Betreff: What Doctors don't tell you


Datum: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 09:23:43 +0100



It's well worth a subscription, trust me.


Text follows:-


Mobile phones: DNA damage discovered

For years, governments around the world have denied that the low level of radiation from mobile phones is harmful to health. But now, explosive new evidence from a number of quarters shows that cell-phone radiation causes permanent damage to the DNA in cells, even with infrequent use.


Things have been hotting up since our October 2006 report on the dangers of WiFi and mobile phones (WDDTY vol 17 no 7). Finally, even the official scientific government advisors are having to acknowledge the potential for harm from these wireless technologies. It's partly in response to the sheer volume of adverse published reports in the research literature (see box below), but it's also because there's now a plausible mechanism for the dangers.

From the days 25 years ago, when a mobile phone was the size of a large brick—and cost nearly its weight in gold to buy one—nowadays, over two billion people around the world own a mobile. That's one-third of the world's population. This explosive uptake of mobile phones has been called "the largest human biological experiment ever" (by Swedish neurosurgeon Dr Leif Salford) because the technology has been marketed without any safety testing whatever—an incredibly bizarre omission in an era of such blanket health-and-safety legislation.

The reason is simply that the world's experts originally thought mobile phones and masts were simply too low-powered to be harmful. The belief was that the only danger would be from a rise in temperature. To put it crudely, if a mobile couldn't cook you, it couldn't hurt you.


Trawling through the research

That's still the official view today, although it's becoming increasingly untenable in the light of new evidence. One of the first scientists to question the conventional position was Professor of Bioengineering Dr Henry Lai at the University of Washington, in Seattle. Lai showed that when rat brain cells were subjected to electromagnetic radiation similar to that emitted by


mobile phones, breaks occurred in the DNA of the cells. This led him to speculate that mobile-phone radiation could be directly damaging DNA as well as its repair mechanisms (Int J Radiat Biol, 1996;69:513-21).

These animal findings were later confirmed in another 'test-tube' study, this time using isolated human brain cells. In this case, a team headed by Professor Franz Adlkofer at the University of Vienna reported evidence of "non-thermal DNA breakage by mobile phone radiation" (Mutat Res, 2005; 583: 178-83).

Other significant biological effects have been found by researchers at Columbia University Health Sciences

in New York. This group exposed fruit flies to a standard mobile radiofrequency output, and found an increase in the production of 'heat shock protein (hsp)70'—an indication of cell stress—with no direct thermal heating effects. This damage took place "within minutes" (J Cell Biochem, 2003; 89: 48-55).

Researchers at Athens University also using fruit flies reported that "mobile telephony radiation . . . was found to decrease significantly and non-thermally the insect's reproductive capacity" (Electromagn Biol Med, 2007; 26: 33-44). They also found "degeneration of large numbers of egg chambers after DNA fragmentation of their constitu­ent cells"—after less than a week's exposure to mobile-phone radiation for just a few minutes each day (Mutat Res, 2007;626:69-78).

A major review of the biological effects of mobile-phone radiation was recently done by the ECOLOG Insti­tute in Hanover, Germany. Although commissioned and paid for by two mobile-phone companies, German T-Mobil and Deutsche Telekom, the report was hard-hitting. It confirmed "disturbances of DNA replication" caused by mobile-phone wavelengths. This could explain the cancer-causing effects of these devices, the report said—even at their relatively low power.

"Obvious disturbance of the com­munication between cells, which is a prerequisite for the uninhibited

Wireless update

The incidence of malignant brain tumours was found to be 5.9 times higher risk after analogue mobile-phone use, 3.7 times higher after digital mobile use and 2.3 times higher after cordless phone use, with more than 2000 cumulative hours (Int Arch Occup Environ Health, 2006; 79: 630-9). Albeit in rats, and so may not apply to humans, mobile telephone radiation leads to oxidative stress in cornea and lens tissues in the eye (Curr Eye Res,

2007; 32: 21-5).

Because of the shape of their heads, children receive 60 per cent more radiation from mobiles than adults do (Electromagn Biol Med, 2006; 25: 349-60). Studies funded by the mobile-phone industry are the least likely to find any evidence Of harm (Environ Health Perspect, 2007; 115: 1-4). A Danish study found no connection between mobile phone use and brain tumours (J Natl Cancer Inst, 2006; 98: 1707-13). Critics point out that this study (a) did not control for the amount of mobile phone use, (b) mostly involved infrequent users, and (c) was funded by the cellular phone industry.

20 August 2007

The birds and the bees

There has been a huge decline in house sparrow numbers across Europe, an effect that, say Belgian scientists, may be due to mobile-phone technology. In a study of six mobile mast sites, they found that male sparrows avoided areas with the highest electrical-field strengths (Electromagn Biol Med, 2007; 26: 63-72).

