A new study provides fresh evidence that mobile phones may damage
cells, especially in teens
By BLAINE GRETEMAN/LONDON
This is the largest biological experiment in the history
of the world,"
shouts Leif Salford, an unusually animated neurosurgeon at
University, in Sweden. Salford's not talking about his own
talking about the 1.3 billion people around the world who
away on their mobile phones, "freely pressing radiological
Salford's own research involves much smaller samples of mice,
but it is raising big questions about the safety of human
use. In a paper that will be published in April by the U.S.
the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Salford's
research team suggests that even tiny levels of radiation
European mobiles may cause neuron damage in the brain.
Since 1992, when David Reynard filed suit in Florida against
mobile-phone industry for causing the tumor that killed his
American trial lawyers have been dialing for dollars, convinced
mobile phones could be the next tobacco. But unlike tobacco
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
evidence that mobile phones cause cancer.
Indeed, after a large study last year at Adelaide's Institute
and Veterinary Science showed no increased cancer risk contradicting
damning earlier study from the Royal Adelaide Hospital the
breathed a billion-dollar sigh of relief. "It may be
reasonable to ask
if we are like tobacco," says Michael Milligan, secretary-general
European industry's representative group, the Mobile Manu-
Forum. "But the most important thing for us is that while
Health Organization has always been very strongly against
industry, they've been very involved with mobile phones and
is very balanced: there are no established health effects."
Yet Professor Salford's work may soon have lawyers heading
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)
the brain from the chemicals, toxins and proteins that circulate
blood. Over 25 years ago, notes Louis Slesin, editor of New
Microwave News, U.S. army and government scientists showed
microwaves from sources other than phones could open up the
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
1992, the Lund group has shown that in laboratory rats, at
mobile-phone radiation opens up this barrier so molecules
of the blood
protein albumin which should be far too large to penetrate
through. These results have recently been duplicated in another
laboratory, and their latest study shows for the first time
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
Lund study: the neurons of rats died even when radiation levels
1,000 times smaller than the current E.U.-allowed level, although
rats were only exposed for two hours. "It's a damned
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
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,
smoking, may also soon be an issue," notes Salford. An
even bigger issue
may be the increasing use of wireless technology in everyday
like refrigerators, ovens and computers. These gadgets are
provide manufacturers with much of their growth as mobile-phone
reaches its saturation point; but they will also create a
microwave radiation around our daily lives.
For the time being, though, the findings are probably most
parents of the 80% of European teenagers who use mobile phones.
research team used young rats (12 to 26 weeks of age), because
developing brains and thinner, smaller skulls are comparable
to those of
the teenagers for whom phones are a must-have accessory. "Just
give them to children," says Salford, affirming a message
2000 by the U.K.'s Stewart Commission on the health effects
phones. So far, however, such warnings have largely been ignored
young users who send billions of text messages every month
and who feed
a thriving industry that pitches everything from mobile games
cartoon-themed phone covers to children.
Phone makers say they're trying to take a responsible approach
concerns, rather than simply denying them, a la big tobacco.
established to contribute to research on just these kinds
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
saved far more lives than they'll ever cost. But when he speaks
own phone, he uses a headset and places the handset as far
possible. And, just before hanging up, he adds, "I also
conversations very short!" Until research settles the
issue of mobile
phones and health more definitively, that may still be the
"There is a problem with making any RF radiation voluntary
health protection standard a law. The problem is that some
these standards are NOT consistent with Maxwell's equations
To put it very plainly, the existing voluntary consensus
claim to protect human health against radio-frequency and
radiation are a mixture of scientific truth and scientific
are adequate to protect human health in some ways, but inadequate
I have already presented a paper before the American Physical
which I presented my initial findings. [The abstract has been
in the March, 2003, issue of the BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN
SOCIETY.] I am continuing my research and expect to be able
more details in future, when my research is further advanced.
My field investigations suggest that there is a serious hazard
mammalian health somewhere in the vicinity of 20 picowatts/sq.
microwave radiation under the plane-wave approximation.
Existing voluntary consensus standards are adequate to protect
THERMAL hazards from PLANE WAVE exposure. The inadequacies
the exposure is to other than a plane wave, or when nonthermal
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
standards, and the scientific errors they embody at this time.
it will accomplish, in my judgment, is to protect the companies
transmitters are making the environment dangerous for human
that members of the public will have no legal recourse to
payment for the damage done to their health!
It should be remembered that the original voluntary consensus
ANSI C95, is sponsored by the electrical engineering profession,
is NOT a health profession!
Other voluntary consensus standards that have tried to improve
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
public; it will protect the harmful transmitters and the companies
have put them there!
My conclusion is that both these experiments actually demonstrate
microwave radiation is capable of being carcinogenic to living
under conditions of chronic irradiation at comparatively low
Marjorie Lundquist, Ph.D., C.I.H.
P. O. Box 11831
Milwaukee, WI 53211-0831 USA
Informant: Elektrosmognews, message from Roy Beavers
to the EMF community
After spending another sleepless night,(due to my illness)
decided to pose this question to the EMF community, AND SEND
THIS REQUEST AROUND TO SEVERAL OTHER PEOPLE IN OUR GOVERNMENT.
to spread it to the list.
Where can I find the right people who are truly interested
just how dangerous cell phones really are?
I believe I am one of the most valuable recourses available
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+
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
had done to myself.I know beyond doubt,that it can be demonstrated
what hours of talking on a cell phone can do to a human ."I
I AM LIVING PROOF".
I am sure of one thing,I don't have a lot of time to make
happen alone,so if there are such people out there in the
For those of you who don't know who I am,let me give a brief
My name is Robert VanEchaute,and I am a trucker who lost everything
cherished, a beautiful home on a mountain top, a growing business
took twenty years in the making,and the most devastating was
family (because of my ex-wife's lack of understanding). All
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
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
For over three years now, I have been suffering from an illness
identical in almost every way to Gulf War syndrome. I am also
with the early onset of Alzheimers'. I am quite certain of
of the years of experience of taking care of my 80+ year old
is now in the end stages of the decease.
The need to prove this issue is far greater than many people
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
this technology to be safe.
Please!!! I beg all to stop thinking of $ and start thinking
tragic loss Human life that is going to continue, as long
as people like
me are ignored.
Robert (BEAR) VanEchaute
Warnerville, NY 12187
Robert Riedlinger, message from Robert (BEAR) VanEchaute
to Roy Beavers
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
Electromagnetrics Biology and Medicine, very recently
This message is in reply to Sarah's request, since I don't
Email address. Dr. Ted Litovitz is a Profesor Emeritus at
University in Washington, D.C. His recent discovery that emission
heat shock proteins (HSP) is first stimulated by absorption
of RF radiation,
but, upon repeated or chronic exposure is eventually suppressed
important. Heat shock proteins have the ability to refold
protein molecules, so they are a part of the cell's damage
Drs. Reba Goodman and Martin Blank at Columbia University
in New York City
were among the first to demonstrate that emission of heat
can be stimulated by levels of RF radiation much too low to
heating, thus HSP emission is an example of nonthermal RF
Bill P. Curry, Ph.D. Physics is fun
(630) 858-9377 Fax (630) 858-9159
EMSciTek Consulting Company
link from the archives of Stewart Fist
Blood-brain barrier: What causes headaches?
Informant: Colette O'Connell message from Robert Riedlinger
to Roy Beavers