Cell Phone Radiation Poses Serious Health Risk*

December 4, 2007

Thanks for this---just added my comments and sent it far and wide...Jane MacRoss <highfield1 wrote: Funny you should say that - our phone company rang today to give me some gift for my faithful devotion to their service - a free blue tooth and IF I allowed them to take over my mobile phone calls I could have an hour a day - but I only use my mobile in an emergency and I do not want a blue tooth - he just did not believe me - even when I told him about my patient who had 2 brain

tumours due to his overuse of his mobile phone according to his surgeons - I asked him to ring back tomorrow. He also offered me a $450 landline phone free but would not give me a $85 disability phone for my deaf husband ........ ?? He was only 19 and deaf already - I mean deaf to my needs ....... Thanks for this! - Misty Health and Healing ; the_octopus ; altwritersfiles Monday, December 03, 2007 9:07 PM Cell Phone Radiation Poses Serious Health Risk Mountain Of Evidence Cell Phone Radiation Poses a Serious Biologic Health Risk http://educate-yourself.org/cn/neilcherrycellphonerisks07may01.shtml graphics on url [Editor's Note: I came across the name of Dr. Neil J Cherry of Lincoln University in New Zealand while researching Schumann frequencies and the heightened susceptibility to bodily damage from Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR), especially from microwaves of the cell phone variety. While I found Dr. Cherry's name and a few studies (latest 2002) ascribed to him, I noticed that the links leading to his studies always came up "not found" or "404". When I did a search on the link url at archive.org, it also came up "not found'. Now I'm getting a little suspicious that someone doesn't want me to find any studies authored by Dr. Neil Cherry on

the health risks associated with microwave radiations, so I spent more time digging on the internet. It took a couple of hours, but I eventually found what I was looking for. I won't indicate here where I found them because I'm concerned that those links may disappear too. However, I will reprint this 2001 report from Dr. Cherry that makes it abundantly clear just how risky and dangerous it is to use a cell phone on any regular basis-especially for children who stand the greatest chance of short and long term damage over any other group of cell phone users. I'm under the impression that Dr. Cherry died sometimes after 2002. As of yet, I do not know the details of his death, nor his age, but I plan to look into it. It's obvious from the

voluminous amount of hard scientific data quoted by Dr. Cherry -in all of his studies- that using cell phones is extremely risky to one's health, and it would seem that the continued existence of Dr. Cherry may have been an 'inconvenient ' risk for the cell phone industry and the secret government agendas connected with the proliferation of cell phone towers around the world. 1) This 30 second video clip posted at www.youtube.com reveals visually the radiation emmited by cell phones (

). 2) The second 7 minute video clip from Australia is a news report on the connection between cell phone usage and cancer inducement in young children. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=gkeMLOIAEKU & feature=related) Study the following report carefully and then ask yourself: Do you really want to continue to use a cell phone or worse, give one to your child? ...Ken Adachi ?Copyright 2007 Educate-Yourself.org All

Rights Reserved.] By Dr Neil Cherry neil.Cherry (AT) ecan (DOT) govt.nz Lincoln University Canterbury, New Zealand http://educate-yourself.org/cn/neilcherrycellphonerisks07may01.shtml May 7, 2001 Cell Phone Radiation Poses a Serious Biologic Health Risk by Dr. Neil Cherry (Nov. 19, 2007) The IssueThousands of people are using cell phones for hours each day. They are exposing a very sensitive organ, their brain, to higher mean intensities than military personnel are exposed to when repairing radar. The military personnel show significant increases in

cancer and a wide range of illnesses. Even at the very low mean levels that people experience living within 10 km of radio and TV towers, significant increases in cancer has been observed. Analogue cell phones emit an analogue modulated RF/MW signal similar to an FM radio or TV signal. The digital cell phones radiate a pulse RF/MW signal similar to radar. Biological and epidemiological effects from EMR exposure across the spectrum show the same or similar effects. Many people continue to drive while talking on their cell phones. Attention deficit and neurological effects on the user's brain make accidents much more likely. Very young children and teenagers are becoming regular to heavy users of cell phones while their brains and bodies are in a much more vulnerable state than elderly people. With cancer and neurodegenerative disease latencies of decades, the possible adverse effects will take some time to become evident. By which time it will be too late for thousands of people. There is growing concern about cell phone interference with cardiac pacemakers. If cell phone signals can interfere with an electronic pacemaker, then it is likely to also interfere with human hearts that are arrhythmically unstable. Biophysical PrinciplesRadiant energy is absorbed into human bodies according to three

