Betreff: NEW LEAFLET : Masts Inside Your HOME? Tumours in Your Head? The Downsides of the Mobile/Wireless 'Revolution'
Von: Mobile phone mast network
Datum: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 21:44:57 +0000

Dear All,

When I asked a few weeks ago the only leaflet that was available to warn people about mobile devices was that American one "Your mobile phone is making me sick" by Paul Doyon which raved on a bit, and listed about 3 US books from (in the US) as sources of information. Not really the best effort for sceptics based in the UK, and didn't incorporate newer threats such as DECT, Wi-fi and WiMAX.

As a response to this we wrote our own, and had the majority of the contents sanity-checked by another well-known list member. (Thanks!)

The full text is as follows, but the full PDF version (with a nice cover) can be downloaded from our website at

Please distribute, ideally as an A5 leaflet, as widely as you can, and send to all your contacts. That's what we are doing down/up here in Woking.

Goldsworth Residents Against the Masts

Masts Inside Your HOME? Tumours in Your Head? The Downsides of the Mobile/Wireless 'Revolution'

Various Devices in our Homes work and emit similarly to Mobile Telephone Masts:  Mobile Phones, Wireless Networking (Wi-fi), Cordless Telephones (DECT), Bluetooth, Wireless (Interactive) Whiteboards and Baby Monitors etc.

Looming on the horizon also are City-wide Wi-fi “Clouds”/”Hot Spots”, Wi-fi enabled games consoles, Wireless Entertainment Systems and Wide-area WiMAX. .

The health risks associated with Mobile Telephone Masts come with the above devices too – although no doubt no one has told you this.

Don't let others test their new devices out on you, your family and friends. Remember  you cannot buy your health or life back if you get ill from harmful emissions.

There IS Research and Evidence to show that the technology used in the above is NOT safe. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. This leaflet is not to scare you; it is to Inform You.

Brought to you by GRAM -

Introduction to The Downsides of the Mobile/Wireless 'Revolution'

Do you have a Cordless Phone (DECT, as most now are) or Wireless Networking (Wi-fi) in your house? If you do, or know someone who does or who is thinking about buying these types of device, it is vital that you realise that they work upon the same principles as Mobile Telephones and their Masts. Since shops now sell virtually only Digital Cordless Phones (DECT), your cordless phone will most likely be a DECT phone, even if you were not aware of this. You should also be aware that Bluetooth Devices (such as those found in some luxury cars), Interactive Whiteboards (already in many schools), some Burglar Alarms and many digital Baby Monitors also work along similar lines to Mobile Telephones and their Masts using microwave radiation. Wi-fi “Clouds” or ”Hot Spots” carry similar problems. The latest generation of Games Consoles, often used by young children, are being Wi-fi enabled. A new generation of Wireless Entertainment Systems, Wireless Music Systems, Digital Wireless Streamers, Wireless Stereo Headphones  and Wi-fi Radios use either Wi-fi or “class 1” Bluetooth for distances up to 100m. Whole Towns and Cities are being targeted by Wi-fi providers for Blanket Coverage via Street Lamps. Some next-generation radio bar codes (RFID)s, soon to be used in supermarkets,  use microwave frequencies – others use lower frequencies [25].

Below is a summary of  Independent Research and advice into Mobile Telephony devices that we have put together from various independent sources, with references, which you will find very informative. We are writing this, not to scare you, but to inform you. We looked at Independent Research since it is properly independent and therefore can be trusted to be carried out thoroughly and to be reported correctly and honestly. The UK Government has gained by billions of pounds from the Communications Industry and the latter has invested billions of pounds in the technology used for the above. Both parties of course expect to profit from further revenue from this technology. Therefore 'research' funded by Government or Industry, unfortunately, cannot be trusted – does anyone really believe that they will report any harmful effects from their technology when neither can afford for these devices to be thought of as anything except safe?

Like many people, we never realised the full extent of the health issues around Mobile Telephones, nor the official wall of silence that exists, until circumstances led us to spend a large amount of time and effort looking into the whole issue, initially looking just at the new 3G Mobile Telephones and their Masts. We were shocked, and we expect you will be too.

Just as Mobile Telephones and their masts come with many health risks, so do all of the above products (and we seem to discover more each week) since they use the same microwave frequencies, although we are told nothing about this when we buy these devices. DECT and Wi-fi are the devices that we have personally checked and have found comparable, and worse, emissions, to Mobile Telephone Masts. See our readings in Appendix B.  [N.B. Analogue cordless phones work quite differently, hence they do not have the associated health risks. These analogue phones are harder to find in the shops, but can be bought on-line. An example is BT Freestyle 60  from the BT (Internet) Shop or Currys. Safer still, use a traditional phone with wires].

If you are people who don't want a Mobile Telephone Mast in your area, you certainly do not want any of the above digital devices in your home, since you will be exposing anyone inside your home (and outside, including your nearest neighbours) to these dangerous emissions.

Powerwatch [4] have measured a variety of baby monitors over the last 5 years with the help of parents. DECT pulsing monitors appear to be far more disruptive of the child's sleep causing restlessness, irritability and crying. The original wired alternatives and the older "analogue" cordless ones do not seem to cause the same problems if kept at least one metre away from the cot or bed. They have had a number of reports from parents that their babies did not sleep well and cried a lot when they used DECT monitors but were ok when no baby monitor was used. When parents tried a cheaper analogue monitor, the baby slept as well as they did with no monitor. A DECT monitor placed in a baby's bedroom will expose the child to more pulsing microwave radiation than living near to a mobile phone mast/base station would do. Consequently, whilst there have been no studies done into baby monitors specifically, health warnings from Independent research into Mobile Telephone Masts are also relevant to digital baby monitors.

