Beyond Radiation

Quo Vadis, Bioelectromagnetics Society?

Bioelectromagnetics Society's (BEMS's) 34th Annual Conference in 2012 took place in Brisbane, Australia.

There is something wrong with the BEMS.  Please, let me explain:

- Members were surprised to get an e-mail from [email protected] where there was marketing of Air Force standards by an ex-mobile industry worker!

- The BEMS Newsletter was edited (and reviewed) by an industry representative for many years [Comment in the BEMS newletter, see page 4]

- Industry is arranging the Best Paper Award nomination. Often a no-risk paper wins and reviewing is ... strange at least .

- The BEMS future chairman even says "It is true that industry frequently employ me because they propably like what I am going to say":

 

Starting at 3:30.

[In addition to the trailer, I also recommend the film "Is your cell phone going to kill you".]

- A lot of emphasis in the Brisbane conference is put on "risk communication". When you look at this area closer, you can translate risk communication as "systematic and heavily-funded down-playing of risks".

- Several Brisbane (keynote) speakers have worked as consultants for mobile&power industry [1 , 2  , 3 , 4 , 5 ].

[Yes, I can/will work as a consultant as well but at least I protect the rights of injured workers and cancer victims! The mobile&power industry is important globally/economically, but we need more fair play. ]

- Update: Bioelectromagnetics Grand Old Men Carl Blackman and Marko Markov have several times pointed out  how scientific studies should be conducted and how important is proper dosimetry. The BEMS journal publication and evaluation policy has not unfortunately followed these pieces of advice.

- Update: Microwave News pointed out heavy industry sponsoring.

Anecdote: "If you can't win, change the rules". This is happening with Bioelectromagnetics Society under heavy industry influence.

Please, tell me: As a BEMS member candidate, why should I pay a full membership fee? How can I be sure that my membership would support independent research?

Heart Problems and Pulsed Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation

First I thought it was a co-incidence. But, the more I meet young people with heart problems, the more convinced I am that there is a connection.

In fact, research shows the connection between heart problems and EMF exposure:

- Already in 1970's it was recommended in the USA and in former Soviet Union that “cardiovascular abnormalities shoud be used as a screening criteria to exclude people from occupations involving radio-frequency exposures”.  (Cleary, 1970, 94).

- When testing an ELF antenna system in Wisconsin, USA, there were effects upon human volunteers of exposure to very low strength (1 gauss) 45 hz magnetic fields. The primary findings were an increase in serum triglycerides observed in two experimental runs (Beischer et al., 1973). The significance of the elevated triglycerides is in the fact that this material is one of the steps involved in fat metabolism and such elevations beyond the normal range are generally believed to indicate an increased risk of arteriosclerotic disease. The Project Sanguine ( a military project) was immediately terminated when these findings were published. (Becker and Selden, 1985)

- Exposure of pregnant women to mobile phone significantly increase fetal and neonatal HR (heart rate), and significantly decreased COP (cardiac output) (Rezk et al., 2008) . So, when a mother uses a mobile phone, it may have a (deleterious) effect on heart of fetus / child.

- Havas et al. (2010) showed that some of test persons reacted to pulsed RF radiation by a US DECT (2450 MHz, 100 Hz pulse). This exposure caused HRV (Heart Rate Variability) in some research subjects.

- Heart problems come up in epidemiological studies of mobile phone base stations, see an overview by Khurana et al. (2011). 

- The renowned US cardiologist, MD Stephen Sinatra has noticed tachycardia & pulsed radiofrequency connection in younger and younger children. Also in connection to the Wi-Fi technology (Sinatra, 2011) There Wi-Fi and heart related findings come up also in animal studies (Türker et al., 2011).

- Several occupational studies report heart problems and the pulsed RF connection. Bortkiewicz et al. (1995), Bortkiewicz et al. (1996), Drogitschina & Sadtschikowa (1964), Glotova & Sadchikova, (1970), Szmigielski et al. (1998), Zhurakovskaya (1976) . Combined effects with microwaves and high (workplace) temperature etc. has been also reported Sadchikova et al. (1976).

- In a study of 60 men exposed to 30-GHz EMFs during their working day (normally 10-170 μW/cm2, but up to 500 μW/cm2) six or seven times per month, bradycardia and a decrease in the pumping efficiency of the heart were found (Fofanov, 1969). Similar results were reported in 34 persons, aged 30-49 who had been exposed for 5-15 years (Monayenkova & Sadchikova, 1966). Various cardiovascular disorders were also seen in a study of 73 men and 27 women that had been occupationally exposed to microwave EMFs (Drogichina et al., 1966).

- Both ELF and RF cause malfunction to pace-makers; an indicator/risk factor to a real heart as well. (Mitchell & Hurt (1976); Annila (2010))

- Also Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) problems caused by Wi-Fi to electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring system has been reported by Chung et al. (2013).

- Researcher Mikko Ahonen (myself) and my colleagues in 2012 testified in a case where a mobile phone base station broke down several times a pace-maker of an elderly woman. Based on this testimony, the mobile phone base station was removed from her roof.  (Good to know: Electronics is tested till 3 V/m, while ICNIRP-guidance level allows humans to be irradiated till 41 V/m.)

