The Force: Living Safely in a World of Electromagnetic Pollution

Scribe Publications THE FORCE Lyn McLean is Australia’s foremost consumer advocate on the issue of electromagnetic radiation (EMR). An author and educator, she has been monitoring and writing on the subject for more than 15 years. Lyn is the publisher of the quarterly periodical EMR and Health and the author of Watt’s the Buzz? (Scribe, 2002), a guide to reducing exposure to EMR. She has represented the community on various national committees related to this issue and is currently the director of EMR Australia, which provides services and assistance in connection with electropollution.

For Jacqueline and Alexandra

the

Forc e living safely in a world of electromagnetic pollution

Lyn McLean

Scribe Publications Pty Ltd PO Box 523 Carlton North, Victoria, Australia 3054 Email: [email protected] First published by Scribe 2011 Copyright © Lyn McLean 2011 All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in, or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the publisher of this book. The following images are reproduced with kind permission of the following individuals and organisations. p. 1 © Vladimir Popovic, fotalia image #1481286; p. 12, from Dalton, L., Radiation Exposures, Scribe Publications, 1991; p. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 49 © Jo Haggie; p. 21 © Northlight images, istock image 14826112; p. 24, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; p. 46, 47, 200 © Lyn McLean; p. 68, Gandhi, O.P.G. and Furse, C.M., ‘Electromagnetic Absorption in the Human Head and Neck for Cell Telephones at 835 and 1900 MHz,’ IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, 44 (10), 1996, pp. 1884–97; p. 82, www.next-up.org; p. 94 © Vodafone Australia; p. 100 © Gerd Oberfeld; p. 140 © Alisdair Phillips; p. 145 © aasha, istock image 10746920; p. 249 © DNY59, istock image 9561425; p. 316 © collection of Stanford University. Connecticut Environmental Month statement (p. 219) reproduced with kind permission of the City of Colwood. While every care has been taken to acknowledge copyright, the publisher tenders their apologies for any accidental infringement where copyright has proved untraceable. Where the attempt has been unsuccessful, the publisher welcomes information that would redress the situation. The author would like to thank John Lincoln for his technical assistance. Printed and bound in Australia by Griffin Press. Only wood from sustainable regrowth forests is used in the manufacture of paper found in this book. Typeset by J&M Typesetting in 10.25pt/13.6pt Sabon. National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication data McLean, Lyn. The force : living safely in a world of electromagnetic pollution. Rev. and updated ed. 9781921753633 (e-book.)

978-1-921640-29-2 (pbk)

Previous ed. titled: Watt’s the buzz. Published 2002. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Human beings–Effect of radiation on. 2. Electromagnetism–Health aspects. 3. Electromagnetism–Physiological effect. 4. Electromagnetic waves. 612.01442

www.scribepublications.com.au

Contents Foreword

vii

The Basics 1. The Issue 2. Energy Fundamentals for Beginners

3 11

The Technology 3. Powerlines and Appliances 4. Mobile Phones 5. Base Stations and Broadcast Towers 6. Computers 

23 53 93 125

The Link to Health 7. Electromagnetic Radiation and the Body 8. Electromagnetic Radiation and Health 9. Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity 10. The Controversy

147 173 207 223

Living Safely with Electromagnetic Radiation 11. Reducing Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation 251 12. Design and Planning 303 13. The Way Forward 315 Appendix Acknowledgements Glossary Notes Index

327 341 343 349 373

Foreword My story began on Friday 28 April 1995. I went to lunch at an Indian restaurant with a work colleague, as I had many times before. In the middle of the meal I had a 45-minute grand mal brain seizure. I’m afraid some of the patrons must have thought it was the food. An ambulance took me to the closest hospital. I was admitted to the intensive-care unit, where I spent the next eight days in a critical condition. On the first morning Dr James Saadi, my neurosurgeon, had ordered an MRI. When the films were ready he told me my tumour was operable, but they first had to get the severe brain swelling down. He added that my brain might herniate before they could do so. I did not know what ‘herniate’ meant, but I knew it could kill me. (I learned later when a brain herniates, the pressure shoves the brain down into the stem. It is always fatal.) Yet somehow I also knew I was going to live and was being given a second life. I was in the hospital for a total of 11 days, leaving several days after having a 12-hour operation to remove the tumour. During the postsurgery follow-up, I asked Dr Saadi, ‘How did I get this thing?’ He answered, ‘Perhaps, electromagnetic fields.’ I was stunned. I had never heard of this as a cause, although I considered myself to be an informed person. My second life had begun. As an engineer with substantial scientific training, I went to the science literature to learn all I could. Almost immediately I found papers funded by industry and written by employees of the Electric Power Research Institute, along with other studies by electrical utility companies, which reported statistically significant risks of leukaemia and brain tumours resulting from exposure to electricity fields. It seemed clear to me that because industry has a large vested interest in not reporting this widely, there must be something to it. vii