Another steep decline has also been documented in the number of bees, variously ascribed to the weather, pesticides or a virus. Campaigners think mobile-phone radiation is the most likely culprit, and one study has been carried out in Germany to test the theory.

Last year, scientists from the University of Koblenz-Landau placed cordless-phone (DECT) base stations inside of four beehives to see what effect they might have on the bees' behaviour. As a control, an identical set of four , beehives without a DECT station was also assessed.

The results were striking. They found a 21-per-cent drop in the total weight of the honeycombs in the DECT-radiated hives. There was also a marked difference in the apparent willingness of the bees to return to their hives after foraging: on average, roughly 40 bees would return in the first hour to the normal hives compared with around eight to the DECT hives (Harst w et al. Can Electromagnetic Exposure Cause a Change in Behaviour? Landau, Germany: University of Koblenz-Landau, 2006).

proliferation of cells that is charac­teristic for cancer development, occurs at [mobile power levels of] just a few watts per metre," the report stated (Hennies K et al. Mobile Telecommunications and Health. Hanover, Germany: ECOLOG-lnstitut fur sozial-okologische Forschung und Bildung GmbH, 2000).

Equally alarming is the evidence that these effects can take place within the brain. The body normally has a self-protective mechanism to prevent toxins from entering the brain, but there is rapidly accumulating evidence that mobile-phone frequencies can cause this blood-brain barrier to break down. Indeed, there is "a whole series of studies in which a greatly increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier was produced through pulsed high-frequency fields of very low intensity . . . which corresponded to those of mobile telephony", states the report.


The theories so far

Scientists are beginning to get a handle on how mobile radiation might be causing the damaging effects seen in brain cells—although, at present, these are only theories, not hard facts.

An Italian group from the University of Padua believes that mobile radiation may cause "neuron cell membrane gating" and disruptions to cellular calcium-regulating mechanisms (Non­linear Dynamics Psychol Life Sci, 2007; 11: 197-218).

The Athens University team men­tioned above thinks that mobile radiation causes the cell membrane to vibrate, thereby disrupting its electrochemical balance (Biochem Biophys Res Commun, 2002; 298: 95-102).

But perhaps the most developed theory has come from the leading American electromagnetic-radiation expert, Dr George Carlo. An epi­demiologist by training, 15 years ago, Carlo was lavishly funded by the cellphone industry to investigate mobile-phone safety—but he came up with conclusions that the industry didn't want to hear.

Carlo's theory is that mobile radiation activates a 'protein vibra­tional receptor' on the cell membrane, which the body interprets as a foreign invader. In self-defence, the cell shuts

down its normal functions, striving to make the cell membrane less permeable. This, however, prevents necessary cell nutrients from getting in, and also stops waste products from getting out. The result of this is a buildup of free radicals, leading to a 'dysfunctional' cell—and, hence, the breaching of the blood-brain barrier, says Dr Carlo.

Worse is yet to come, however. The accumulating free radicals also inter­fere with DNA synthesis, causing the strands to fragment into 'micro-nuclei', which are then free to swim about outside of the cells. Normally these cellular fragments would be mopped up by macrophages but, because the cell is now too energy (nutrient)-defieient to cope, the micronuclei proliferate, ultimately leading to tumour formation.


The new sea of radiation

But aren't these theories flying in the face of common sense? After all, we have been surrounded by electro­magnetic fields (EMFs) for over a century, with no apparent adverse health effects.

The answer lies in the type of electromagnetic radiation, claims Dr Carlo. Until the advent of mobiles, most of our artificially created EMFs have been using frequencies similar to those found in the earth's natural

background radiation, which is being emitted from radon gas, lightning, the sun or the earth's own magnetic field. Also, over the course of our human evolution, our bodies have developed defence mechanisms against those natural frequencies.

What's different about mobile phones and wireless technology is that they use 'information-earning waves'. Although they are low in power, these waves operate at frequencies that our bodies have never met before but which, nevertheless, can resonate with our body's cells and cause adverse reactions.

Dr Carlo's conclusion is stark. "Where you have a biological mech­anism like this, which is triggered at cell-membrane level, you have no threshold; there is no level below which this mechanism is not triggered," he says.

As this sounds rather apocalyptic, why aren't we all dropping dead like fruit flies? His answer is that, for most of us, the immune system can cope— at least in the short term. But there are a substantial number of people who will go on to develop so-called 'electrohypersensitivity', for whom the cellular damage is "irreversible", he said, in a lecture delivered at the House of Commons in London, in February 2007.

Tony Edwards


WDDTYvol 18 no 5 21 wrote:

Hi All


I looked on the WDDTY website (as given in the link) and I don't think you can just buy the issue with the article in, but have to pay £59 for a year's subscription.  Maybe someone on the Masts email list subscribes and would post the full article? Summary below.






