report,1 published in May, 2000, makes some
sensible recommendations, but unfortunately some of its greyer areas are
now being exploited by the industry to obfuscate the issue. As yet
unresolved is the question of adverse health impacts provoked by the contentious
non-thermal effects of the low intensity, pulsed microwave radiation (MWR)
used. For these effects are not taken into account in current safety guidelines,2
which simply restrict the intensity of the radiation to prevent tissue
heating in excess of what the body's thermoregulatory mechanism can cope
with. Whilst these guidelines, which are the result of careful investigation
over many years, are clearly necessary, the question remains as to whether
they are comprehensive enough. For in the case of living systems (and
only living ones) there are many reports over the past 30 years that MWR
can exert non-thermal influences, at intensities well below those necessary
to cause any detectable heating.3
The purpose of this review is to introduce clinicians to the physics of
mobile telephony and to explain how low-intensity, pulsed microwaves can
affect living organisms, both thermally and non-thermally; and then to
identify some of the reported biological impacts of exposure to this radiation,
particularly those provoked by the contentious non-thermal effects. It
is thereby hoped to alert clinicians to the possibility that certain presenting
symptoms might well be a consequence of non-thermal exposure to this kind
of radiation. A companion Lancet review4 covers the epidemiological evidence
for effects of mobile telephony on human health.
Physics of mobile telephony
Mobile (cellular) telephony is based on two-way radio communication between
a portable handset and the nearest base-station. Every base-station serves
a cell, varying from hundreds of metres in extent in densely populated
areas to kilometres in rural areas, and is connected both to the conventional
land-line telephone network and, by tightly focused line-of-sight microwave
links, to neighbouring stations. As the user of a mobile phone moves from
cell to cell, the call is transferred between base-stations without interruption.
The radio communication utilises microwaves at 900 or 1800 MHz to carry
voice information via small modulations of the wave's frequency. A base-station
antenna typically radiates 60 W and a handset between 1 and 2 W (peak).
The antenna of a handset radiates equally in all directions but a base-station
produces a beam that is much more directional. In addition, the stations
have subsidiary beams called side-lobes, into which a small fraction of
the emitted power is channelled. Unlike the mean beam, these side-lobes
are localised in the immediate vicinity of the mast, and, despitetheir
low power, the power density can be comparable with that of the main beam
much further away from the mast. At 150-200 m, for example, the power
density in the main beam near ground level is typically tenths of a µW/cm2.
A handset that is in operation also has a low-frequency magnetic field
associated, not with the emitted microwaves, but with surges of electric
current from the battery that are necessary to implement "time division
multiple access" (TDMA), the system currently used to increase the
number of people who can simultaneously communicate with a base-station.
Every communication channel has eight time slots (thus the average power
of a handset is 1Z8 of the peak values cited above--ie, is between 0·125
W and 0·25 W), which are transmitted as 576 µs bursts. Together, the eight
slots define a frame, the repetition rate of which is 217 Hz. The frames
transmitted by both handsets and base-stations are grouped into "multi-frames"
of 25 by the absence of every 26th frame. This results in an additional
low-frequency pulsing of the signal at 8·34 Hz, which, unlike that at
217 Hz, is unaffected by call density, and is thus a permanent feature
of the emission. With handsets that have an energy-saving discontinuous
transmission mode (DTX), there is an even lower frequency pulsing at 2
Hz, which occurs when the user is listening but not speaking.
Biological impacts: thermal
Heating of biological tissue is a consequence of microwave energy absorption
by the tissue's water content. The amount of heating produced in a living
organism depends primarily on the intensity (or power density) of the
radiation once it has penetrated the system, on certain electrical properties
of the biomatter, and on the efficiency of the body's thermoregulation
mechanism. Above a certain intensity of the microwaves, temperature homoeostasis
is not maintained, and effects on health ensue once the temperature rise
exceeds about 1°C. Safety guidelines impose upper limits on the radiation
intensity to ensure that this does not happen. Heating occurs whether
the organism is alive or dead. The frequency of the radiation, as opposed
to the intensity, is taken into account only in so far as it affects (via
size resonance) the ability of the organism to absorb energy from the
irradiating field.
Amongst the most thermally vulnerable areas of the body,2 because of their
low blood supply, are the eyes and the testes, and cataract formation
and reduced sperm counts are well-documented acute exposure hazards. Animal
studies indicate that a variety of behavioural and physiological disorders
can be provoked by temperature rises below 1°C--ie, under much less acute
exposure conditions.
