Various Testimonies - Low Frequency, High Tension - EMF-Omega-News
Tramès per Klaus Rudolph (Citizens'
John of Randolph, NJ, writes:
What about lung cancer found in the lung over which the person stored
his "on" cell phone? Interesting that the tumor was estimated
to be 1 1/2 years old and my company switched to digital phones about
the same time. More interesting is that our phones ranked 6th in power
and are no longer manuafactured. Sony stopped all cell phone manufacture.
Brian of Philadelphia writes:
Whenever I use a cell phone, I have cysts on my head within 24 hours of
use. The reason I know it is the cell phone is because when I no longer
use it the bumps (cysts) go away. If I use the phone only for a minute
the bumps appear and the headaches occur and they are very painful.
Joe of Newport, WA:
I bought my phone on 11-26-00. I mostly have used the phone for about
2 minutes. However the first three weekends where I have extended time
to use the Nokia I developed bad headaches and become stomach sick while
using the phone after about seven minutes. I used it for 30 minutes the
second time and became headache sick and stomach sick for 12 hours. I
tried the phone in two days after use for seven minutes and stared to
become ill again while using the phone. My wife is a physician assistant
and has been witness to these events.
Diane of Seattle writes:
I have had my own business for almost ten years and in that time, I have
used a cell phone on a daily basis. I bought a smaller phone at first
and I noticed when I would converse on it that my left ear would get burning
hot and my head would ache even after being off the phone for an hour
or more. I finally exchanged the phone for a larger model and used that
withnot any problems. I have since purchased another smaller unit and
have been using it with no problems. But in the span of these years, I
have cropped up with a tremor to my head which is uncontrollable. It was
diagnosed as a hereditary trait but there is no one in my families with
this trait that I am aware of. I do believe in my heart that this condition
came about because of using the cell phone. And as I read the stories
of others, I am even more convinced of it. I am so glad that
people are speaking out on this as I have kept quiet about it myself.
But as a consumer, we should have the right to pertinent information about
causes and effects of cell phones on our health. Thank you for letting
me voice my opinion.
Martin of Dallas writes:
After opening my business 5 years ago, I began using my phone between
1000 and 2500 minutes per month. About 6 months ago I stated having ear
pains. I purchased "hands-free" kits and althugh 2 models helped
me, 2 models would actually make it worse.
Now I purchased the speakerphone type. However when I use my phone
next to my ear for over 15 minutes a day I have strong ear pains during
the evening. I'm somewhat concerned and plan to have studies done soon.
Sites like yours are helping me understand the situation a little better.
Stephanie of Lawrenceville, GA, writes:
My father was in the telecommunications industry. He used cell phones
for many years. He found he had non-Hodgkins lymphoma in his brain in
1997. He was treated and remained in remission for 15 months. It came
back in October 1998. He passed away from this 2nd bout with the cancer
March 19, 2000. We have read and heard of so many cases where a lot of
people who have brain tumors also use cell phones. I know it is not considered
a fact yet. But if and when it is known to be factual I want a class action
lawsuit put together and every cell phone manufacturer to pay for the
damage and pain that have been caused to so many families. My father was
only 45 years old, a very active man, ate well, excercised. Until this
cancer came along. I do believe it is because of cell phones that he got
this cancer. Having to watch a loved one slowly die is the most horrible
experience and no one should have to go through it. Imagine having
brain cancer. My father all of a sudden one day couldn't do anything,
not even sit himself up in bed. My brother and I had to quit our jobs
so my mother could keep hers and keep the house to take care of him. In
his last 2 weeks of life we had to feed him morphine constantly to make
him unaware of the pain he was going through. Now my mother is left a
widow, my daughter no longer has her only grandfather whom she loved dearly
and my younger brother turned 18 years old 4 days before our father passed
I want these cell phone companies to compensate the families who have
gone through this.
Greg of Pomona, CA, writes:
I have used hand held cell phones for about 5 years. Until a few weeksago,
I used the phone between 500-1,000 minutes per month. For about thelast
six months, I've been using a Qualcomm phone. About three monthsago,
I had a large growth removed from my head near my right ear (theone I
hold the cell phone to). Now, I have an ear infection, plus,constant headaches
and ringing and pain in my right ear.Plus, I've felt very tired for the
last 3 months, or, so. God knows whatis going to happen. I had no idea
of the dangers of hand held cell phoneuse until about two weeks ago.
Fran of Cleveland writes:
I have had the Nextel phone for over a year and i am experiencing dullvibrations
that lesd to severe headaches while using the Nextel(Motorola) i1000.
I have contacted Nextel and they told me that therehas been no such complaints.
Another employee that uses the Nextel phonealso has the same thing happening
to him. Nextel has instructed me tobring in the unit because they feel
it is "defective" and "dangerous".I am also scheduled
to see my physician regarding this problem.