viii  —  The Force

In September 1995, I attended my first meeting in bioelectromagnetics. I also wanted to learn all I could about my so-called ‘benign’ brain tumour, a meningioma. I was stunned to learn that data was not collected on ‘benign’ brain tumours; I was an engineer, and data is essential to our field. As a result I got a law passed in California in 2000 and a similar law passed federally in the United States in 2002 mandating data collection of all brain tumours, malignant and non-malignant. In 2002 I began to work full time in research and advocacy on the health effects resulting from exposure to electromagnetic fields. I have had success beyond my wildest imagination: although I have never been paid for my time, I am now invited to attend meetings on the issue worldwide. I have authored three epidemiology papers reporting risks from exposure to electromagnetic fields, and have three more in progress and many more ‘between my ears’. I have spoken at a conference on mobile phones and brain tumours, held in conjunction with a US Senate hearing, and worked with legislators toward passage of laws to regulate industry’s callous behaviours and allow funding of independent scientific research. Our world is in complete denial that a problem exists, in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence. Why is there such denial? It is because the extensive evidence of the science domain has not been transferred to the public domain. The Force aims to bring that evidence to the public. It is a tour de force in which Lyn McLean covers an encyclopedic range of topics. It sets out our exposures to electricity, television, appliances, computers, and all things wireless, such as cordless phones, mobile phones, and wi-fi. In recent decades, the way in which we use electricity has fundamentally changed. Until the mid-1980s, electrical equipment used power continuously. Today, this equipment is designed to interrupt the flow of electrical power continually. First there were light dimmer switches. Then switching power suppliers were used to convert 50- or 60-hertz electricity to direct current in all electronic equipment. They turn the flow of current on and off many times per second, generating what the electrical utility industry calls ‘dirty electricity’. Working with Dr. Sam Milham at La Quinta Middle School in California, myself and others showed that dirty electricity is ‘a possible universal human carcinogen’. The impetus for the mad rush to all things wireless was the mobile phone. The Force exposes the ridiculousness of the ‘safety standards’ used by governments throughout the world. Lyn describes how the Australian government allows for the testing of mobile phones 25 millimetres away the head and body, in contrast to how they are actually used. Yet the amount of mobile phone radiation absorbed by the head or body is 625

Foreword  —  ix

times greater when the phone is held one millimetre from such areas, as compared to 25 millimetres away. Even the mobile phone companies are aware of the danger of using their products immediately against the head or body — they give warnings in the rarely read user manuals. For example, the BlackBerry Touch manual says, ‘Use hands-free operation if it is available and keep the BlackBerry device at least 0.98 in. (25 millimetres) from your body (including the abdomen of pregnant women and the lower abdomen of teenagers [AKA testicles]) …’ Yet when was the last time you saw an ad showing a mobile phone being used an inch from the head? I believe The Force’s most important contribution is its discussion of the health effects on children and the marketing of mobile phones to them. It is widely known that children are at greater risk than adults when they are exposed to carcinogens, as their cells are dividing at far higher rates. In reading The Force, you will discover that governments around the world are issuing warnings about children’s use of mobile phones. If you did not already know this, then it would be appropriate to ask the question, Why has the media ignored these global governmental warnings? If you are a parent, once you read The Force it will fundamentally change the rules you set for your children. I doubt you will ever allow them to sleep with their mobile phones beneath their pillows again. Lyn shows not just the reality of the telecommunication industry but also the pharmaceutical industry. She examines how scientists who find information the industry does not like are persecuted. This happened to the first modern scientist, Galileo Galilei, although he was only agreeing with Nicolaus Copernicus, who reported that the earth was not the centre of the universe. This contradicted the view of the Church, and Galileo was put on trial. Today, as The Force shows, the Corporation has replaced the Church. It took four centuries for the Church to admit it was wrong. How long will it take for the Corporation to admit fault? The Force is one of the most important books I have read in a long time. It opens with six personal stories of tragedies caused by ‘the force’, the ubiquitous electromagnetic fields to which we are exposed every day of our lives. These are stories of what can happen to any of us. Yet, as the subtitle suggests, the book gives guidance on how we can live safely in such a world. We can be in charge, but to do so we must act. And to act, we must be informed; this book will inform you. It is my hope that you, reader of The Force, will join with Lyn and myself to change our world for the better. — Lloyd Morgan senior research fellow, Environmental Health Trust

The Basics

Chapter 1

The Issue

‘We’ve arranged a civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology.’ — Dr Carl Sagan

It’s invisible and inaudible: you can’t smell, taste, or touch it. Electropollution is undetectable by the conscious senses — at least to most people — but its presence is everywhere. It is the unseen force that permeates the community, penetrating walls, buildings, and the body. There’s a growing body of scientific evidence that links exposure to electropollution with a range of negative effects on our health. It has been compellingly linked to serious health problems such as leukaemia, brain tumours, Alzheimer’s disease, allergies, stress, sleep problems, and depression. With industries constantly inventing and marketing new applications for a range of radiating devices, technology is racing way ahead of the research on safety. There are strong vested interests in this force being seen as harmless because industry influence permeates even the highest echelons of global research and policy-making. Currently, international standards protect against only a small range of effects, and only short-term ones at that. Effectively, there are no standards that protect against the long-term, continuous exposures that you and I receive in 3

4  —  The Force

everyday life. No one knows the consequences of decades, let alone generations, of exposure. We are all affected and, should the indications of harm that science has already found be validated, all at risk. Electromagnetic pollution is part of our daily lives. It can take the form of electromagnetic fields (EMF), which come from powerlines and electrical appliances, or electromagnetic radiation (EMR), which comes from mobile phones and other communications technologies. There are now millions of kilometres of radiating powerlines, millions of antennas transmitting radiofrequency radiation, billions of mobile phones, and countless appliances and networks of satellites, all bathing the planet with unnatural radiation, affecting everyone and creating a vastly different energy environment.