There have been many investigations to estimate, using phantom heads,5
the rate at which thermal energy is deposited in the head during use of
a mobile phone--the so-called absorption rate. These studies indicate
that, for most handsets, safety guidelines are not violated. In publicly
accessible areas near a base-station, thermal influences of the emitted
MWR can be totally discounted; the microwave intensity is far too low.
Nevertheless, in both cases there are reports of adverse health effects
of subthermal intensities, the possible origin of which will now be considered.
Biological effects: non-thermal
The possibility that the pulsed, low-intensity MWR currently used in GSM
mobile telephony can exert subtle, non-thermal influences on a living
organism arises because microwaves are waves; they have properties other
than the intensity that is regulated by safety guidelines. This microwave
radiation has certain well-defined frequencies, which facilitate its discernment
by a living organism (despite its ultralow intensity), and via which the
organism can, in turn, be affected. The human body is an electrochemical
instrument of exquisite sensitivity whose orderly functioning and control
are underpinned6 by oscillatory electrical processes of various kinds,
each characterised by a specific frequency, some of which happen to be
close to those used in GSM. Thus some endogenous biological electrical
activities can be interfered with via oscillatory aspects of the incoming
radiation, in much the same way as can the reception on a radio.
The biological electrical activities that are vulnerable to interference
from GSM radiation include highly organised electrical activities at a
cellular level whose frequency happens to lie in the microwave region,
and which are a consequence of metabolism.7 Although not universally accepted,
there is experimental evidence7-9 consistent with these endogenous activities,
in terms of which effects of ultralow-intensity microwave radiation of
a specific frequency on processes as fundamental as cell division, for
example, can be understood in a rather natural way.10 Furthermore, the
DTX pulse frequency at 2 Hz and the TDMA frequency of 8·34 Hz correspond
to frequencies of electrical oscillations found in the human brain, specifically
the delta and alpha brain-waves, respectively. It is thus quite possible
that living organisms have a two-fold sensitivity to the pulsed GSM signal--ie,
to both the microwave carrier and the lower frequency pulsings of the
TDMA and DTX signals. To deny this possibility yet admit the importance
of ensuring electromagnetic compatibility with electronic instruments
by banning the use of mobile phones on aircraft11 and hospitals (a prohibition
driven by concerns about non-thermal interference) seems inconsistent.
Thus, in contrast to heating, which relies on an organism's ability to
absorb energy from the irradiating field, the possibility of non-thermal
effects arises from an "oscillatory similitude" between the
radiation and the living organism, which makes it possible for the living
organism to respond to low-intensity, pulsed MWR via its ability to recognise
certain frequency characteristics of that radiation. The intensity of
radiation needed for this recognition is many orders of magnitude below
even that currently associated with non-thermal effects. This influence
is possible only when the organism is alive, with excited endogenous frequencies;
the dead have flat electroencephalograms. Non-thermal effects thus depend
on the state of the person when exposed to the radiation--ie, non-thermal
effects are non-linear. A low-intensity field can entail a seemingly disproportionately
large response (or none at all), and vice versa, quite unlike the predictable
thermal responses. Thus not everyone can be expected to be affected in
the same way by identical exposure to the same radiation.
A good example of human vulnerability to a non-thermal, electromagnetic
influence is the ability of a light flashing at about 15 Hz to induce
seizures in people with photosensitive epilepsy.12 It is not so much the
amount of energy absorbed from the light that provokes the seizure, but
rather the information transmitted to the brain by the (coherent) regularity
of its flashing, at a frequency that the brain "recognises"
because it matches or is close to a frequency utilised by the brain itself.
What do we know experimentally about non-thermal biological influences
of MWR (both pulsed and continuous) of an intensity close to that near
a mobile phone handset, but often at higher microwave carrier frequencies?
A selection of in vitro studies is given in panel 1.