To introduce this and to aid your understanding:

Several Mobile Phone Operators have recently started quoting the World Health Organisation's statement [2] that “None of the recent reviews have concluded that exposure to the RF fields from mobile phones or their base stations causes any adverse health consequence. However, there are gaps in knowledge that have been identified for further research to better assess health risks.”  Unfortunately, the World Health Organisation is seemingly being manipulated into putting out such a statement by Dr. Repacholi, Coordinator of the Radiation and Environmental Health Unit at the World Health Organisation, a physicist who at least once has appeared as an expert witness for the Mobile Telephone Industry and previously worked on research for Australia's Telstra, the major Australian Mobile Telephone Operator [See Appendix A].

The Mobile Telephone Operators all proudly boast that all of their equipment operates within international exposure limits developed by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Unfortunately, Dr. Repacholi was also a founding member of ICNIRP, was its Chairman at its inception in 1992 and has been “Chairman Emeritus” there since May 1996. [See Appendix A]. The ICNIRP limits, as laid down in 1999 under Dr. Rapacholi's Chairmanship, are widely regarded by Independent Scientists as vastly too high, and ignore the Non-Thermal effects which are becoming increasingly important. [See Appendix C].

The bias towards the Wireless and Mobile Phone Operators' positions shown by the World Health Organisation due to Dr. Rapacholi is  blocking real debate and positive action against potentially dangerous devices. Consequently there is  at least one petition to have Dr. Rapacholi removed from his post at the World Health Organisation. [24]

What are the Non-Thermal Effects detailed in the research?
Here are some examples:
- DNA damage potentially leading to cancers such as Breast cancer and Testicular cancer,
- Signal pulsing, similar to rapidly flashing lights, causing or worsening Epilepsy,
- Reduction in Melatonin levels - and increase in nitric oxide (NO) levels - resulting in: reduced cancer fighting cells in our bodies, sleeping disorders, increased cholesterol levels leading to greater risk of atherosclerosis and coronary heart disease, increased blood pressure giving greater risk of blood clots and strokes. Also increasing chances of serious disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease, Lou Gehrig’s disease, Multiple Sclerosis and Parkinson’s,
- Tinnitus and Hearing problems, Headaches, Reduced drug effectiveness.

The Mobile Telephone Industry is often found quoting small “soundbites” from reports, which appear to support their claims. The Independent Expert group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP), led by Sir William Stewart, which in 1999 investigated the possible health effects of mobile phone technology is one such report. The quote used by the industry is “The balance of evidence to date suggests that exposures to RF radiation below NRPB and ICNIRP guidelines do not cause adverse health effects to the general population”.

What they do NOT quote are the subsequent parts of the report which go on to state that “There is now scientific evidence, however, which suggests that there may be biological effects occurring at exposures below these guidelines.... This does not necessarily mean that these effects lead to disease or injury, but it is potentially important information and we consider the implications below....There are additional factors that need to be taken into account in assessing any possible health effects. Populations as a whole are not genetically homogeneous and people can vary in their susceptibility to environmental hazards. There are well-established examples in the literature of the genetic predisposition of some groups, which could influence sensitivity to disease. There could also be a dependence on age. We conclude therefore that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach”. [5]. This paints a less rosy picture.

If the Independent Scientific Research now available to us were to have been presented at the beginning of the introduction of Mobile Telephones and similar technology in the 1980s it is unlikely that it would have been permitted. If medicines or food stuffs are found to have just a fraction of the number of associated problems that Mobile Telephones etc. appear to have they are not allowed to be sold or licensed.

One Mobile Telephone Operator's leaflet states “Radio waves in the non-ionising part of the electromagnetic spectrum cannot break atomic bonds or change cellular structures within the body in the way that ionising waves can” it goes on to say that “We continually come into contact with natural sources of non-ionising radio waves in the form of sunlight”. What it doesn't make clear is that non-ionising radiation can and does cause changes in cells within our bodies. Our bodies have evolved to deal with a certain amount of cell damage caused by sunlight. As we should well know exposure to too much sunlight can cause potentially fatal skin diseases. Our bodies tan as a form of natural defence to excessive sunlight exposure. We often apply sun cream and sun block to cut down on our exposure to sunlight. Should we not also be ensuring that we cut down on our exposure to microwaves, for which our bodies have NOT evolved natural protection?

Government and the Telecommunication Industry would prefer you to read and hear about their scientists’ ‘research’ - but with their huge financial gains reliant on ‘safe results’ can you blame anyone for being sceptical about how trustworthy their research actually is?

Please read our summary of INDEPENDENT scientific research that, we believe, the government and the industry are trying to suppress. This research is carried out by independent scientists whose careers are often put at risk because they dare to question the safety of Mobile Telephony devices and oppose the government view by saying that these devices may well cause much harm to people.

‘The reality of such a risk to public health is not yet officially recognised, however, and those who dare to depart from the ‘official’ line, by warning of potential dangers to human health posed by non-thermal influences of the radiation used in mobile telephony, are subject to immediate criticism and derision – particularly by those with a vested interest in maintaining the growth of mobile telephony. A good example of this is the ferocious attack by the committee of COST281 on my report for the EU Parliament (commissioned by STOA).’- Dr G J Hyland, in his December 2003 Paper, “The inadequacy of the ICNIRP Guidelines governing human exposure to the microwave emissions of GSM/TETRA Base-stations.” [3]

It is only by assessing independent, good quality information that you or we can make up our own minds about the Mobile Telephone and  Microwave Radiation issue. This document hopes to give you a summary.