The truth about mobile phones and your health

Even research sponsored by the operators reveals how they can harm us

You may never have heard of Dr George Carlo, and the mobile phone industry hope you never do.  He’s an eminent epidemiologist who was given large research funds by mobile phone operators to prove that their products were safe.

Unfortunately, he came back with a completely different picture, and one that operators have been trying to suppress ever since.

He discovered that regular mobile phone use releases an excess of free radicals, which ultimately increases the chances of tumour formation.

Dr Carlo’s findings are explained in the latest issue of ‘What Doctors Don’t Tell You’, which is available for immediate despatch to every new subscriber. 
To start your subscription, please click here.

He is not the only scientist to discover the damage that’s being done at the DNA and cellular levels.  A major institute in Germany – again sponsored by two mobile phone operators – found among regular phone users “disturbances of DNA replication”. 

Again, they fear that mobile phone usage – even at the low powers at which they operate – leads to cell proliferation, which is a precursor of cancer.

But worse, these effects happen in the brain, which is normally protected by the blood-brain barrier.

The latest science, including the suppressed reports, is explained in the very latest issue of ‘What Doctors Don’t Tell You’.  It’s available to all new subscribers – so,
to start your subscription, please click here.

So why is it that mobile phones are so dangerous when humans have always been surrounded by electro-magnetic fields as part of the earth’s environmental makeup?  We’ve coped with the earth’s natural EMF frequencies as background radiation, after all.

The key is in the type of EMF waves.  Although they are of a low power, EMFs from mobile phones use “information-carrying waves” that work at a frequency our bodies have never before encountered. 

Nevertheless, they resonate with our body’s cells and can cause adverse reactions.

So what does this all mean, and how can we counter the EMFs?  The latest issue of ‘What Doctors Don’t Tell You’ explains what’s happening and what you can do. 
To subscribe – and get this special report – please click here.

This message has been brought to you by: What Doctors Don't Tell You is a trading name of Wddty Ltd.
Company registration No. 3065168.  Registered in England and Wales. Registered office: 2 Salisbury Road, Wimbledon, London, SW19 4EZ. Vat Number 833 0913 46




Using wi-fi has cost me my life

Sunday Express August 5th 2007 pp50-51


FAISAL KHAWAJA, 28, above, trained in photography and had been assisting a professional advertising photographer -working for clients such as Mercedes, BT and Starbucks -for only a year when he says he began to feel III using mobiles and wireless laptops


MY JOB was to keep everyone happy so I spent hours on my mobile, liaising between equipment suppliers, ordering props, talking to clients.


After a year in the job, I began to get headaches on the side of my head where I'd use the mobile, along with a feeling of pressure inside my ears when I was on the phone.

They even began to ooze clear liquid.


At first the problem would last for minutes, then hours, then days. And then I started developing symptoms when I used cordless land lines, too.


I developed a red rash on my cheeks and nose, my face seemed hot and prickly, my head felt foggy and I was no longer able to focus. I couldn't form sentences and my jaw would feel locked, as if I was talking through sand.


The flashlights we used in the studio began to have the same effect and then the digital cameras. When I couldn't even use a laptop any more -essential for storing and transmitting photography - because my fingers used to burn when I touched the keypad, I had to resign. I lost everything I'd trained for.


I've had to move gradually farther and farther out of London and into the countryside the more masts and wi-fi networks have increased - if my neighbour goes wireless, I have to find somewhere else to live.


I've ended up in a house in the Cotswolds with no neighbours for 50 yards in any direction. I've been lucky in that my girlfriend, Laura, 29, has moved with me and has even retrained as an upholsterer as I'm trying to make a living as an artist so that we don't have to rely on technology for work. We've had to start all over again.

With teachers'chiefs urging the Government to suspend the use of wi-fi networks in the classroom until their safety has been definitely confirmed, JOANI WALSH reports on the symptoms of electrosensitivity and talks to the victims who say that their lives have been devastated by the effects of wireless technology


MICHAEL Bevington knows exactly what it's like to feel allergic to modern life. Head of Classics at Stowe public school in Buckingham, the father of three became so ill after the school installed wi-fi in his classroom last year that, within a week, he was ready to give up a near-30-year career rather than risk his health by continuing to work with what he believed to be the cause of his symptoms.

"I immediately began suffering from headaches, heart palpitations, nausea and pains all over my body whenever I was in the classroom after wi-fi was installed," Michael says. "And yet they eased when I left the classroom and dissipated completely at weekends."

Michael, who is in his early 50s, checked on the internet for other people reporting headaches connected to wi-fi and was astounded to find hundreds of cases across the world of people claiming to suffer exactly the same symptoms and believing they were caused by mobile phones, mobile phone masts and wi-fi technology that allows computers to connect to the internet wirelessly. It is a phenomenon that has become known as electrosensitivity.

"I was shocked," he says. "There are so many people suffering, surely we cannot deny there might be a problem with this technology."


'There are so many people suffering, surely we can't deny there must be a problem with this technology'


Michael's situation has improved since his headteacher agreed to remove wi-fi from his classroom but his concerns about the effects of its use in schools remain and were made public last week through his union, the Professional Association of Teachers. At its annual conference, general secretary Philip Parkin called for a full scientific inquiry and proposed that schools should be discouraged from installing further networks until the results are known.

Until then, Mr Parkin said, his real concern "is that the nation's children are being treated as guinea pigs in a large-scale experiment". He added: "I have never before been involved in a debate which provokes such polarisation of opinion and such venom in some participants."

Mr Parkin is primarily concerned with the impact of wi-fi on children, whose developing bodies and nervous systems are seen as being more susceptible tothe effects of electromagnetic fields and microwave radiation - both of which are present in mobile phone and wi-fi technology.

But the polarisation to which he refers is being sharply felt by adults such as Michael, who believe they are electrosensitive.

And it was felt most pointedly the week before Mr Parkin's speech when the results were published of a study by the University of Essex investigating whether short-term exposure to mobile phone masts increased symptoms in people who believe they are electrosensitive. According to the results, it did not.

One of the psychologists involved in the study, Professor Elaine Fox, was reported as saying: "We do know there is a very large literature showing that the placebo effect - the power of belief - is very powerful," and adding that she is "pretty confident that it's not the electromagnetic field causing these symptoms".

These results are disputed by sufferers of and experts in electrosensitivity, who point to the 12 "self-reported sensitives" who withdrew from the study, some of them complaining of such an escalation in symptoms as a result of the exposure required of the study, they were physically unable to continue.

One of those "self-reported sensitives" who withdrew was businessman Brian Stein, claiming he suffered a repeat of the internal bleeding he says he experiences whenever he is exposed to mobile phone masts or, indeed, wi-fi. Mr Stein, head of a multi-million-pound food manufacturing company that supplies supermarket giants including M&S and Tesco and who lives in Nottingham, asks: "How can this be psychosomatic? Maybe my gut is in league with my brain in deluding me."

Mr Stein says he has undergone internal investigation but that doctors have been unable to find a cause of the bleeding. He is angry that, having risked his health to participate in the study, his apparent adverse reaction to the mobile phone mast signals to which he was exposed ended up discounting him from the results. "It's a joke," he says.


FOR all his money, Mr Stein can't watch his favourite football team, Liverpool, on TV drive a car, travel on an electric train or stay in a hotel with wi-fi.

Dr Michael Clark, of the Health Protection Agency (HPA), an independent body set up to protect Britons' health, is in some agreement with Professor Fox, saying: "If you think something will harm you, you get real symptoms." Alasdair Philips is director of Powerwatch - which he describes as "trying to be an independent advisory group on the effects of electromagnetic fields" - and of EMFields, a company that supplies measuring instruments and screening materials mainly used by people who believe they may be electrosensitive.


'Sometimes people have so many triggers they only have to see a mast, for example to feel Ill'


HE SAYS: There are people who think they are electrosensitive and believe they are being zapped by everything and everybody. And there are people who feel grotty and are looking for something to blame. But there are also people who are genuinely electrosensitive. Sometimes they have so many triggers - mobile phones, cordless phones, mobile phone masts, microwaves, wireless computers - they only have to see a mast, for example, to feel ill. But that doesn't mean all of their symptoms are in the mind." Mr Philips is a member of the Department of Health's UK SAGE EMF Advisory Group, the Mobile Operators' Association Stakeholder Group and Sir William Stewart's HPA EMF Discussion Group looking at advice to be given to the general public on electromagnetic fields (EMF).

When it comes to the official advice on wi-fi, Sir William, who is head of the HPA, is reported as saying it would be "timely to carry out further studies as this new technology is rolled out".

"It is emerging technology," says Dr Clark, "and there is a need for more information, particularly on the levels of exposure there may be in the classroom from a wi-fi system."

However he adds: "On the basis of the studies so far carried out in-house, the agency sees no reason why wi-fi should not continue to be used in schools."

But, as Philip Parkin of PAT says: "I'm not saying there is a problem with wi-fi in schools, I'm saying we don't know there isn't."

Both Mr Parkin and Mr Philips, remain hugely concerned about the lack of information and research on wi-fi in schools and urge them to stop using it.

"Absolutely no work has been done on wi-fi specifically and its effects on children," says Mr Philips, "and until there is, schools should go back to plugging in computers." wrote:

Can anyone get the link to yesterdays sunday express article double page
Sunday Express 5/8/2007 pages 50 and 51 subheading  Features
"Using Wifi has cost me my  life"