Panel 1: Selected in vitro studies of non-thermal
effects of microwave radiation of various frequencies and intensities
Effect Ref
Epileptic activity in rat brain slices in conjunction with certain drugs
13
Resonant effects on cell division of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and on
the genome conformation of Escherichia coli 9, 14
Synchronisation of cell division in S carlsbergenis 15
"Switch-on" of epigenetic processes, such as -phage and colicin
synthesis 16, 17
Altered ornithine decarboxylase activity 18
Reduced lymphocyte cytotoxicity 19
Increased permeability of erythrocyte membrane 20
Effects on brain electrochemistry (calcium efflux) 21
Increase in chromosome aberrations and micronuclei in human blood lymphocytes
22
Synergism with cancer-promoting drugs such as phorbol ester 23
In vivo evidence of non-thermal influences, including exposure to actual
GSM radiation, comes predominantly from animal studies (panel 2). Finally,
human in vivo studies, under GSM or similar conditions, include effects
on the EEG and on blood pressure. A delayed increase in spectral power
density (particularly in the alpha band) has been corroborated31 in the
"awake" EEG of adults exposed to GSM radiation. Influences on
the "alseep" EEG include a shortening of rapid-eye-movement
(REM) sleep during which the power density in the alpha band increases,32
and effects on non-REM sleep.33 Exposure to mobile phone radiation also
decreases the preparatory slow potentials in certain regions of the brain34
and affects memory tasks.35 In 1998, Braune et al36 recorded increases
in resting blood pressure during exposure to radiofrequencies.
Panel 2: Selected in vivo studies of non-thermal
microwave exposure, including GSM radiation
Effect Ref
Epileptiform activity in rats, in conjunction with certain drugs 24
Depression of chicken immune systems (melatonin, corticosterone and IgG
levels) 25
Increase in chick embryo mortality 25
Increased permeability of blood-brain barrier in rats 26
Effects on brain electrochemistry (dopamine, opiates) 27
Increases in DNA single and double strand breaks in rat brain 28
Promotion of lymphomas in transgenic mice 29
Synergistic effects with certain psychoactive drugs 30
Although the power density of the radiation used in these experiments
is typical of that found at the head when a mobile handset is used, and
thus much higher than that close to a base-station, the information content
of the radiation emitted by base-stations is the same. Accordingly--apart
from near/far field differences (ie, localised exposure to the near field
during handset use and whole body exposure to the far field from a base-station)--these
results are not irrelevant to any consideration of potential adverse health
effects associated with chronic exposure to base-station radiation.
Non-thermal effects have proved controversial, and independent attempts
to replicate them have not always been successful. Such difficulties are
not unexpected, however, because these effects depend on the state of
the organism when it is exposed, particularly in vivo. In in vitro studies,
discrepant findings can sometimes be traced to differences in the conditions
or design of the experiment. Examples of this are the unsuccessful attempts
to replicate an earlier yeast-growth experiment,37,9 and the reported
increased incidence of DNA strand breaks.38,28 The highly non-linear nature
of living systems makes them hypersensitive (via deterministic chaos,39
as exemplified by the so-called "butterfly effect", for example)
to the prevailing conditions, and thus militates against the realisation
of the identical conditions necessary for exact replication.
Possible associated adverse health reactions
It is important to stress that the existence even of established non-thermal
effects does not make adverse health consequences inevitable. Nonetheless
GSM radiation does seem to affect non-thermally a variety of brain functions
(including the neuroendocrine system), and health problems reported anecdotally
do tend to be neurological, although formal confirmation of such reports,
based on epidemiological studies, is still lacking. For example, reports
of headache are consistent with the effect of the radiation on the dopamine-opiate
system of the brain27 and the permeability of the blood-brain barrier,26
both of which have been connected to headache.40,41 Reports of sleep disruption
are consistent with effects of the radiation on melatonin levels25 and
on rapid-eye-movement sleep.32 Furthermore, since there is no reason to
suppose that the seizure-inducing ability12 of a flashing visible light
does not extend to microwave radiation (which can access the brain through
the skull) flashing at a similarly low frequency, together with the fact
that exposure to pulsed MWR can induce epileptic activity in rats,24 reports
of epileptic activity in some children exposed to base-station radiation
are perhaps not surprising. I have heard of one child whose seizures diminish
when, unbeknown to her or her family, the mast is not functioning (or
when she is away), only to increase again when the base-station is working
again or when she returns home.