Please read this leaflet.

Please also read our leaflet “MOBILE PHONE MASTS: The Awful TRUTH About Their Effects On Your HEALTH” available for free from .     This leaflet is also available free from the same website.

Three Research Groups find Increased danger of Tumours

In early September 2005 the press widely and incorrectly reported that the largest ever study into mobile phone use and brain cancer showed no increase in the first 10 years of use. In fact, this only applied to a rare form of benign tumour, Acoustic Neuroma, and the study did in fact find an increased risk after 10 years of use of 1.8-fold - i.e. almost a doubling in tumour risk. [8]

The researchers compared a group of 966 brain tumour patients with a group of 1,716 healthy patients who had not used cell phones. They found a 20 percent increase in cancers among long-term users.
The study, funded largely by the cell phone industry and published on-line by the British Medical Journal, found a significantly increased risk for tumours that developed on the same side of the head where patients said they most often held the phone. But lead researcher Patricia McKinney said that finding probably was due to “many patients not accurately recalling which ear they'd used most of the time”.
Many critics said conclusions drawn by the researchers were "highly misleading" and might give cell phone users a false sense of security. Alasdair Philips, director of Powerwatch, said the claim of no association of risk is unjustified because the study excluded half the people who developed gliomas because they died before they could be interviewed.
In all, three European research groups involved in separate studies have found an increased risk of brain tumours in people who have used mobile phones for 10 years or more. Two of the studies found a correlation between the tumour's location and the side of the head where people reported they held the phone. One also suggests the greatest risk is in people who began using the phones before age 20.
Two of the studies, one in England and one in Germany, are part of the 13-nation Interphone Study, [9] an effort sanctioned by the World Health Organization to assess possible health risks from the radiation emitted by cell phones. Both studies found an increased risk of glioma, an often deadly brain cancer, in people who had used mobile phones 10 years or more.
An earlier Interphone study, reported in October 2004 by researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, [10] found an increased risk for a non-cancerous brain tumour called acoustic neuroma after 10 years of mobile phone use, but not for glioma.
"When you put the three large Interphone results together -- the German, English and Swedish -- they tell a story, and it begs for attention," said Louis Slesin, publisher of Microwave News, who has been reporting on the health effects of such radiation for two decades.
The German study, conducted by Joachim Schuz and colleagues at the University of Mainz, was published on-line by the American Journal of Epidemiology. The researchers compared a group of 749 brain tumour patients with 1,494 similar people who had not used cell phones and found a doubling of the risk of gliomas after 10 years of use. They said numbers of people in the study who had used the phones for 10 years was small, and the findings need to be confirmed by other studies.
George Carlo, who headed the American cell phone industry's 1990s research program, [12] said the findings indicate a 24 percent increase in tumours among people who used the phone on the same side as the tumour.
 A third study [13] , in the February edition of  International Journal of Oncology, found an increased risk of acoustic neuromas in long-term users. Dr. Lennart Hardell and colleagues at Orebro University in Sweden analysed the cases of 1,254 people diagnosed with benign brain tumours between 1997 and 2003, and compared them with a similar group of 2,162 people who had not used cell phones. They found that people who used analog cell phones starting 15 years before diagnosis developed acoustic neuromas at a rate almost four times higher than the comparison group. In conclusion they state that “Exposure to ionizing radiation, work in laboratories, and work in the chemical industry increased the risk of brain tumors. Use of a cellular telephone was associated with an increased risk in the anatomic area with highest exposure.”.
An analysis in late 2005 by Dr. Henry Lai, head of the Bioelectromagnetics Research Laboratory at the University of Washington in Seattle, said of 271 laboratory or clinical studies done in recent years, about 60% have shown a biological effect in cells or animals exposed to radio frequency radiation.

UK's Health Protection Agency acknowledges Electrosensitivity

A report has recently been published by the UK's Health Protection Agency which  acknowledges for the first time that people can suffer nausea, headaches and muscle pains when exposed to electromagnetic fields. [7] The condition known as electrosensitivity, a heightened reaction to electrical energy, will be recognised as a physical impairment. Increasing numbers of British people are suffering from the syndrome. While the total figure is not known, thousands are believed to be affected to some extent. Britain will follow Sweden where electrosensitivity was recognised as a physical impairment in 2000. About 300,000 Swedish men and women are sufferers. Disappointingly, although the original draft of the report was said to acknowledge the link between Mobile Telephones, Masts and other similar sources to electrosensitivity, this was removed in the final version of the report. This is likely to have been down to pressure from Mobile Phone Operators who fear legal action will be taken against them by sufferers who claim Mobile Telephone Masts have made them ill.

Irresponsible selling of Mobile Phones to Children

There is ample independent research evidence in existence to prove to any sane adult that Mobile Phone technology can and does cause harm to people in the form of cancer, sleep disorders, depression and other potentially life-threatening conditions.

Companies such as TeddyFones [16] are ignoring well-founded advice to children and parents warning of the dangers of exposing developing nervous systems to Mobile Telephone microwave radiation.

Below, are quotes from Sir William Stewart (from the Stewart Reports), the Department of Health and even from the Mobile Operators' Association. They all agree that marketing phones specifically aimed at children is totally irresponsible.

Sir William Stewart, Chairman of the UK's Health Protection Agency [14]

"Sir William, the Government’s leading adviser on radiation, said in January 2005 that children under nine should not use mobiles and that those aged nine to 14 should make only short, essential calls.