Bridlewood Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs)
By Marjean Curtis
Article courtesy of AlterNet
On Christmas Eve of 1996, Larry Stankavich and his wife, Susan, looked
out the dining room window of their Duanesburg, New York home. Rising
in the southwest, just barely visible above the 50-foot pines that border
their property, was a large network of crisscrossing steel beams. The
emerging monolith looked dreadfully out of place in the rural hills of
Duanesburg. It would take Larry and Susan close to a month to discover
that this unexpected gift had come from Cellular One of Albany, New York.
Even the town supervisor claimed to know nothing about it. On December
31st, before it was even completed, the tower was fitted with a microwave
dish and activated to carry analog cellular phone signals. This enormous
steeple of sorts would then rise another 75 feet until it reached its
full stature of 250 feet in February of 1997. And it was later that month
that the 15 households within 1400 feet of the tower began to suspect
that Cellular One had done more than run roughshod over the aesthetics
of their bucolic neighborhood.
First Larry noticed pressure in his head. Not prone to headaches, he suddenly
began experiencing a regular and intense pain that started at the base
of his skull and spread from ear to ear. He noticed a grittiness in his
eyes every time he washed his face. At first he didn't suspect that the
radiation beaming toward his home might have something to do with his
sudden and unusual complaints. When Susan started having the same strange
headaches, they didn't know what to think. Then one evening Susan, who
was well past menopause, had a hot flash to beat all hot flashes. Her
face flushed red, started tingling, and felt like it was on fire. Susan
ran to Larry who was in the kitchen. They looked at each other dumbfounded
and horrified. Larry's face too was crimson and so hot that it hurt. Something
was very wrong.
Initial doctor's visits turned up nothing out of the ordinary. However,
Larry began noticing that he felt better whenever he left the house to
manage the fencing business that he started in 1972. Susan, however, who
did clerical work for the business from home, was experiencing no relief.
New complaints began to surface. They both started having trouble sleeping,
and Susan's usually normal blood pressure began to soar. At 3 a.m. on
February 16, her blood pressure rose to 190/110 and was accompanied by
frightening heart palpitations. Larry drove Susan far from the tower until
her blood pressure returned to normal around 6 in the morning. Susan and
Larry felt awful, and by this time they suspected that the Cellular One
installation might be to blame. A meeting with neighbors living within
the shadow of the giant tower substantiated their suspicion -- many of
them were suffering with the same symptoms.
Twenty-one months later, it's even worse. The Stankaviches and their neighbors
complain of hearing high-pitched sounds that are always followed by waves
of extreme nausea. Fatigue and dizziness have become a matter of course,
and now, hearing loss and joint pain, especially in the knees, are plaguing
many residents. The Stankaviches can no longer use the top story of their
home where their symptoms become more pronounced. Some neighbors have
actually moved into their cellars. Two homes have already been sold at
a loss, and one more is on the market. The Stankaviches, however, are
determined not to be driven out. Larry built their home 27 years ago and
says they can never replace it. They're going to fight. But so far, it
looks like a losing battle -- one in which they're losing their health,
peace of mind, and their entire savings of $20,000.
While stories like the Stankaviches' seem extreme now, they could become
more and more common as the number of towers and antennae increase. And
increase they will. The industry estimates that there are 75,000 towers
currently in place and by the year 2000, there will need to be 100,000
for a full build-out. That's a conservative estimate, since PCS (personal
communication systems) towers need to be placed much closer than the old
analog towers. A full build-out of the PCS system, with six carriers each,
would put 100,000 new towers in California alone.
This massive buildup may give the population at large the freedom of wireless
devices and eye-popping digital TV, but there will be more of us at ground
zero who will pay the price of the swift and, some say, careless deployment
of towers and antennae. To put the brakes on this rampant proliferation,
citizen groups are forming across the country to fight or redirect installations
as they affect their neighborhoods. Two of the loudest battles are raging
in Golden, Colorado and San Francisco, California where citizens are fighting
the addition of digital TV antennae to existing structures.
While health effects drive the discontent of the vast majority of these
coalitions, many are mute about health issues when going into public hearings.
In Golden, Colorado, unrestricted development of three antenna farms on
Lookout Mountain has created what activists call "the most intense
and complex electromagnetic environment in a residential area in the nation."
The onus was on citizens to have electromagnetic readings taken that would
prove there were indeed many hot spots that exceeded the FCC's safety
limit. The FCC is now investigating. In San Francisco, activists are calling
for not just a static, but a dynamic analysis of Sutro Tower before digital
TV tower is added to the structure. The 1,000 foot tower, which sits right
in the middle of a residential area, might endanger 270 homes in the event
of an earthquake.