Finally, the significant increase (by a factor of between 2 and 3) in
the incidence of neuroepithelial tumours (the laterality of which correlates
with cell-phone use) found in a nationwide US study42 is consistent not
only with the genotoxicity of GSM radiation, as indicated by increased
DNA strand breaks28 and formation of chromosome aberrations and micronuclei
but also with its promotional effect on tumour development.43 However,
as Rothman's accompanying review shows,4 the overall epidemiological evidence
for an association with cell-phone use is rather weak. Nevertheless, it
cannot be denied that non-thermal effects of the MWR used in mobile telephony
do have the potential to induce adverse health reactions of the kind reported,
and this possibility should not be ignored even if only a small minority
of people are at risk. Whether a person is affected or not could depend,
for example, on the level of stress before exposure; if it is high enough,
the additional contribution from MWR exposure might be sufficient to trigger
an abnormality that would otherwise have remained latent. It is often
argued that anecdotal reports of health problems should be dismissed.
However, given the paucity of systematic epidemiological studies of this
new technology, such reports are an indispensable source of information,
a point acknowledged in the 1999 report of the UK parliamentary committee.44
Preadolescent children can be expected to be more vulnerable to any adverse
health effects than adults because absorption of GSM microwaves is greatest5
in an object about the size of a child's head, because of the "head
resonance" effect and the greater ease with which the radiation can
penetrate the thinner skull of an infant1. Also the multiframe repetition
frequency of 8·34 Hz and the 2 Hz pulsing in the DTX mode of cellphones
lie in the range of the alpha and delta brain-waves, respectively. In
a child, alpha waves do not replace delta waves as a stable activity until
the age of about 12 years. Furthermore, the immune system, whose efficacy
is degraded19,25 by this kind of radiation, is less robust in children.
This makes them less able to cope with any adverse health effect that
might be provoked by chronic exposure, not only to the pulsed microwave
radiation but also to the the more penetrating low-frequency magnetic
fields associated with the current surges from the handset battery which
can reach 40 µT (peak) near the back of the case.45 Indications of the
biological noxiousness of these magnetic fields (in animals) can be found
in ref 25.
In the context of base-station radiation, reports relating to animals
are of particular value since it cannot here be claimed that the effects
are psychosomatic. Of particular interest is a publication on cattle,43
recording severely reduced milk yields, emaciation, spontaneous abortions,
and stillbirths. When cattle are removed to pastures well away from the
mast, their condition improves, but it deteriorates once they are brought
back. The adverse effects appeared only after GSM microwave antennae were
installed on a tower formerly used to transmit only non-pulsed television
and radio signals.
Finally, in support of the reality of an adverse health impact of non-thermal
influences of the kind of radiation used today in mobile telephony, we
should recall that during the "cold war" the Soviet irradiation
of western embassies with microwave radiation (of an intensity intermediate
between that in the vicinity of a handset and a base-station), done with
the express intention of inducing adverse health effects, was quite successful.47
References
1 Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones. Mobile phones and health.
London: Stationery Office, 2000 and http://www.iegmp.org.uk
2 Anon. Guidelines for limiting exposure to time varying electric, magnetic
and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Phys 1998;
74:494-522. [PubMed]
3 Hyland GJ. In: Scientific advisory system: mobile phones and health
vol II, appendix 15: 86-91. London: Stationery Office, 1999.
4 Rothman KJ. Epidemiological evidence on health risks of cellular telephones.
Lancet 2000; 356: 1837-40 [Text]
5 Gandhi OP, Lazzi G, Furse CM, et al. Electromagnetic absorption in the
human head and neck for mobile telephones at 835 and 1900 MHz. IEEE
Trans MTT 1996; 44: 1884-97. [PubMed]
6 Smith CW, Best S. Electromagnetic man. London: Dent & Sons, 1989.
7 Fröhlich H. The biological effects of microwaves and related questions.
Adv Electronics Electron Phys 1980; 53: 85-152. [PubMed]
8 Fröhlich H, ed. Biological coherence and response to external stimuli.
Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1988.
9 Grundler W, Kaiser F. Experimental evidence for coherent excitations
correlated with cell growth. Nanobiology 1992; 1: 163-76.
[PubMed]
10 Hyland GJ. Non-thermal bioeffects induced by low intensity microwave
irradiation of living systems. Engineering Sci Educ J 1998;
7: 261-69. [PubMed]
11 Marks P. Danger signals: now it's official: avionics and mobile phones
do not mix. New Scientist 2000; 166: 7.
12 Harding GFA, Jeavons PM. Photosensitive epilepsy. London: MacKeith
Press, 1994.