He said: “When it comes to suggesting that mobile phones should be available to three- to eight-year-olds, I can’t believe for a moment that can be justified.

“My advice is that they should not have them because children’s skulls are not fully thickened, their nervous systems are not fully developed and the radiation penetrates further into their brains.”

Published research suggests that a child’s brain absorbs 50-70 per cent more of the emissions from a mobile phone than an adult’s."

Department of Health Advice [15]

"Children and young people under 16

Mobile phones are very popular with young people and have obvious attractions for personal security and keeping in touch with others. Parents and young people should make their own informed choices about the use of mobile phones. The current balance of evidence does not show health problems caused by using mobile phones. However the research does show that using mobile phones affects brain activity. There are also significant gaps in our scientific knowledge.

Because the head and nervous system are still developing into the teenage years, the expert group considered that if there are any unrecognised health risks from mobile phone use, then children and young people might be more vulnerable than adults.

The expert group has therefore recommended that in line with a precautionary approach, the widespread use of mobile phones by children (under the age of 16) should be discouraged for non-essential calls. In the light of this recommendation the UK Chief Medical Officers strongly advise that where children and young people do use mobile phones, they should be encouraged to:

    * use mobile phones for essential purposes only
    * keep all calls short - talking for long periods prolongs exposure and should be discouraged

The UK CMOs recommend that if parents want to avoid their children being subject to any possible risk that might be identified in the future, the way to do so is to exercise their choice not to let their children use mobile phones."

Even the Mobile Operators' Association said:-
"The companies we represent don't market their products to under-16s, as recommended by Sir William Stewart. We believe that is a responsible policy and is in line with the advice on health."

Other Recent Scientific Research Findings

[20] Even after one minute of exposure to cell phones, anti-oxidant levels in the blood had dropped significantly.  “The aim of the study was to assess in vitro the effect of electromagnetic field produced by mobile phones on the activity of superoxide dismutase (SOD-1) and the level of malonyldialdehyde (MDA) in human blood platelets. The suspension of blood platelets was exposed to the electromagnetic field with the frequency of 900 MHz for 1, 3, 5, and 7 min. Our studies demonstrated that microwaves produced by mobile phones significantly depleted SOD-1 activity after 1, 5, and 7 min of exposure and increased after 3 min in comparison with the control test. There was a significant increase in the concentration of MDA after 1, 5, and 7 min and decrease after 3 min of exposure as compared with the control test.”

[21]  Study: “Effect of electromagnetic field produced by mobile phones on the activity of superoxide dismutase (SOD-1) and the level of malonyldialdehyde (MDA) -- in vitro study”  Conclusion:  Microwaves produce DNA damage in brain cells.

[22] Study: “Nonlinear wave mechanisms in interactions between excitable tissue and electromagnetic fields”  Conclusion: Microwave radiation or EMFs can disrupt cell signaling, resulting in a broad range of tissue functions. These can present as poor wound healing, malformations of the fetus(unborn), nervous system disruption. “It is now well established that intrinsic electromagnetic fields play a key role in a broad range of tissue functions, including embryonic morphogenesis, wound healing, and information transmission in the nervous system. These same processes may be profoundly influenced by electromagnetic fields induced by an external force.”

[23]  Study:  “ Mobile telephones and cancer -- a review of epidemiological evidence.”  Conclusion:   “There is considerable public concern about possible long-term adverse health effects of mobile phones. While there is scientific controversy about long-term health effects of high-frequency electromagnetic fields lasting for at least 50 yr, the rise and success of mobile telecommunication made it necessary to investigate the problem more comprehensively and assess the possible risk cautiously because never before in history has a substantial proportion of the population been exposed to microwaves in the near field and at comparably high levels. Because the mostly localized exposure target region is the head, most epidemiological studies focus on brain tumors. Overall nine epidemiological studies have been published, four from the United States, two from Sweden, and one each from Denmark, Finland, and Germany. Seven studies were mainly on brain tumors, with one investigating in addition to brain tumors salivary gland cancer and another cancer of the hematopoietic and lymphatic tissues, and one examining intraocular melanoma. All studies have some methodological deficiencies: (1) too short duration of mobile phone use to be helpful in risk assessment, (2) exposure was not rigorously determined, and (3) there is a possibility of recall and response error in some studies. Nevertheless, all studies approaching reasonable latencies found an increased cancer risk associated with mobile phone use. Estimates of relative risk in these studies vary between 1.3 and 4.6 with highest overall risk for acoustic neuroma (3.5) and uveal melanoma (4.2), and there is evidence for enhanced cancer risk with increasing latency and duration of mobile phone use.”

German DECT Phone Warning

[17] German Federal Agency For Radiation Protection (BfS) Press Release 31st  January 2006

DECT - The Radiation Source at Home - BfS: Cordless Phones radiate unnecessarily

“A cordless phone of DECT standard is often the strongest source of high frequency electromagnetic radiation in a private home. To stop using your cordless phone as a precautionary measure will help to reduce your personal radiation exposure. However, it would be possible for the industry to develop DECT phones which could address the issues of precaution and radiation protection better than the current devices” said Rudiger Matthes, expert of the Bundesamt fur Strahlenschutz (Federal Radiation Protection Agency)

Cordless DECT phones have no way of reducing power output according to the actual power needed.  Therefore, the base station and the handset are permanently emitting radiation at the same power level during a call, no matter whether the user holding the handset is one meter or 300 meters away from the base station. Matthes: “Therefore, we demand that cordless phones should be developed to include a feature of power output control, so that the power output during a call would be adapted to the distance of the handset from the base station, using only the level of power necessary to keep the communication going.”