The Stankaviches and their neighbors are having their physicians carefully
document their myriad medical problems, but their lawsuits, first against
the town of Duanesburg, and now against Cellular One have been on zoning
violations. Why? Because the tower's emissions were still lower than the
FCC's permissible limit and therefore deemed safe.
Libby Kelley,mailto:email@example.com a former analyst with
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in Washington D.C., now
executive director of the Ad Hoc Association of Parties Concerned about
the Federal Communications Commission's Radio Frequency Health and Safety
Rules (AHA), says that the agency's radio frequency rules stipulate that
objections to placement of telecommunication facilities can be based only
on certain planning and zoning rules, including aesthetics. What they
don't permit is opposition based on health and safety concerns. "The
provision in the rules stating that wireless facilities are 'deemed individually
and cumulatively to have no significant impact on the quality of the human
environment,' is just not based on fact," says Kelley. "How
could the FCC know this; they never conducted an environmental assesment
in accordance with the Environmental Policy Act." While acting as
an information clearinghouse for groups fighting local battles, the AHA
is involved in an even bigger battle of their own. They're going head-to-head
with the FCC itself.
The AHA joined with the Communication Workers of America and the Cellular
Phone Task force, a group representing electro-sensitive persons, in filing
an appeal this year. They charge that the FCC has failed to adequately
protect public health and the safety of citizens. The appeals were consolidated
in the 2nd Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals and oral arguments will
be heard in New York City on the week of January 4, 1999, subject to the
Kelley says that their court case is unique in that they are challenging
the FCC rules in federal court. Therefore, the court decision may affect
national policy and, by implication, international policy. "Other
cases being pursued in civil court, district federal court and supreme
court are local battles which have been appealed in higher court levels,"
says Kelley. "Our appeal directly challenges them (the federal regulations)."
A win for the AHA could bring a repeal or remand of the radio frequency
standard. And what this would mean to the industry depends on who you
ask. Joel Marcus, an attorney in the FCC's Office of General Counsel,
says, "if there were a remand because the FCC had not considered
some minor piece of data, the agency would be required to go back and
consider that data, after which it may come to the same conclusion as
before and the practical impact on industry would be very little."
Others, such as the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA),
ATT Wireless and the National Association of Broadcasters believe it could
seriously stymie the wireless telecom industry's deployment of mobile
phones, paging and wireless local loops. However, Tim Ayers, CTIA's VP
of Communications, is confident that the AHA challenge will fail. "The
bulk of scientific thinking on standards says they are safe, stringent
and fully protective of population," says Ayers. "We assume
the courts will rely on the best science, and science is the best thing
going for the industry."
Dr. John Goldsmith, a noted epidemiologist and former director of air-quality
research for the State of California Health Department is one of many
scientists who disagree that FCC standards are safe and based on the best
science. Goldsmith, who is evaluating the potential health effects of
radio frequency radiation from cell phones, cell-phone towers and television
transmitting towers, has been collaborating with the AHA to raise public
awareness about the potential dangers of these sources of radio-frequency
In the 1950s, Goldsmith claims, the U.S. government decided that it was
safe to chronically or repeatedly expose humans to radiation that didn't
generate heat -- such as low-level microwaves and radio waves and extremely
low frequency (ELF) radiation from powerlines. Goldsmith contends that
most of the conclusions about the safety of radiation were reached right
after WWII, when winning wars, not determining the safety of new technology
designed to help win those wars, was the priority. As a result, similar
technology has moved into the mainstream before the effects of use have
been thoroughly studied. The AHA, Goldsmith and others are convinced that
the FCC is operating on this outdated information and cavalierly perpetuating
that information to a gullible public.
The FCC's Marcus contends that the radio-frequency (RF) regulations are
based on a large body of scientific literature and that "the RF limit
imposed by the Commission for general population exposure is 50 times
lower than the level at which studies indicated that RF energy has potentially
According to Kelley, the FCC based its guidelines on conclusions drawn
by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the
National Commission on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP). What
the FCC, which doesn't claim expertise in health matters, didn't take
into account was the advice of health agencies. For example, they adopted
an exposure threshold for workers that is five times higher than the exposure
threshold for the general public -- in spite of concerns expressed by
OSHA, the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH)
and the FDA. They also failed to take the advice of NIOSH and the EPA
to exert greater caution around modulated RF signals.
A Cellular One spokesperson, commenting on the Duanesburg case, says the
industry needs "proof positive" research that there are health
effects associated with RF radiation. She says that Cellular One is "a
responsible corporate partner with the community," and would make
changes if it was deemed necessary. Susan Clarke, director of the Environmental
Health Advocacy League, feels that this attitude puts the burden of proof
on innocent communites to prove harm. "It should be the industry's
responsibility to prove safety in advance of deployment of this technology,"
she says. And while the Cellular One spokesperson says, "ours is
an evolving technology, always responding to the needs of consumers,"
many, including the AHA, don't feel they have the luxury of sitting and
waiting for the evolution.