- Professor in physiology, Osmo Hänninen has investigated several cases where a pace-maker has been installed to people who were suffering from RF exposure with heart problems. This pace-maker does not seem to help in these cases, since after the pace-maker installation RF exposure causes blood-pressure to get extremely high. Simply put: when the human being cannot any more regulate environmental RF-stress with heart, this regulation activity is shifted to blood-pressure changes.  

- Real-life heart cases are also documented by attorney Whitney North Seymour, Jr.  in the FCC and US government wireless broadband program (Seymour, 2009)

- Talking about mechanism: The following in vivo paper describes oxidative stress (Esmekaya et al., 2001) and an older paper discusses about triglyceride concentration and coronary heart disease (Garber & Avins, 1994).

[Update 5th May 2012: Several references added, Update: 25th November, several Wi-Fi references + case descriptions added.]


References:

 

Environmental Polluter of The Year 2011 Award

The winners for these questionable prizes are:

Worst Service: Angry Birds

Worst Gadget: Microwave Health Monitor

Worst Technology: Weather Modification with RF Transmitters

 Please, keep on reading to find out why these items were chosen as the worst ones of 2011.

I will also present more sustainable and healthier alternatives.

 

The SAR-value, why it is no guarantee of safety - Gandhi et al. (2011)

A journal paper on cell phone safety in Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine reports the finding that cell phones used in the shirt or pants pocket exceed FCC exposure guidelines and that children absorb twice as much microwave radiation from phones as do adults.

The paper, titled “Exposure Limits: The underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children” notes that the industry-designed process for evaluating microwave radiation from phones results in children absorbing twice the cellphone radiation to their heads, up to triple in their brain’s hippocampus and hypothalamus, greater absorption in their eyes, and as much as 10 times more in their bone marrow when compared to adults.

The paper’s authors include three team members at Environmental Health Trust: Devra Davis, PhD, MPH, Founder and President; L. Lloyd Morgan, Senior Science Fellow; and Ronald B. Herberman, MD, Chairman of the Board.

The existing process is based on a large man whose 40 brain tissues are assumed to be exactly the same.

 

A far better system relies on anatomically based models of people of various ages, including pregnant women, that can determine the absorbed radiation in all tissue types, and can account for the increased absorption in children. This system is called 'Virtual family' and it is based MRI scans. It allows for cell phones to be certified with the most vulnerable users in mind—children—consistent with the “As Low As Reasonably Achievable” (ALARA) approach taken in setting standards for using radiological devices.

In the United States, the FCC determines maximum allowed exposures. Many countries, especially European Union members, use the “guidelines” of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a non-governmental agency.

Three additional authors contributed to the paper: Om P. Gandhi, ScD, of the Department of Electrical Engineering at the University of Utah; Alvaro Augusto de Salles, PhD, of the Electrical Engineering Department at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil; and Yueh-Ying Han, PhD, of the Department of Epidemiology and Community Health at New York Medical College. Drs. Gandhi and De Salles serve on EHT’s Scientific Advisory Group.

[I helped my friends at the Environmental Health Trust to translate this information, a Finnish translation & press release is available as a PDF]

Comments about SAR-values and/or Gandhi et al. (2011) paper?

 

 

MobileWise Report - Children and Mobile Phones - Health Risks and Actions

MobileWise’s report Mobile phone health risks: the case for action to protect children details evidence from more than 200 scientific studies linking children’s mobile phone use with serious health problems.

The report warns that children’s health is being put at risk by the failure of Government and phone companies to respond to the growing body of evidence linking mobile phone use with health hazards. Medical experts and MobileWise are calling on Government and industry to provide warnings and advice on ways to reduce the risk of health damage when using mobiles.

The possible health risks identified include brain tumours and damage to fertility, genes, the blood-brain barrier and melatonin production, as well as other biological effects thought to have a role in the development of cancer. Endorsed by a number of eminent doctors and scientists, the report highlights the growing and substantial body of evidence that has been obscured in the debate over these risks.

Research highlighted in the new report shows that children’s brains are more susceptible to the effects of mobile phone radiation because of their smaller heads, thinner skulls and greater tissue conductivity.

The report calls for children to be informed about how to limit their exposure – including keeping calls to a minimum, using headsets and keeping phones away from the groin.

Dr Lennart Hardell, Professor of Oncology and Cancer Epidemiology at Orebro University Hospital in Sweden, who has led several studies on the link between phones and cancer, says: “This timely report draws attention to the large body of evidence which links prolonged phone use to health hazards such as brain tumours.”

British neurosurgeon Kevin O’Neill says: “This report does much to elucidate the scientific evidence and policy issues. We know that children are much more vulnerable to phone radiation and that there are simple measures available to help them cut their exposure ”

The full MobileWise Report as a PDF file.

[I was amoung the writers of the MobileWise Report. Extra: The Finnish press release in A4-size.]

Any comments?