To secure smooth operation, the base station also continually sends a control signal to the handsets, including when the phone is not in use. According to the BfS, cordless telephones should be devised so that they are emission free on stand by mode.

Microwave Radiation – An Emerging Healthcare Crisis

In the newly published book “Would You Put Your Head in a Microwave” [18]* the author, Gerald Goldberg, MD makes a compelling case for us requiring a great deal of concern over the steep rise in many kinds of cancer during the late 1990s (1994-1999) – a period of massive take-up in the use of Mobile Telephones, and the erection of Mobile Telephone Masts. The Cancer Atlas of the United Kingdom and Ireland 1991-2000 [19] shows us that Brain cancer and Lymphomas have gone up all across the UK, whilst leukaemia, testicular, laryngeal, prostate and uterine cancer rates have gone up nearly exponentially. The tissue in the larynx is particularly sensitive to microwave radiation. The statistics do not discount other factors, but the increase in the use of microwave devices has been uniform across the UK in the period covered. Is this a coincidence? Hmm. The book indicates that the pattern is roughly the same across the USA as well.

“Regardless of the type of exposure the effects of the radiation are cumulative. That is if you received a large exposure over a short period of time or if you received a low dose exposure over a longer period of time the results are the same. The total exposure is cumulative; in essence there is no safe dose. ”

The book tells us to look out for patterns in symptoms which may indicate damage due to microwaves and not to dwell on the name that doctors may give to specific illnesses.

“Regardless of what the doctor calls it the pattern of burn injury and response of the body is the same. The pattern looks the same:
1.  Blood flow diminishes
2. Organ function deteriorates
3. The body breaks down
4. The body starts to loose the ability to repair or heal itself
5. Body metabolism is profoundly affected with the inability to stay warm in a cold climate or the inability to cool off in a warm climate.
6. The individual suffers from profound fatigue
7.  The individual can note a prompt drop-off in functionality, for example a decrease in eyesight or mental acuity that starts abruptly without any discernible cause.
8. Frequent and unremitting colds, infections or not feeling well all the time, associate with muscle aches, arthralgias and other manifestations.”

The author goes on to ask a very good question, which it would be as well for us all to consider. “one should ask oneself, how could everyone across different regions of the country be getting sick at the same time? Also how is it that the number of ill people seems to be increasing in numbers! Focus on the common link. There are not many things in nature that can affect individuals across broad geographic areas. Microwave radiation exposure is the singular unifying link till proven otherwise. There should be no debate. Apart from all the other environmental toxins and pollutants that we are exposed to microwave radiation will act as accelerant of illness.”

* An important point to note about the book “Would You Put Your Head in a Microwave” is that the author, Gerald Goldberg, MD (Doctor of Medicine) has attempted to make his own interpretation of the way that microwaves trigger the symptoms that people suffer. He suggests that microwave energy accumulates as heat retained deep in the body, and that it is the heat which causes the problems. However, Independent Scientists have shown that these symptoms do not need heating to cause them. Certainly higher frequencies do not penetrate deeply, especially at power levels from masts. The oven analogy is in some ways unfortunate since it contradicts the non-thermal (i.e. non-heating) effects that campaigners and Independent Scientists constantly argue is the true problem. This should not diminish the overall message of the book which is to highlight a very real increase in cancers and other symptoms since the mid 1990s which bear the hallmark of radiation sickness – just in the same time frame as we have been increasingly exposed to microwave radiation from mobile and wireless technology.

A key point to remember has to be that "frequency matters, perhaps more than energy (power)". Engineers call the  mobile/wireless microwave part of the Electro Magnetic Spectrum the "sweet spot", because it balances voice/data carrying capacity against range/distance. Too high a frequency and the distance covered decreases, too low a frequency and voice/data carrying capacity decreases. The biological effects on living things are rarely, if ever,  considered by the engineers and physicists who build the mobile/wireless devices and set so-called safety limits.

Appendix A - Prof Goldsmith about Dr. Repacholi, Coordinator of the Radiation and Environmental Health Unit, World Health Organisation