13 Tattersall J. New Horizons 1999 (autumn): 11.
14 Shcheglov VS, Belyaev IY, Alipov YD, Ushakov VL. Power-dependent rearrangement
in the spectrum of resonance effect of millimetre waves on the genome
conformational state of Escherichia coli cells. Electro-Magnetobiol 1997;
16: 69-82. [PubMed]
15 Golant MB, Mudrick DG, Kruglyakova OP, Izvol'skaya VE, et al. Effect
of EHF radiation polarization on yeast cells. Radiophys Quantum
Electron 1994; 37: 82-84. [PubMed]
16 Lukashevsky K, Belyaev IY. Switching of prophage * genes in E coli
by millimetre waves. Med Sci Res 1990; 18: 955-57. [PubMed]
17 Smolyanskaya AZ, Vilenskaya RL. Effects of millimetre-band electromagnetic
radiation on the functional activity of certain genetic elements of bacterial
cells. Sov Phys Usp (English transl) 1974; 16:571-72. [PubMed]
18 Penafiel LM, Litovitz T, Krause D, Desta A, Mullins JM. Role of modulation
on the effect of microwaves on ornithine decarboxylase activity in L929
cells. Bioelectromagnetics 1997; 18: 132-41. [PubMed]
19 Lyle B, et al. Suppression of T-lymphocyte cytotoxicity following exposure
to sinusoidally amplitude-modified fields. Bioelectromagnetics 1983;
4: 281-92. [PubMed]
20 Savopol T, Moraru R, Dinu A, Kovįcs E, Sajin G. Membrane damage of
human red blood cells induced by low power microwave radiation. Electro-Magnetobiol
1995; 14: 99-105. [PubMed]
21 Dutta SK, Subramoniam A, Ghosh B, Parslad R. Microwave radiation-induced
calcium ion efflux from human neuroblastoma cells in culture. Bioelectromagnetics
1984; 5: 71-78. [PubMed]
22 Garaj-Vhovac V, Fucic A, Horvat D. The correlation between the frequency
of micronuclei and specific aberrations in human lymphocytes exposed to
microwave radiation in vitro. Mutation Res 1992; 281: 181-86.
[PubMed]
23 Balcer-Kubiczek EK, Harrison GH. Neoplastic transformation of C3H/10T1/2
cells following exposure to 120 Hz modulated 2.45 GHz microwaves and phorbol
ester tumour promoter. Radiation Res 1991; 126: 65-72. [PubMed]
24 Sidorenko AV, Tsaryk VV. Electrophysiological characteristics of the
epileptic activity in the rat brain upon microwave treatment. In: Proceedings
of Conference on Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health (Moscow, September,
1999): 283-84.
25 Youbicier-Simo BJ, Bastide M. Pathological effects induced by embryonic
and postnatal exposure to EMFs radiation by cellular mobile phones (written
evidence to IEGMP). Radiat Protect 1999; 1: 218-23. [PubMed]
26 Persson BRR, Salford LG, Brun A, et al. Blood-brain barrier permeability
in rats exposed to electromagnetic fields used in wireless communication.
Wireless Networks 1997; 3: 455-61. [PubMed]
27 Frey AH, ed. On the nature of electromagnetic field interactions with
biological systems. Austin, TX: RG Landes, 1994.
28 Lai H, Singh NP. Single and double-strand DNA breaks after acute exposure
to radiofrequency radiation. Int J Radiation Biol 1996; 69: 13-521.
[PubMed]
29 Repacholi MH, Baster A, Gebski V, Noonan D, Finnie J, Harris AW. Lymphomas
in Eµ-Pim 1 transgenic mice exposed to pulsed 900 MHz electromagentic
fields. Radiation Res 1997; 147: 631-40. [PubMed]
30 Lai H, Horita A, Chou CK, Guy AW. A review of microwave irradiation
and actions of psychoactive drugs. Engineering Med Biol 1987;
6: 31-36. [PubMed]
31 Reiser H-P, Dimpfel W, Schober F. The influence of electromagnetic
fields on human brain activity. Eur J Med Res 1995; 1: 27-32.
[PubMed]
32 Mann K, Roschke J. Effects of pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic
fields on human sleep. Neuropsychobiology 1996; 33: 41-47.