main processes. The first is the Aerial Effect where bodies and body parts receive and absorb the RF/MW signal with resonant absorption that is a function of the size of the body parts and the wavelength of the RF/MW signal. For an adult male about 1.8 m tall the optimal absorption frequency is close to 70 MHz, Figure 1. This has a wavelength of 4.3m. The body acts like a half-wave dipole interacting strongly with a half wavelength close to the body size. A monkey interacts with a wavelength of 1m and a half wavelength of 0.5m. This is similar to the absorbency of a human child. The Aerial effect also relates to body parts such

as arms and heads. A typical adult head has a width of 15 cm. This is a half wavelength for a 1 GHz microwave signal, close to that used by most cell phones. Figure 1: Average SAR for 3 species exposed to 10 W/m2 with E vector parallel to the long axis of the body, from Durney et al. (1978). Cellphone-type radiation is in the 0.9 to 1.8 GHz range, i.e. 0.9 x 109 to 1.8 x 109 Hz. Hence according to Figure 1 neither children nor adults are close to

the optimum absorption rate but babies and infants bodies, whose dimensions lie between "monkey" and "mouse", are close to the optimal absorption for cell phone-type radiation. A person with a height h (m), acting as an aerial in an RF electric field E (V/m) at a carrier frequency f (MHz), has a current induced in them which flows to earth through their feet, given by, Gandhi et al. (1985): Ih = 0.108 h2 E f (mA)This induced current flows mainly through high water content organs. In flowing to ground the current passes through the ankles. These consist mainly of low conductivity bones and tendons and have an effective cross-sectional area of 9.5 cm2 for an adult, despite the actual physical area is of the order of 40 cm2. The formula for Ih also allows for the effective absorption area of the person, which is somewhat greater than their actual

cross-sectional area, because of the attraction of the surrounding field to an earthed conductor. These aerial considerations are more pertinent to whole-body exposures to cell sites. Cell phone aerials from digital phones typically occupy the length of the body of the phone and extend a few centimeters out of the top of the phone body. Cellphone radiation for the phone's aerial is quite close to the user's head and can be intense enough to cause a warming sensation. Figure 2: The dielectric constant and conductivity of typical biological tissue as a function of frequency, Schwan (1985). The second mechanism involves the coupling of the signal to the tissue as the signal penetrates the tissue and interacts with the cells and layers of tissue. This process is related to the dielectric constant and conductivity of the tissue types, which vary significantly with the carrier frequency, ref. Figure

2. The third biophysical absorption process involves resonant absorption by biological systems in the brain and cells. Resonant absorption occurs when a system with a natural frequency is stimulated by an imposed signal of a similar frequency or harmonic frequency. Radio and TV receivers use both the aerial principle and the resonant absorption principle. The aerial resonantly absorbs the carrier frequency and carries it as an induced current to the receiver. Here a tuned circuit oscillating at the same frequency resonantly absorbs the carrier wave and uses decoding circuitry to extract the encoded message contained in the amplitude, frequency or digital modulation imprinted on the carrier wave. Figure 3: Comparison of the frequency spectra of the human EEG from 260 young males showing the 5%, 50% and 95%ile bands, adapted from Gibbs and Gibbs (1951), and Schumann Resonance peaks, from Polk (1982). Figures 4 and 5 confirm the relationship shown in Figure 3, using independently derived spectra of the daytime human EEG, Figure 4 and the Schumann Resonance spectrum,

Figure 5. The figures have been aligned to have a common horizontal frequency scale. Figure 4: A typical EEG spectrum, with the Schumann Resonance peaks superimposed.

Figure 5: Daytime Schumann Resonance Spectrum, Polk (1982). Figures 3-5 show that the frequency range of the primary peaks of the Schumann Resonances coincide with the frequency range of the human EEG. Upper Schumann peaks also associated with small peaks in the EEG. This shows a resonant interaction and supports the probability of an actual use by the brain or the Schumann Resonance signal. Figure 6

shows that this occurs in a study showing a significant dose-response correlation between the intensity of the 8-10 Hz Schumann Peak and human reaction times. Figure 6: Human reaction