“After the death of Prof Goldsmith, I followed the wise advice of Don Maisch and got his publications that were left in Ben Gurion university in Beer Sheva (Israel) where Prof Goldmith had worked. This was in 2002.
There were about 5 articles left, and one of them contains a description of Dr. Michael Repacholi's history with regard to the radiation for which he is responsible until this day, as the World Health Organization's head of the radiation department and ICNIRP member at the same time. I've just copied the specific part from the article "From sanitation to cellphones: Participants and principles involved in environmental health protection" which appeared in 1997 in the Public Health Rev. 25: 123-149. I do not know of an online source for the full article but I think that the information that was given there is not known to many people who fight the WHO/Electrosmog and is very important to our context, such an info mustn't be lost. It is also a court document for those who consider a lawsuit.” Iris Altman, Feb 21st 2006, Prof Goldsmith about Dr. Repacholi
page 141-3:- “It turned out that an Australian physicist, Dr. Michael Repacholi, played almost every role in the subsequent developments. The ICNIRP was originally chaired by Dr. Repacholi, who was also a staff member of the World Health Organization, seeking money from Health Ministries and others for an international effort to better understand and deal with health risks from non-ionizing radiation. When a community group in New Zealand brought a legal action to prevent locating a cell broadcast facility within 50 meters of a preschool play area, Repacholi was the expert witness for Bellsouth Corp., the operator of the facility. The planning tribunal hearing the complaint decided to allow the facility to operate provided it never exceeded 2 microwatts/cm² in a school or dwelling.
In November 1996, as an Officer of the ICNIRP, he convened a group of scientists to evaluate the non-thermal health risks of microwave radiation. He prepared and distributed a report of the meeting before it convened. Among other statements it contained was the allegation that since microwave radiation was not mutogenic, it could not be carcinogenic. This is both a non-sequitur and untrue, and despite objections with abundant evidence it persisted in subsequent drafts. Successive drafts had less and less epidemiological evidence, and the summary of such evidence which was cited was always said to be inconsistent and difficult to understand.
Only the most strenuous objections and threats to publish opposed views to those of the report brought some accommodation (31).
But in December 1996 a report of excess cancer in the vicinity of broadcast towers for TV and FM (not microwave cell broadcast facilities, which have much smaller output of power) in North Sydney Australia was published (32). The next month two reports of the same kind of effect (adult leukemia, which showed a gradient with distance from the towers) in the U.K were published (33,34). These articles made it clear that there was a carcinogenic potential from radiofrequency exposures. Estimated exposures were 2-8 microwatts/cm².
Up to this time, experimental animals exposed did not show increased malignancies, although and Singh had shown that microwave exposures to rats did lead to single and double-strand DNA lesions(35).
In April 1997, in Radiation Research there appeared an article on a two-year study in Australia of transgenic mice who spontaneously showed increase in lymphoma (36). When exposed to RF radiation similar in timing and energy to that of users of cellphones, they developed twice as many lymphomas as did a sham-treated animals, a quite significant excess. This probably under-estimated the risk to humans since the animals were exposed to RF midfield rather than at the site of generation, as are humans using cellphones.
The authorship of the article and sponsorship of the research were even more surprising. Michael Repacholi was the senior author and the work was supported by Telstra, the major Australian cellphone company. Furthermore, the findings had been kept secret for about two years at the request of the company. A parallel study of ELF at the same institution (Royal Adelaide Hospital, Sydney) has not been released either (personal communication from Stewart Fist). So all of the time as Editor of the ICNIRP Seminar report Dr. Repacholi had been insisting that RF could not be a carcinogenic, he had been withholding information, at his industrial sponsors behest, that in fact it was an animal carcinogen, finding for which he himself was responsible."
31 Repacholi MH, ed) Low-level exposure to radio-frequency fields: Health effects and research needs. Submitted for publication to Bioelectromagnetics.
32 Hocking B, Gordon R, Grain HL, Hatfield, GE. Cancer incidence and mortality and proximity to TV towers. Med J Aust 1996; 165: 601-605.
33 Dol H e al Cancer incidence near radio and television transmitters in Great Britain I. Sutton – Coldfield transmitter. Am J Epidemiol 1997; 145: 1-9.
34 Dol H Elliot et al. Cancer incidence near radio and tv transmitters in Great Britain II. All high power transmitters. Am J Epidemiol 1997; 154:10-17.
35 Lai H, Singh NP. Acute low-intensity microwave exposure increases DNA signle strand breaks in rat brain cells. Int Rad Biol 1996; 69: 513-521.
36. Repacholi MH, Baten A, Gebski V, Noonan D, Finnie J, Harris AW. Lymphomas in Eu-Pim 1 transgenic mice exposed to pulsed 900 MHz electromagneticfields. Rad Res 1997; 147: 631- 640.