[PubMed]
33 Borbely AA, Huber R, Graf T, et al. Pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic
field affects human sleep and sleep electroencephalogram. Neurosci
Lett 1999; 275: 207-10. [PubMed]
34 Freude G, Ullsperger P, Eggert S, Ruppe I. Effects of microwaves emitted
by cellular phones on human slow brain potentials. Bioelectromagnetics
1998; 19: 384-87. [PubMed]
35 Krause CM, et al. Effects of electromagnetic field emitted by cellular
telephones on the EEG during a memory task. NeuroReport 2000;
11: 761-64. [PubMed]
36 Braune S, Wrocklage C, Raczek J Gailus T, Lüching CH. Resting blood
pressure increase during exposure to radio-frequency electromagnetic field.
Lancet 1998; 351: 1857-58. [Text]
37 Gos P, Eicher B, Kohli J, Heyer WD. Extremely high frequency fields
at low power density do not affect the division of exponential phase Saccharomyces
cerevisiae cells. Bioelectromagnetics 1997; 18: 142-55. [PubMed]
38 Malyapa RS, Ahern EW, Bi C, et al. DNA damage in rat brain cells after
in vivo exposure to 2450 MHz electromagnetic radiation and various methods
of euthanasia. Radiation Res 1998; 149: 637-45. [PubMed]
39 Kaiser F. The role of chaos in biological systems. In: Barrett TW,
Pohl HA, eds. Energy transfer dynamics. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1987:
224-36.
40 Winkler T, Sharma HS, Stalberg E, Olsson Y, Dey PK. Impairment of blood-brain
barrier function by serotonin induces desynchronization of spontaneous
cerebral cortical activity: experimental observations in the anaesthetized
rat. Neuroscience 1995; 68: 1097-104. [PubMed]
41 Barbanti P, Bronzetti F, Ricci A, et al. Increased density of dopamine
D5 receptor in peripheral blood lymphocytes of migraineurs: a marker of
migraine? Neurosci Lett 1996; 207: 73-76. [PubMed]
42 Carlo GL. Wireless telephones and health: WTR Final Report. Presented
to the French National Assembly, June 19, 2000.
43 Repacholi MH, Basten A, Gebski V, Finnie J, Harris AW. Lymphomas in
E mu-Pim1 transgenic mice exposed to pulsed 900 MHz electromagnetic fields.
Radiat Res 1997; 147: 631-40. [PubMed]
44 Scientific Advisory System: mobile phones and health. London: Stationery
Office 1999: vol I, para 36.
45 Andersen JB, Pedersen GF. The technology of mobile telephone systems
relevant for risk assessment. Radiat Prot Dosim 1997; 72:
249-57. [PubMed]
46 Löscher W, Käs G. Conspicuous behavioural abnormalities in a dairy
cow herd near a TV and radio transmitting antenna. Pract Vet Surg
1998; 79: 437-44. [PubMed]
47 Goldsmith JR. Epidemiological evidence of radiofrequency radiation
(microwave) effects on health in military, broadcasting, and occupational
studies. Int J Occup Environ Health 1995; 1: 47-57. [PubMed]
WHO Director-General
elections 2003
Introduction
On Aug 23 this year, WHO Director-General, Gro Harlem Brundtland shook
the international health community by announcing her decision not to stand
for a second term of office. The assumption that Brundtland would stay
on as head of the United Nations health agency had been so strong that
even her closest colleagues at the Geneva headquarters were taken aback.
In the past 4 years, Brundtland has changed WHO from the public health
agency "where good ideas go to die" to a force that is moving
health, especially the health of the poorest people in the world, up the
international political agenda. Brundtland's reforms have not been without
criticism, but few would dispute that she has made an indelible mark on
the global health. The work that she has started is very much still in
progress, and a strong and capable successor is essential to ensure that
the reconfiguration of the world's premier health agency continues.
During the next few months, The Lancet will be covering the election campaign
in depth, starting with a Special Report summarising WHO's structure and
electoral process.
In addition, we want to foster greater debate about the direction of global
health in the 21st century and WHO's role in steering the best course.
To start that debate, we invite readers to send in their comments (e-mail:whodg@lancet.com
). All messages sent to this address will be posted on our website each
week. Those individuals with the privilege of electing the next Director-General
of WHO also carry a great responsibility--we hope that our coverage and
your comments can help inform their decision.
The two last informations are from Marre Dafforn
|