times as a function of Schumann Resonance 8-10 Hz Relative Intensity, for 49,500 subjects tested during 18 days in September 1953, at the German Traffic exhibition in Munich. Derived from data in Figure 3 of König (1974b). Trend: t = 10.414, 2-tailed p<0.001. Cellphone radiation is shown to interact with human EEG patterns and to alter them and to change reaction times. The GSM signal has a pulse frequency of 217 Hz and a modulation at 8.34 Hz. This is in the Schumann Resonance and EEG spectral primary frequency range. Effects shown for electromagnetic radiation, especially radio and radar signals, but also electrical occupations:Such signals have been shown to affect:Neurological Activity: 1. Alter brain activity, including EEG and reaction times, memory loss, headaches, fatigue and concentration problems, dizziness (the Microwave Syndrome), Gordon (1966), Deroche (1971), Moscovici et al. (1974), Lilienfeld et al. (1978), Shandala et al. (1979), Forman et al. (1982), Frey (1998). 2. Impair sleep and learning, Altpeter et al. (1995), Kolodynski and Kolodynska (1996) 3. Increase permeability of the blood brain barrier (a mechanism for headache), Frey et al. (1975), Alberts (1977, 1978) and Oscar and Hawkins (1977). 4. Alter GABA, Kolomytkin et al. (1994). 5. Increase neurodegenerative disease including Alzheimer's Disease, Sobel et al. (1995, 1996), Savitz et al. (1998a,b) 6. Highly significant Increased permeability of the blood brain barrier for 915 MHz radiation at SAR =0.016-0.1 (p=0.015) and SAR = 0.1-0.4 (p=0.002); Salford et al. (1994). 7. Increase the Suicide Risk, Baris and Armstrong (1990), Perry et al. (1991), Van Wijngaarden et al. (2000). Cardiological Activity: 1. Alter blood pressure and heart rhythm (heart rate variability) Bortkiewicz et al. (1995, 1996, 1997) and Szmigielski at al (1998). 2. Increases Heart Disease and heart attack mortality, Forman et al. (1986), Hamburger, Logue and Silverman (1983), Savitz et

al. (1999) Immune System Activity: 1. Impairs the immune system Quan et al. (1992), Dmoch and Moszczynski (1998), Bruvere et al. (1998) Reproductive Activity: 1. Reduces sperm counts in radar exposed military personnel, Weyandt et al. (1996) 2. Increases miscarriage and congenital abnormalities, Kallen et al. (1982), Larsen et al. (1991), Ouellet-Hellstrom and Stewart (1993). 3. Doubles the incidence of twins in the families of radar exposed personnel, Flaherty (1994). 4. Significantly alters the leaf structure of plants exposed to a radar, Magone (1996). 5. Significantly reduces the radial growth of pine trees, Balodis et al. (1996). 6. Reduced fertility of mice exposed to an RF field (27.12 MHz), Brown-Woodman et al. (1989). 7. Increased fetal/embryo lethality in mice exposed to 2.45 GHz microwaves, Nawrot, McRee and Galvin (1985). 8. Radio exposures cause complete infertility in mice over 3 to 5 generations at mean exposure levels of 1.05 and 0.17mW/cm2, respectively, Magras and Xenos (1997). Genotoxic Activity: 1. Reduce melatonin and alter calcium ions, Abelin (1999), Burch et al. (1997, 1999) Bawin and Adey (1976), Blackman et al. (1988, 1989, 1990) 2. Enhances heat shock proteins at extremely low exposure

levels in a highly reproducible manner showing that they are not stimulated by heat but in reaction to a 'toxic' protein reaction, Daniells et al. (1998), and down to 0.001W/kg (0.34mW/cm2) using 750MHz microwaves, de Pomerai (2000). 3. Damages chromosomes. Heller and Teixeira-Pinto (1959), Tonascia and Tonascia (1966), Yao (1982), Garaj-Vrhovac et al. (1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1999), Timchenko and Ianchevskaia (1995), Balode (1996), Haider et al. (1994) and Vijayalaxmi et al. (1997) have reported significant chromosome aberrations from RF/MW exposures. In the Mar/Apr 1999 edition of Microwave News it is reported that Drs Tice, Hook and McRee 4. Alters DNA, Ali and Behari (1994). 5. Breaks DNA strands, Lai and Singh (1995, 1996, 1997). 6. Alters gene transcription activity, Phillips et al. (1992, 1993). 7. Neoplastically transform cells [pre cancer cellular stage], Balcer-Kubiczek and Harrison (1991). 8. Enhances cell death in a dose response manner for signal intensity and exposure time, Garaj-Vrhovac et al. (1991 9. Enhances cell proliferation in a dose-response manner for exposure time, Mattei et al. (1999). 10. Enhances Ornithine Decarboxylase (ODC) activity , a measure of cell proliferation rate, Byus et al. (1988), Litovitz et al. (1997). 11. Enhances free