Appendix B -  DECT, Wi-fi and Microwave Oven COM Meter Readings

DECT (Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications) Cordless Phones
DECT is a cellular system like GSM/2G or UTMS/3G mobile telephones. A major difference between the types of system is the cell radius. DECT cells have a radius of 25 to 100 meters, while GSM/2G cells are 2 to 10 km. UTMS/3G cells are smaller than GSM cells.
DECT uses a frequency of 1880-1900MHz whilst GSM/2G uses 1800MHz and 900MHz and UTMS/3G uses 2100MHz. (See more technical details.)
In our tests the DECT base station was CONSTANTLY transmitting, even when the handset was in the cradle (i.e. when the phone itself was not being used), giving us a COM meter reading of 60 times the “the suggested Precautionary Maximum” (P.Max) (*) or more close up, with a still highly significant reading of 25 times P.Max at a distance of 1 metre or so.
The DECT handset, when activated, gave a a COM meter reading of 60 times P.Max or more close up – towards the maximum reading on our meter – not good news especially if you use cordless phones for any period of time.
Wi-Fi Wireless Networking
Wi-fi, commonly based upon either IEEE 802.11b (5.9 Mbit/s ) or the faster 802.11g (54 Mbit/s) standard, uses an unlicensed microwave frequency of 2400MHz (2.4 GHz). This is the same part of the spectrum as used by microwave ovens, Bluetooth devices and analogue cordless phones. (See for more information). The new 802.11n Wi-fi will operate in the higher-powered, longer distance 5GHz microwave band.  
In our tests the Wi-fi router box was transmitting in pulses, even when no devices were connecting to it, giving us a significant COM meter reading of 30 times P.Max (*) or more close up, with a reading of 15 times P.Max at a distance of 1 metre or so.
More significantly, a laptop with a Wi-fi network card inside it gave a COM meter reading of 60 times P.Max or more close up whilst it was connected to the network. This reading was also found UNDERNEATH the laptop, i.e. where your lap would be. Consequently if you were surfing the Internet for any length of time your legs and abdomen would be in close proximity to a very significant amount of microwaves.
Before connecting to the network, and therefore at rest, the Wi-fi network card gave out a “heartbeat” pulse every 10 seconds or so – again at a value of 60 times P.Max Moving 1 metre or so away from the laptop, a still significant COM meter reading of 25 times P.Max was registered.
[For these tests, the laptop was positioned two rooms away from the router, a common scenario for others using this type of set-up].
Please Note: For both DECT and Wi-fi systems, anyone may be sitting, playing or sleeping with their heads or bodies for hours at a time in the maximum or medium field receiving a 'dosage' of the radiation.  So may their neighbours if your device or router is near to their house. And, even though the extreme and very high readings come from very near both the above devices, all throughout your house and garden, and your neighbours' house and garden too (unless they are a long way away) you and your neighbours will be constantly receiving lower but continuous emissions from these devices – when, without the devices, you would be receiving none. This is a massive health hazard to all of you in your house, and to your neighbours and friends.
Microwave Ovens
We also decided to check our microwave oven. This works on approximately 2450MHz, much like Wi-fi, and indeed is known to disrupt wireless networks.
We discovered that close up the oven produced a reading of 60 times P.Max (*) or more, cycling down to about 25 times P.Max as the microwave “stirrer” moved around. Worryingly if you stood in front of a microwave oven for any length of time – or were a frequent user – the readings some 30 cm away were still peaking near to 30 times P.Max. At 1m the readings were peaking at 10 times P.Max, tailing off beyond this. The sides of the microwave oven didn't appear to leak in the way that the oven door did. The model in tested was a 3 ½ year old Sharp microwave with a rotating base. This model “passed” the “microwave safety” indicator borrowed from a friend – supposedly indicating that no leaks were present. (For more information see )
(*) Key: The Regional Government in Salzburg, Austria have set the acceptable limit for emissions in homes, under advice from Independent scientists, to just under 0.1 V/m – also referred to as “the suggested 0.1 V/m precautionary maximum”.  Hence all readings are now expressed as “times P.Max”'s – where 0.7 V/m = 7 times P.Max. Hence 1 P.Max can be considered for the most part “safe”, whilst any more is too high to be considered safe at all. Much less than 1 P.Max would be better still, however.
7 to 20 times P.Max - ‘Low’ is "the sort of precautionary levels found in other European countries".
20 to 40 times P.Max - ‘Medium and ‘High’ may ‘have serious health consequences for those exposed’.
60 times P.Max - also described by the meter manufacturers as a cause for concern, and advise that a professional comes to check the area.

 Assuming a standard impedance of 377 Ohms in air, 6 V/m (60 times P.Max) equates to a Power Density of approximately 0.95 mW/m2 , 2.5 V/m (25 times P.Max) equates to 0.166 mW/m2 and 1 V/m (10 times P.Max) equates to 0.026 mW/m2, 0.1V/m (1 P.Max) equates to 0.0265 mW/m2.

Appendix C - Inadequacy of the ICNIRP Guidelines

Government and Telecommunication Companies quote the ‘ICNIRP Guidelines’ as assurances of safety for any mast/s saying, 'The mast has an ICNIRP [safety] Certificate' or, 'The mast's emissions fall well below the ICNIRP Guidelines', etc.

However, the ICNIRP Guidelines ONLY cover the Thermal (i.e. heating) effects of Mobile Telephone Mast emissions. Hence all that an ICNIRP certificate means is that the mast won’t cook you!

When the guidelines were made in 1998 it was generally thought that the only effects of the Mobile Telephone Mast emissions would be thermal, hence the ICNIRP Guidelines as they currently stand.

However, it is now widely accepted that NON-Thermal effects do occur but, vitally and to our minds, negligently, these guidelines have NOT been updated to include NON-Thermal effects.

The Thermal (heating) effects are accepted to be negligible - however, NON-Thermal effects are now known to affect the make-up of our bodies and how our bodies work, posing real risks to our health and to our lives.

This summary details some of the NON-Thermal effects.

>From studying independent research it is clear that, although the ICNIRP Guidelines are always quoted to assure the public of the safety of a Mobile Telephone Mast, these assurances are completely FALSE since the ICNIRP Guidelines DO NOT PROTECT US against the NON-Thermal effects, which are being negligently and completely ignored.

Many people believe that the reason that the ICNIRP Guidelines have not been updated with guidelines for NON-Thermal effects is because there is still no “dose-response equation” for no risk (or acceptable risk). Dr. Neil Cherry [1] said, the safe level for microwaves is nil. Additionally, the ICNIRP Guidelines ignore long-term low-level exposure to microwaves.

The Government tell us “If a proposed mobile phone base station meets the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure it should not be necessary for a local planning authority, in processing an application for planning permission or prior approval, to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them”.

However, the view of Dr. Hyland from Warwick University is that these regulations are completely inadequate:

“… It must thus be concluded that GSM/TETRA telecommunication technology, as currently regulated by the ICNIRP safety guidelines, is less than safe, and constitutes a risk to public health because these guidelines afford absolutely no protection against non-thermal biological influences exerted by the kind of radiation emitted by the associated Base-stations.“ [3]

Dr. Hyland [3] has carried out a lot of research on Mobile Telephone Mast emissions. Relevant research shows how the current ICNIRP Guidelines, as adopted in the UK, are woefully inadequate since they only protect against thermal effects and, vitally, not against NON-Thermal effects, which are far more relevant.

Since it is accepted that, at the levels given off by the Mobile Telephone Masts, thermal effects on people are negligible, ICNIRP Guidelines are therefore not protecting people at all.