Odette’s story Eight-year-old Andrew is settled comfortably on the lounge-room couch, leafing through the book delivered a week previously by Santa. He is marvelling at the huge armour-plated stegosaurus and the flesh-eating tyrannosaurus rex leering from the pages in front of him. His concentration is soon disturbed by the arrival of his 15-month-old, auburn-haired sister, Tammy, who bounds noisily into the room and launches herself at her brother, burbling as she tries to extract the book from his grip. Andrew diverts her attention to the sound of The Wiggles, emanating from the stereo on the other side of the room. He leans back to enjoy a few minutes of respite as, distracted, she toddles away and begins to gyrate to the tuneful strains of ‘Nicky Nacky Nocky Noo’. Typical though this scene might be of thousands of lounge rooms across the country, it’s one that just a few years previously Andrew’s parents, Odette and Tony, despaired of ever experiencing themselves. When Andrew was four, his family moved to a house in Sydney, which, after a substantial facelift, was to be their dream home. It was close to school, shops, and a park, had a yard to play in, and was conveniently located around the corner from a scenic part of one of Sydney’s largest rivers. It was a new beginning, but not of the sort anticipated by Odette. Immediately after moving in, Odette began to experience enormous difficulty sleeping, although she constantly felt tired. She also experienced a sudden onset of depression for which she had no explanation. This was not just an occasional wave of despondency, but a souldestroying gloom that sapped her energy and interest. Odette also began to develop some worrying physical problems. First was a melanoma, which she had removed. Then came disappointment

The Issue  —  5

after disappointment as she and Tony tried unsuccessfully to extend their family. Despite having fallen pregnant with Andrew within four months of trying, Odette was just not able to conceive. Eventually, she and Tony hit the jackpot during a holiday cruise. Their joy, however, was short-lived, for not long afterwards they lost the baby and Odette became seriously ill with pneumonia. This was to be the first of three devastating miscarriages. Odette was suspected of having contracted Lupus, an autoimmune disease, since her pregnancy with Andrew. Odette was not the only one experiencing problems. Andrew, by now six, had been plagued with health problems all his young life. He was considerably underweight, had suffered countless colds and ear infections, and, after repeated bouts of tonsillitis, had had his tonsils and adenoids removed. He had come close to death with croup and recently developed the frustrating habit of wriggling down to the middle of his bed every night. Tony was not sick in the conventional sense of the word, but he did not experience an abundance of energy and wondered why his hair now stood on end every morning when he awoke. Odette began to suspect that the origin of the family’s problems might be the house itself. Searching for answers, she rang me for information about electromagnetic radiation. In a tone of incredible frustration, she described the family’s litany of health concerns. ‘Do you think our problems might be related to the radiation that comes from the wiring?’ she asked. I thought that it was certainly possible. ‘The energy from the power system is called electromagnetic fields and it’s associated with a whole range of health problems,’ I explained. ‘They include some of the concerns you’ve mentioned, such as immune problems, tiredness, and depression, and perhaps even miscarriage and difficulties conceiving. There are even reports of children sleeping in high fields wriggling away from the wall the way that Andrew does.’ Odette decided to have the fields in her house measured and contacted my colleague, John Lincoln, an electrical engineer who had been measuring electromagnetic fields in homes and workplaces for 20 years. When John measured the house, he found extremely high fields, particularly in the bedrooms. Odette and Tony’s bed was on the other side of the wall and just 50 centimetres or so away from the meter box, which was emitting a magnetic field of 88 milligauss (mG) when the off-peak hot-water system was operating at night. The average measurement in the room was around 70 mG, and the lowest reading was 12 mG.

6  —  The Force

Because Andrew’s bed was on the other side of the wall from the hotwater system, he was being exposed to a field of 12 mG during the entire night. These readings were well within the international guidelines, which allow people to be exposed to 2000 mG at home. However, they are far in excess of 4 mG, a level that is considered to be possibly carcinogenic. John also found high readings in other parts of the house. In the tiny kitchen there was the usual assortment of electrical appliances, all emitting fields. Around the digital clock on the electric oven there was a field of 20 mG, and the rear of the refrigerator measured 20 mG. In fact, wherever Odette stood in that room she was sure to be exposed to a field of no less than 20 mG. On John’s advice, Odette and Tony implemented a number of strategies to reduce their exposure. They moved the old hot-water heater out of the laundry, away from Andrew’s bed, and installed a solar hot-water system that they set to heat between 5.00 and 7.00 p.m. so it would not be operating while the family was sleeping. By installing an earth stake, they rectified the problem of an unearthed meter box (one whose wiring was not connected to the ground). Because it was too expensive to relocate the box, Odette and Tony moved their bed to another wall. Odette began to run the washing machine during the day rather than at night so it would not be generating fields through the wall against which Andrew was sleeping. She also unplugged the microwave oven when it was not in use to help reduce the ambient field in the kitchen. These measures considerably reduced the fields the family was exposed to, although the kitchen still remained something of a hot spot. Nevertheless, the family noticed the effects soon after. First, there was a period of adjustment, a week in which they felt unsettled and lacking in energy. After that, however, their health began to improve steadily. Tony found that his hair no longer stood on end each morning. Andrew’s health and energy levels increased, and he no longer wriggled to the centre of the bed at night. To his parents’ relief, he gained weight, and family friends began to notice the change in his health. Odette conceived soon after and produced a healthy baby girl. Could the high fields in their house have accounted for Odette and her family’s ill health? After all, Andrew had experienced health problems ever since he was a baby, before they moved to the house. When Andrew was born, his parents were living in a unit in an inner-western suburb of Sydney. Andrew spent long periods in a bouncinette against the external wall of the lounge room — a location where Tony also spent many hours. Upon visiting the units, Odette and Tony

The Issue  —  7

noticed that the wall in question contained the power supply for the entire block of flats — four meter boxes! So Andrew and Tony had also been exposed to high fields for long periods at their old address. While living there, Tony had experienced excruciating migraine headaches, which had disappeared some time after they moved. Odette’s problems were alleviated by reducing her family’s exposure to the electromagnetic fields from their meter box and household appliances. Yet sometimes high fields in the home can emanate, believe it or not, from the household plumbing.

Dr Lee’s story Dr Lee and his family moved into a beautiful brick home in Sydney’s Lane Cove. After living there for six months, they learned the house had a history of serious illness that had touched all of the last four families who had occupied it. Two former residents, a mother and a young child, had died from leukaemia. Another child had developed leukaemia while living there but had since moved away, so her fate was unknown to the Lees. A father and a third child had each developed glioma (a type of brain tumour) while living in the house. John found high fields connected with the wiring in the house. First, the wiring was earthed to the water pipes, and they were conducting an extremely high field through the house — he measured 538 mG at the water meter. This meant that anyone spending time in parts of the house adjacent to the pipes — working, studying, or sleeping — was being exposed. The pipes ran not only downstairs, but under the upstairs bedroom and up the wall into the adjacent bathroom, so that a person sleeping next to the bathroom wall would have been exposed throughout the night. In addition to the water pipes, the wiring itself was generating high fields. Power entered the house near the upstairs bedroom and ran across the ceiling and down the wall to the meter box, which was on the outside of a bedroom wall downstairs. On the other side of the wall, the field from the meter box measured 45 mG — not a good location for a bed. Dr Lee and his family had, fortuitously, arranged their furniture so that their beds were not exposed to the high fields of the meter box or the water pipes. Nevertheless, John measured fields of 18 mG at one bed, 8.8 to 15 mG at another, and 5.7 mG at a third. While these fields were already too high for comfort, it is likely that they increased at night when the off-peak electric hot-water system cut in, using substantially more power.

8  —  The Force

To reduce his family’s risk of developing the problems experienced by former occupants, Dr Lee organised an electrician to install an earth stake and a plumber to insert a plastic section in the water pipe so that it was no longer conductive. Not only did this stop the fields in the pipes, but it meant that the currents travelling into and out of the house through the wiring were now balanced, and so the wiring emitted lower fields. This was a simple but effective solution.

Murray and Susan’s story Naturally, homes situated close to high-voltage powerlines are particularly exposed to electromagnetic fields. Murray and his wife Susan wanted to know the field levels at a property they were interested in buying. It was a beautiful home with a delightful aspect, situated on a bushy peninsula that jutted into a particularly scenic part of Sydney’s Georges River. However, there was a potential problem: a high-voltage powerline ran right through the property before eventually spanning the river. In the backyard, the space inside one of its pylons had even been utilised to accommodate the clothesline! The powerline ran along the entire side of the house, about ten metres away from all of the bedrooms. Inside the house, in the rooms adjacent to the powerline, John measured magnetic fields of between 8.4 and 10 mG during the day. On the side of the house furthest from the powerlines, he measured an average of 5 mG. These fields were likely to be very much higher during the evening, when the line was conducting more current to feed the demand for heating and appliances, and off-peak hot-water heating later in the evening. John provided the couple with the readings and explained the risks that had been identified with fields at these levels. Murray and Susan still went ahead with the purchase and moved in with their young children. John later learned in a conversation with the estate agent that the son of the previous owner had died of leukaemia.

Kate’s story Sometimes problems are caused by electric fields, which are emitted by electrical equipment and wiring. Kate, a secretary, rang me, desperate to find a solution to a string of difficulties she’d been battling for several years. First, she had severe dermatitis on her hands, which had persisted with barely a reprieve for over three years and made performing even simple tasks painfully difficult. Second, she was plagued by incredible tiredness, which made functioning after 6.00 p.m. almost impossible — to the point where she was often unable to string coherent sentences

The Issue  —  9

together. Yet even though she was constantly tired, Kate had difficulty sleeping, and the quality of her sleep was poor. Third, Kate had been experiencing pain when she used her office computer. By the time she spoke to me, Kate’s difficulties while working at the computer had increased to the point where they had become intolerable. She now experienced a burning sensation when using the mouse. Moreover, the sensation travelled up her arm and persisted overnight. It was only alleviated by keeping away from the computer for days on end — which was quite difficult, given that her job required regular computer use. She also began to develop pain behind her right eye, and the condition of her hands deteriorated to the point where they had constant open cuts that bled easily upon impact with just about anything. When John visited Kate’s workplace, he found extremely high electric fields. The highest were from the keyboard, which measured up to 300 volts per metre (V/m) — in comparison, most keyboards John had measured were about 5 V/m. Although 300 V/m was substantially smaller than the 5000 V/m allowed by international guidelines, it was far above the 10 to 40 V/m that some studies have associated with leukaemia. High electric fields were also coming from wiring that ran under the floor beneath Kate’s workstation, and inside the wall at the rear of her desk. In this case, the solution was simple. With the cooperation of Kate’s employer, John moved the computer to an alternative location and found that the fields immediately dropped from 300 to just 5 V/m. Within a week, Kate’s dermatitis had cleared and her tiredness greatly reduced.

Ed’s story Not all health problems are caused by the electromagnetic fields from the power system; electromagnetic radiation from mobile phones can often contribute to such problems, too. Ed was a successful businessman who often conducted his work from overseas locations such as Singapore and Paris. Needless to say, his mobile phone use was extremely heavy: he made calls that lasted up to an hour, and ran up bills of around AU$1000 per month. He invariably held the phone in his left hand so that he was free to work with his right. Often during calls he experienced a sensation of heat about two or three centimetres inside his head, near where he held the handset, and this feeling often persisted for up to 20 minutes. In 1997, Ed was diagnosed with a Merkel Cell tumour on the left side of his head, at the location where the aerial of his phone had touched his scalp. Merkel Cell tumours usually start in the lungs and then spread to other parts of the body. However, there was no indication of a tumour

10  —  The Force

in Ed’s lungs — something had caused the tumour to appear in his head. Ed had the tumour surgically removed, but the following year he was diagnosed with a tumour in the left parotid gland, located on his neck and shoulder just below the ear — directly and precisely adjacent to the position of the mouthpiece of his mobile phone. This was a very aggressive tumour that required radiotherapy and radical surgery, which removed a sizeable chunk of the left side of his neck and shoulder. Ed was told he had just two more years to live. Thankfully, Ed outlived the forecast time limit, but the scars remained with him: the physical and emotional legacy of his romance with technology. For Ed, there was no doubt that his tumours were caused by the microwave radiation from his mobile phone. The match between the position of his mobile phone and the location of the tumours was too perfect to be pure chance. And so it often is. The connection between high levels of electromagnetic exposure and health problems is just too frequent, too compelling, to be mere coincidence. The names of the individuals in these stories have been changed, but their experiences are true and they are not isolated incidents. Time and again, John, myself, and others who work in this area find that people living or working near high fields develop health problems. In our experience, they are exhausted and unwell, sometimes greatly so, and often immensely frustrated at the difficulties they’ve had in finding a solution to their problems. Fortunately, in our experience, many of their problems can be solved by reducing their exposure. Individually, none of us can change the global picture on EMR, but every one of us has a choice about how much exposure to accept in our own lives. In Chapters 3 to 6, you will discover what fields are generated by equipment such as powerlines, appliances, mobile phones, base stations, broadcast towers, and computers. In Chapters 7 to 10 you will read about how they have been linked to a range of serious health conditions, including leukaemia, brain tumours, Alzheimer’s disease, allergies, and depression. In Chapters 11 to 12, you can read about simple measures you can take to reduce your exposure, both in the home and in the workplace, and ways to minimise exposure in new buildings through design and planning. The force is already with you. The questions are, what are the risks and how can you protect yourself, your family, and your employees? Read on to find out.

Chapter 2

Energy Fundamentals for Beginners

‘All matter, living and nonliving, is ultimately an electromagnetic phenomenon. The material world, at least as far as physics has penetrated, is an atomic structure held together by electromagnetic forces.’ — Dr Robert Becker and Gary Selden

We are surrounded by electromagnetic radiation. The sun emits EMR, which we experience as light and heat. The earth has a static magnetic field that regulates our body cycle and helps living creatures to navigate their environments. Even people emit electric and magnetic fields, which can be measured with records such as magnetoencephalograms and electroencephalograms. Humans have added a host of artificial emissions to the naturally occurring electromagnetic radiation our bodies have adapted to over eons. In the last 100 years, society has witnessed the proliferation of huge power-distribution networks, the advent of radio and television, the widespread use of computers in industry and homes, and, more recently, the emergence of a large and constantly evolving telecommunications network. If EMR were visible, we would see ourselves enveloped in a complex web of tightly woven emissions. 11

Figure 1. A chart showing how electromagnetic radiation is associated with various medical, telecommunications, nuclear, and other activities.

12  —  The Force

Energy Fundamentals for Beginners  —  13

To understand the impact of EMR on our bodies, it is useful to understand something of the nature of this energy itself. The following description is a fairly simple outline that will be helpful in understanding some of the concepts used elsewhere in this book.

The electromagnetic spectrum Electromagnetic radiation is classified according to its frequency (the number of wavelengths to pass a given point in one second), and these are measured in hertz (Hz). In most countries, electricity networks operate at a frequency of 50 Hz, but in some, including the United States and Canada, they operate at 60 Hz. GSM mobile phones operate at frequencies between 890 and 915 million hertz (MHz), third-generation mobile phones at around 1800 MHz, and microwave ovens at 2450 MHz. Looking at Figure 1 on page 12, you can see that EMR ranges from extra-low frequency through the radiofrequency band in which our telecommunications system, microwave ovens, radios, and televisions operate, up to infra-red and visible light. This part of the spectrum is known as non-ionising radiation because the energy here is insufficient to break covalent chemical bonds directly. However, that does not mean that this energy is inert — there are other types of chemical bonds and other ways that energy can interact with them. The energy in each part of the non-ionising spectrum is known by a particular name: extra-low frequency (ELF), generated at low levels; electromagnetic fields (EMF), generated by the power system; and radiofrequency radiation (RFR) or microwave radiation (MR), generated by mobile communications technology. Beyond the non-ionising part of the spectrum is ionising radiation, which includes ultraviolet light, X-rays, gamma rays, and cosmic rays — all of which are known to cause health problems but are beyond the scope of this book. Electromagnetic radiation has an electric field and a magnetic field.

Voltage and current Without going into a complicated physics lesson, in order to understand an electric field it is necessary to first understand the concepts of voltage and current. Think of a bucket of water with a hole at the bottom. The pressure (voltage) of the water causes it to escape from the hole in a stream (current). If the pressure is great, the water will gush from the bucket. If it is not, the water will just trickle out. If it is variable, the current will vary, too. The same principles apply with voltage and current.

14  —  The Force

pressure (voltage)

flow (current)

Figure 2. The pressure of the water creates a flow, just as the voltage of electricity creates a current.

Electric fields Electric fields are the result of voltage, and they are present whenever appliances are turned on. A coffee percolator, for example, will give out an electric field as it prepares its tantalising brew first thing in the morning. What many people do not realise is that the electric field is also present when an appliance is plugged in but switched off, so that coffee percolator is likely to be generating a field throughout the day. Let’s return to the bucket analogy for a moment. When the hole is plugged, water cannot gush out as it did before, but the pressure forces minute amounts of water to escape from any imperfectly sealed holes.

pressure (voltage)

leakage (electric field) Figure 3. Moisture seeping through an imperfectly sealed hole in a bucket is similar to an electric field emitting from an electrical appliance.

Energy Fundamentals for Beginners  —  15

In the same way, when an appliance is turned off at its switch, a small electric field ‘escapes’ along the wire. Just as a greater water pressure will cause more leakage, a higher voltage will result in a higher electric field. This means, of course, that the only way to eliminate the electric field from the wiring of an appliance is to remove the plug from its socket. This tendency for electric fields to ‘escape’ can be observed on a rainy day near high-voltage powerlines. That crackling sound you will hear is the corona, the noise made by minute amounts of current as it escapes from the wire through the moist air. Some solid objects — for example, buildings, trees, and furniture — can partially block electric fields by diverting the energy back to the earth. The fields are most effectively diverted with earthed sheets of metal, which can be used in the home to block the electric field from, for example, a meter box. They can also be blocked with insulation such as rubber or PVC, which is one reason why wiring is encased in PVC conduit. Electric fields are measured in volts per metre (V/m).

Figure 4. Electrical fields occur at right angles to the active wire.

Magnetic fields Whenever an appliance is operating, its electrical current produces a magnetic field. This means that your coffee percolator is generating both an electric and a magnetic field while brewing the morning pick-me-up, but only an electric field while it is idle during the day. Unlike electric fields, magnetic fields are difficult to block, and can pass through the human body, most objects, and even the earth. Powerlines that have been laid in underground trenches can, depending on the way they are laid, still produce a measurable magnetic field on the nature strip. In general, the greater the current, the higher the magnetic field will be. Magnetic fields are measured in gauss (G) and milligauss (mG) or tesla (T) and microtesla (µT).

16  —  The Force

Figure 5. Magnetic fields radiate out from the conductor in circular waves. The strength of both magnetic and electric fields diminishes with distance from the source, so the further away you are, the weaker the fields.

Electromagnetic waves The length of an electromagnetic wave — the ‘wavelength’ — varies according to the frequency, and can extend for long distances. Incredibly, the wavelength for a 50-Hz wave from the electrical distribution system is 6000 kilometres, and for a 60-Hz wave it is 5000 kilometres. The 50- or 60-Hz signal that is produced by the power station is a pure, gently undulating wave, known as an alternating sine wave, which can be shown on a graph such as the one below. As you can see, alternating waves are quite symmetrical, with half positive and the other half negative. This is the sort of signal that most laboratory animals and cells are exposed to by scientists attempting to ascertain the safety — or otherwise — of electromagnetic fields from powerlines. However, the signals that people are to exposed in real life are quite different, because they’re modulated.

Figure 6. Power stations produce alternating waves with a relatively symmetrical pattern.

Energy Fundamentals for Beginners  —  17

Modulation A modulated wave is one in which the sine wave carries another wave superimposed on it. This means that two often quite separate frequencies travel together, either along a powerline or through our airways. Amplitude modulations, frequency modulations, transients, and other ‘hash’ signals all combine to produce a wave that is substantially different from the one that left the power station and the one to which luckless laboratory mice are subjected. Amplitude and frequency modulations Modulation usually occurs deliberately, in order to convey information. For example, in many areas powerlines are used to collect data about electricity consumption so that workers no longer have to check individual electricity meters manually (and brave ferocious guard dogs). Sometimes modulation occurs unintentionally, when powerlines — particularly high-voltage lines — act as antennas for a telecommunication system. In this situation, the powerline acts like a receiver/transmitter, albeit an inefficient one. Our radio networks use two different systems of modulation: AM and FM. The AM system is amplitude modulated, which means that the signal has the same frequency but variable amplitude. The FM system is frequency modulated, so that the amplitude is constant but the frequency varies. This occurs when the wave is compressed or stretched, so that there are more or less waves than usual number of the carrier signal. In a FM system, the receiving system interprets this complex signal and uses it to reconstruct the original transmission exactly. Consequently, it allows a complicated signal to be transmitted with fewer errors — and therefore more clarity — than the AM system.

Figure 7. The signal from an amplitude modulated (AM) wave is regular but varies in amplitude.

Figure 8. The signal from a frequency modulated (FM) wave has a constant amplitude but occurs irregularly.

18  —  The Force

Transients Transients are a type of unwanted interference caused by motors, switches, and electrical devices being turned on and off throughout the power grid. One type of transient, a spike, is rather like a pimple on the sine wave, lasting only for a fraction of a single cycle or less and often followed by smaller reverberations. This can be compared to the action of a diving board, which dips low and springs high during a dive and bounces several times afterwards. So, by the time the 50- or 60-Hz signal reaches us, it looks more like the image below. This is a far cry from the signal that was originally emitted from the power station — and a far cry from what is often tested in laboratories. It is sometimes referred to as ‘dirty electricity’.

Figure 9. These tiny transients are effectively high-frequency signals that have been superimposed on the original sine wave.

Thyristors Transients are often produced by the use of thyristors. These are electronic switches on appliances with speed control, such as drills or hairdryers, which enable the alternating current of the power system to run appliances at variable speeds. Operating an appliance containing a thyristor causes a distortion of the wave through the power system.

Pulsed signals The telecommunications network operates at a higher frequency than the power system, so it produces waves of shorter lengths. Whereas the old analog mobile phone system operated using a steady sine wave, digital networks utilise sharp pulses of power so that the signal looks a little like the figure below.

Figure 10. The waves from a digital mobile phone network are sharp and irregular.

Energy Fundamentals for Beginners  —  19

However, as in the power system, the signals are not even but consist of a series of tiny peaks and troughs, caused by, for example, mobile phones emitting signals. This means that, once again, our bodies are not being subjected to an even or regular pattern, but to a series of jarring signals of varying intensities. Yet in constructing standards for radiofrequency protection, there has been a tendency to estimate the impact on the body by averaging out the signal over six-or-so minutes, rather than considering the effects of brief but intense bursts of energy. This may be rather like claiming that a bullet to the heart is not harmful because averaged over six minutes it would cause nothing more than a slight bruise.

Direct current So far we’ve looked at electromagnetic signals that are generated in waves. However, there’s another type of field that does not have this feature. Direct current travels in a single direction, as opposed to the undulating sine waves of the power system. The current and its field have no waves and therefore no frequency. Direct current is produced by batteries, direct current generators, and solar cells. Sometimes it is used for transporting high-voltage electricity over long distances. After it has been transported, it is converted into alternating current for consumption.