radicals, Phelan et al. (1992). 12. Increased cancer in rats and mice, Prausnitz and Susskind (1962), Szmigielski et al. (1988) and Chou et al. (1992) Cancer Epidemiology: Increases the incidence of many types of cancer, including leukaemia, brain tumor, testicular cancer, genitourinary and breast cancer, Robinette et al. (1980), Milham (1985, 1988), Szmigielski (1996), Hocking et al. (1996), Dolk et al. (1997 a, b), Beall et al. (1996), Grayson (1996), Thomas et al. (1987), Lilienfeld et al. (1978), Zaret (1989), Davis and

Mostofl (1993), Hayes et al. (1990), Tynes et al. (1996), Cantor et al. (1995), and many others. These biological and health effects are consistent with the biological understanding that brains, hearts and cells are sensitive to electromagnetic signals because they use electromagnetic signals for their regulation, control and natural processes, including those processes monitored by the EEG and ECG. There is overwhelming evidence that EMR is genotoxic, alters cellular ions, neurotransmitters and neurohormones, and interferes with brain and heart signals, and increases cancer. Cell Phone Radiation Research:For years the cell phone companies and

government authorities have assured us that cell phone are perfectly safe. For example, they claim that the particular set of radiation parameter associated with cell phones are not the same as any other radio signal and therefore earlier research does not apply. They also mount biased review teams who falsely dismiss any results that indicate adverse biological and health effects and the flawed pre-assumption that the only possible effect is tissue heating. There is a very large body of scientific research that challenges this view. Now we have published research, primarily funded by governments and industry that shows that cell phone radiation causes the following effects: Neurological Activity: Alters brain activity including EEG, Von Klitzing (1995), Mann and Roschkle (1996), Krause et al. (2000). Disturbs sleep, Mann and Roschkle (1996), Bordely et al. (1999). Alters sleep EEG after awake exposure, Huber et al. (2000). Alters human reaction times, Preece et al. (1999), Induced potentials, Eulitz et al. (1998), slow brain potentials, Freude et al. (1998), Response and speed of switching attention (need for car driving) significantly worse, Hladky et al. (1999). Altered reaction times and working memory function (positive), Koivisto et al. (2000), Krause et al. (2000). Brain cortex interaction as shown by significantly altered human EEG by cellphone radiation, during a 15 minute exposure, Lebedeva et al. (2000). Weakens the blood brain barrier (p<0.0001): Persson, B.R.R., Salford, L.G. and Brun, A., 1997. A Fifteen minute exposure, increased auditory brainstem response and hearing deficiency

in 2 kHz to 10 kHz range, Kellenyi et al. (1999). While driving, with 50 minutes per month with a cell phone, a highly significant 5.6-fold increase in accident risk, Violanti et al. (1996); a 2-fold increase in fatal accidents with cell phone in car, Violanti et al. (1998); impairs cognitive load and detection thresholds, Lamble et al. (1999). In a large Canadian study Redelmeier and Tibshirani (1997) the risk of collision when using a cellphone was 4 time higher, RR = 4.3, 95%CI 3.0-6.5. Calls close to the time of collision has RR =4.8 for 5 minutes and RR = 5.9, p<0.001, for 15 minutes. Significant changes in local temperature, and in physiologic parameters of the CNS and cardiovascular system, Khdnisskii, Moshkarev and Fomenko (1999). Causes memory loss, concentration difficulties, fatigue, and headache, in a dose response manner, (Mild et al. (1998)). Headache, discomfort, nausea, Hocking (1998). [White = less than 2 minutes per day Gray = 2-15 minutes per day shorter black = 15-60 mins. per day long black = more than 60 mins/day] Figure 7: Prevalence of symptoms for Norwegian mobile phone users, mainly analogue, with various categories of length of calling time per day, Mild et al. (1998). Figure 8: Prevalence of symptoms for Swedish mobile phone users, mainly digital, with various categories of length of calling time per day, Mild et al. (1998). These are the same symptoms that have frequently been reported as "Microwave Sickness Syndrome" or "Radiofrequency Sickness Syndrome", Baranski and Czerski (1976) and Johnson-Liakouris (1998). Cardiac Activity: More- http://educate-yourself.org/cn/neilcherrycellphonerisks07may01.shtml

Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Mail. See how.