To help shift the power back into the hands of the people, the AHA fought
hard alongside the National Association of Counties and the National League
of Cities to defeat HR 3488, The Wireless Communication and Public Safety
Act of 1998. The bill would have mandated the rapid deployment of cell
phone towers and antennas on federal property on demand. And for participating
states to receive certain grant funds deployment would be mandated on
state and municipal property as well. Although the bill looked certain
to be rushed through Congress -- ostensibly for public-safety reasons,
as it would have facilitated wireless 911 -- it was soundly defeated along
with S2519, a companion bill in the senate. This was an important, but
temporary, victory for the AHA. The bill will reemerge next year possibly
under an even less sympathetic Congress.
The AHA doesn't expect government and industry to err on the side of caution.
As they gear up to battle next year's version of HR 3488 and take on the
Telecommunications Act itself, it doesn't hurt that the most recent research
seems to be falling on their side. A 1998 Italian study, reported at the
Tenth International Conference of the International Society for Environmental
Epidemiology, demonstrated a link between RF emissions from a digital
transmission facility and the onset of adult male leukemia for those residing
up to 5 km, about 2 1/2 miles, from the tower. And in Schwarzenburg, Switzerland,
home to a shortwave transmitter tower, the Swiss government conducted
a controlled experiment (Altpeter, 1995) to assess widespread complaints
about sleep disorders. The study found statistically significant insomnia
and, in school children, a slow school promotion rate. In addition, a
radar station in Latvia (Kolodynski, 1996) was found to be associated
with attention and memory problems in school children. In both the Swiss
and Latvian cases, the transmitters were shut down this year.
A 1994 study by Drs. Henry Lai and N.P. Singh of the University of Washington
showed learning disruption in rats exposed to pulsed microwaves. Further
studies (1995, 1996, 1997) revealed both single- and double-strand DNA
breaks in the brains of animals exposed to microwave radiation. In 1997,
a study (Repacholi) funded by Australian telecom giant Telstra demonstrated
a significant increase in B-cell lymphomas in mice exposed to "far
field" pulsating radiation like that of digital cell phones. The
100 exposed transgenic mice developed tumors at twice the rate of 100
unexposed transgenic mice. The results were played down by the industry,
and some believe that damage control was in full force before the study
was finally published in Radiation Research.
Research promised by the industry itself, research that could be used
to assuage an anxious public, has not been forthcoming. The scientists
of Wireless Technology Research (WTR), which is administering a $25 million
research program underwritten by cellular carriers, went on strike in
1997 until the scientists' research was indemnified. Levitt notes that
even the scientists who wrote FCC safety standards 15 years ago also insisted
on indemnification. She sees striking parallels between tobacco scientists
of 30 years ago and today's radiation research scientists. Levitt and
others suspect that many of the bio-electrics researchers "know what
they're dealing with." After five years, the WTR has not
produced any biological test results. The opponents of RF radiation and
the mainstream press are both asking why.
The Duanesburg drama is, fortunately, still the exception -- a tower in
your backyard today doesn't necessarily mean health problems tomorrow.
Blake Levitt, an award-winning medical and science journalist formerly
with The New York Times, and author of "Electromagnetic Fields, A
Consumer's Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves" (1995
Harcourt Brace), explains why biological response to a tower's radiation
is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. "Transmitters don't always
do what the engineers intended." "And, " she says, "people
in Duanesburg might be experiencing cross exposure from airport towers.
They may have large metal objects like water towers in the area... in
the presence of metal you get hot spots." She says that even an unusual
plumbing grid, significant concentrations of iron in the soil, or a high
water table can augment radiation's effect.
While the research that will bring all parties into agreement may be long
in coming, and U.S. policy may always be industry-driven, the AHA thinks
there is plenty that industry and government could be doing now to protect
consumers from the possible ill-effects of radiation. Goldsmith says that
all cell phones should be
Klaus I would like people on your list to know that Libby Kelley in San
Francisco California ,<www.eneryfields.org>is
a pioneer in bringing the health problems related to EMFto public and
government attention. She has spent many Days and many Dollars, for the
benefit of the general public,regarding the health effects of EMF.For
the best of all information one can find,I would recommend two video tapes
that where produced by The Council on Wireless Technology Impacts. They
can be ordered at http://www.energyfields.org
One is a Congessional Staff Briefing by Dr Ted Litovitz with the Catholic
University in Washington DC The effects of EMR on the human body,(a must)and
the other called Public Exposure. Both are Excellent Films to show to
anyone that doubts the existence of EMF health effects.
Regards from and informant for all contributions
in this EMF.News Robert Riedlinger
This important link was provided from Joanne