The government as well as the telecommunication industry and other interested parties appear to be deliberately ignoring the NON-Thermal effects of the radiation from Mobile Telephone Masts, claiming that there is no research to say that Mobile Telephone Masts are not safe. This is quite untrue. There is plenty of evidence from independent scientists that warn us of grave dangers to our health from the radiation from Mobile Telephone Masts.

It must also be noted that other countries have adopted much stricter guidelines than Britain has, and there are moves in some European cities for much, much lower limits on Mobile Telephone Mast emissions of microwave radiation.

Appendix D Other Sources of Information and Further Reading

GRAM website -        EM Radiation Research Trust –
Powerwatch –         Mast Action UK –        
TETRAwatch –        Sitefinder -    
Mast Sanity –        TETRA Sanity -

“Electromagnetic Fields: A Consumer's Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves” by Blake B. Levitt – ISBN 0156281007 – (1995)

“Cell Towers: Wireless Convenience? or Environmental Hazard?” edited by B. Blake Levitt – ISBN 188482062X (Dec 2000)

Also DVD - "Public Exposure: Democracy, DNA, and the "Wireless Revolution." Available at

Appendix E – References

[1] Dr Neil Cherry –

[2] Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile telephones and their base stations

[3] “The inadequacy of the ICNIRP Guidelines governing human exposure to the microwave emissions of GSM/TETRA Base-stations.” By Dr. G J Hyland

[4] Powerwatch on Baby Monitors

[5] Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones

[6] International Journal of Oncology - February 2006 issue, where this study is published . Summary at

[7] UK Health Protection Agency Report on Electrosensitivity Press Release

[8] “Mobile phone use and risk of acoustic neuroma: results of the Interphone case-control study in five North European countries” Summary at

[9] The INTERPHONE Study

[10] Karolinska Institute, Sweden

[11]  Cellular Telephone Use and Risk of Acoustic Neuroma by  Joachim Schüz et al

[12] “Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age: An Insider's Alarming Discoveries about Cancer and Genetic Damage” - by George Louis Carlo and Martin Schram – ISBN 078670960X (Feb 2002).

[13] “Case-control study on radiology work, medical x-ray investigations, and use of cellular telephones as risk factors for brain tumors.” by Lennart Hardell et al.

[14] “Don't allow under-9s to use a mobile “ - Daily Telegraph;jsessionid=WCUHJWXLGHL1ZQFIQMGCFGGAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2005/01/12/nmob12.xml

[15] Department of Health Advice

[16] Teddyfone Stories ITV - , Daily Telegraph Omega News-

[17] German Federal Agency For Radiation Protection DECT warning -

[18] “Would You Put Your Head In a Microwave Oven? - 2.46 GIGAHERTZ Microwave Radiation: An Emerging Healthcare Crisis” by Gerald Goldberg, MD – ISBN 1425904807. ( Feb 2006 - not widely available, see  

[19] UK National Statistics Office – Cancer Atlas of the United Kingdom and Ireland 1991-2000

[20] Med Pr. 2002;53(4):311-4 “Effect of electromagnetic field produced by mobile phones on the activity of superoxide dismutase (SOD-1) and the level of malonyldialdehyde (MDA) -- in vitro study” by Stopczvk D. et al

[21] Environ Health Perspect. 2004 May; 112(6):687-94 “Magnetic-field-induced DNA strand breaks in brain cells of the rat.” by  Lai H. Singh NP. Bioelectromagnetics Research Laboratory, Department of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195-7962, USA.

[22] Neurol Res. 1982;4(l-2): 115-53 “Nonlinear wave mechanisms in interactions between excitable tissue and electromagnetic fields.” by  Lawrence AF. Adev WR.

[23] J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2004 Sep-Oct;7(5):351-84 “Mobile telephones and cancer -- a review of epidemiological evidence.” Kundi M. Mild K. Hardell L. Mattsson MQ., Institute of Environmental Health, Department for Occupational and Social Hygiene, Medical Faculty, University of Vienna Kinderspitalgasse 15 A-1095 Vienna Austria.

[24] Petition to have Dr. Rapacholi removed from his post at the World Health Organisation

 [25] RFIDs -    

Remember, There Is A Choice:
Put  Health First, NOT the profits of the telecommunication and consumer electronics industries.
They will not pay for you to get well again, so do not give them the money to make you sick in the first place.
If you really do care about your friends, your family, yourself and the world you live in, please do the following:

–    Get rid of your DECT phone system. Get a safer analogue device instead. (An example of a cordless analogue phone is BT Freestyle 60 ). Better still, stick to a wired phone.
–    Get rid of Wi-fi wireless networks and use WIRES instead. They are more secure anyway.
–    Don't buy ANY of the wireless devices listed at the beginning of this leaflet. If you already have any get rid of them. If you can, replace them with safer wired or analogue alternatives. If you can't do without.
–    Cancel Your Mobile Phone Contract ASAP if you have one.*
–    Copy  this leaflet and give to everyone you know.
–    Become informed by reading the Referenced sources and inform others.
–    Write to your MP and local Councillors to tell them that you too are concerned.
–    Take action by joining support groups such as Mast Sanity or the EM Radiation Research Trust.
–    Sign the On-line Petition to have Dr. Rapacholi removed from his post at the World Health Organisation due to his Serious Conflict of Interests [24]
You cannot buy your health or your life back, nor those of your children or family, if they are cruelly taken away.
Such devices as detailed in this leaflet come with clear and serious health risks.
•    If you are concerned about emergencies swap to “pay as you go” until you are happy to do without. You must realise that every user demands a mast, and that demand ensures a mast (or several) outside someone's home.