Ups J Med Sci. 2010 Jan 23. [Epub ahead of print]
Narayanan SN, Kumar RS, Potu BK, Nayak S, Bhat PG, Mailankot M.
Department of Physiology, Melaka Manipal Medical College, Manipal University, Manipal 576104, India.
Abstract Introduction. The interaction of mobile phone radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) with the brain is a serious concern of our society. Objective. We evaluated the effect of RF-EMR from mobile phones on passive avoidance behaviour and hippocampal morphology in rats. Materials and methods. Healthy male albino Wistar rats were exposed to RF-EMR by giving 50 missed calls (within 1 hour) per day for 4 weeks, keeping a GSM (0.9 GHz/1.8 GHz) mobile phone in vibratory mode (no ring tone) in the cage. After the experimental period, passive avoidance behaviour and hippocampal morphology were studied. Results. Passive avoidance behaviour was significantly affected in mobile phone RF-EMR-exposed rats demonstrated as shorter entrance latency to the dark compartment when compared to the control rats. Marked morphological changes were also observed in the CA(3) region of the hippocampus of the mobile phone-exposed rats in comparison to the control rats. Conclusion. Mobile phone RF-EMR exposure significantly altered the passive avoidance behaviour and hippocampal morphology in rats.
PMID: 20095879 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
Several studies show cancer and ill health caused by people living near cell phone towers. Now look at the (stupid) quote below which is part of a discussion, about putting a cell tower near to a school. It seems that Hamby is not aware of the adverse health effects of microwave radiation. He should not be commenting on its safety!
'Hearing about electromagnetic radiation can make people nervous if they don't understand it, Hamby said. But people who live near the tower or use the nearby Wattles Park Men's Club can expect levels of radiation comparable to that of standing 4 feet from a baby monitor, he said'.
Just recently, I translated an article on compact fluorescent lamps and their EMF emissions by Wolfgang Maes, the initiator of the Building Biology Standard. Take a look at the many oscilloscope graphs and spectrum analyses. The huge harmonic distortions and high flicker percentages speak for themselves:
The German branch of the Friends of the Earth (BUND), one of the largest environmental organizations in Germany, issued a background paper on compact fluorescent lamps in 2009 when the incandescent lamp was banned in Europe. The BUND demands that lighting should be safe both for the environment as well as human health.
Their recommendations for exposure limits apply not only to compact fluorescent lamps but all lamp types. Any lamp that cannot meet the TCO limit (VLF: 1 V/m and ELF: 10 V/m at 30 cm) should be taken from the market. And by 2015 lamps should stay below the target threshold of 0.2 V/m in the VLF range. For lamps used close to the body, the BUND suggests a precautionary value of 0.02 V/m. I fully support these recommendations.
Just for the record, Health Canada released data on EMF emissions of CFLs this year. The details on the testing procedures have not been released yet. But for the kHz range (VLF), the worst-case CFL is given with 126 V/m at 20 cm. This is only 45% of the Safety Code 6 exposure limit of 280 V/m, but it is 45% above the ICNIRP exposure limit of 87 V/m. Converting the measurements to a 30-cm distance, the CFL emission level is 56 times higher than the TCO limit of 1 V/m recommended by the Swedish standard on low-emission computer monitors.
For more details on CFL reports by governments (UK, Switzerland), check out my comments at: