|
Betreff:
What Doctors
don't tell you |
|
Von: mastsanity.org |
|
Datum: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 09:23:43 +0100 |
It's well worth a subscription, trust me.
Martin
Text follows:-
ENVIRONMENTAL ALERT
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
mastsanity.org 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.
Best
gary
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
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." mastsanity.org wrote: Using wi-fi has cost me my life
Sunday Express August 5th 2007
pp50-51
Can anyone get the link to yesterdays sunday express article double pagefeature?Thankssarah Sunday Express 5/8/2007 pages 50 and 51 subheading Features"Using Wifi has cost me my life"