Static electricity Unlike alternating current and direct current, static electricity does not involve the flow of current (hence the name ‘static’). It’s generated when certain materials are rubbed against each other, causing electrons on one surface to transfer to the other. The surface that has lost electrons will then have a positive electrical charge, whereas the one that has gained electrons will have a negative charge. These charges can either attract or repel objects — like charges repel while opposite charges attract. You can test this for yourself by running a comb through dry hair and holding it next to a piece of tissue paper. The comb will gather a negative charge from the hair, and this charge will attract the paper. Alternatively, combing hair on a very dry day will leave the hair with positive charges that cause strands to separate, giving a flyaway effect. (This doesn’t happen with damp hair because water reduces static charges.) Sometimes the attraction between two objects close to each other is so strong that it generates a small spark. You have probably experienced the effects of static electricity when you have walked across a nylon carpet, climbed onto a metal-framed

20  —  The Force

trampoline, or opened your car door. Sometimes the sensation can be quite uncomfortable. The body discharges accumulated static electricity when it comes into contact with the earth. Therefore, working in the garden, walking barefoot on grass, swimming in the ocean, or touching a tree literally ground us, and this is probably explains why we feel so good afterwards. On the other hand, working in artificial environments, wearing synthetic fibres, and using electronic equipment enhances the build-up of static. Rubber-soled shoes are insulators, so wearing them prevents the build-up from discharging naturally to earth. These effects are accentuated on dry, windy days, as our bodies and clothes pick up charges from the air flowing past. Now that you have an understanding of electromagnetic waves, it’s time to see them in action.

The TEchnology

Chapter 3

Powerlines and Appliances

‘I hypothesise that the 20th-century epidemic of the so-called diseases of civilisation, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and suicide, was caused by electrification, not by lifestyle.’ — Dr Samuel Milham

From the night light in the baby’s room to the digital alarm clock on the bedside table, from the microwave oven in the kitchen to the wiring that runs through the walls, you and your family are constantly surrounded by electricity. DVD players, entertainment consoles, computers, printers, scanners, stereos, electric blankets, heaters, air conditioners, vacuum cleaners, fridges, ovens — there’s an amazing array of electronic gadgetry that has become part of our daily lives. Each of these appliances is emitting electromagnetic fields while it is operating. Some of these fields in your home or workplace are likely to be well above levels that have been connected with risk.

The power network Electromagnetic fields are to electricity what night is to day — you can’t have one without the other. Every time you turn on a power point you activate an electric field, and every time you use an appliance you are 23

24  —  The Force

exposed to electric and magnetic fields. The electricity used for your morning cup of coffee has travelled great distances — perhaps hundreds of kilometres — to power the circuitry of your coffee machine. It began life at the power station as a young and innocent sine wave, smooth, regular, and uncorrupted. From there, it was transported through hightension wires at between 10 and 500 kilovolts (kV) to your neighbourhood, and then transformed by a series of substations until it reached the lower voltages of the domestic power supply. As it moved, the formerly pure sine wave was modified: as people switched appliances on and off, it was interrupted; as stray radiofrequency signals reached the powerlines, it carried them. As a result, its shape became less rounded and smooth and more irregular. It became what some people refer to as ‘dirty’ electricity. From the substations, this ‘dirty’ electricity travelled along the domestic power poles that run outside many homes. These poles normally carry either four or three lines or wires. In the four-wire system, three of these wires distribute electricity to the homes and workplaces in your street (which is why this system is also sometimes referred to as a ‘three-phased system’) and these are called active wires. The fourth wire, the neutral, carries the return current. In the three-wire distribution system, two of the wires are active and one is the return. The same principle applies to underground powerlines, where a three- or four-wire system has been installed beneath the ground and insulated.

Figure 11. Illustration courtesy National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health.

Powerlines and Appliances   —  25

A wire from one of these active lines connects to a service point in the home. From there, electricity flows to the meter box and then to the fuse box, which contains fuses, or circuit-breakers, for different circuits within the house. (Your home will probably have separate fuses and circuits for power outlets, lights, an electric hot water system, and perhaps an electric stove.) Electricity travels from the fuses along the active wire inside the home and into the coffee machine. And voilà — a morning pick-me-up is ready. But this is not the end of the story for the electrons that have heated your breakfast — they are not consumed by use, but live to work another day. Most of them will now travel through the return wire to the service point in your home, then back along the return wire on the street until they eventually reach the power station. If the amount of electricity running through the active wire in the home is similar to the amount of electricity running through the return wire, the fields from the wiring through your house will be balanced and therefore quite low. This is the ideal situation. However, there is another possible scenario: after the ever-efficient electrons have powered your coffee machine, some will travel from your meter box to the earth stake in the ground. The ground is not a good conductor and so this current, having come to a dead end, will generally look for another pathway back to the power station. Quite often it finds a conveniently placed metal pipe (metal is a conductor of electricity) on which to hitch a ride. This is the household water pipe, to which the wiring has been earthed for safety. If you have metal, rather than plastic, water pipes in your home and current is travelling along them, you may find the pipes are generating reasonably high electromagnetic fields. This can be a problem if your bed, favourite chair, or desk is located over the pipes. (The problem, of course, does not occur in houses with plastic water pipes.) Fortunately, this situation can be resolved by eliminating the current from the pipes, as we will see in Chapter 11.

Health concerns Electricity generates electromagnetic fields at every step of its journey from the power station to the home. Everything that involves electricity — from the transformers and powerlines on the street to the wiring in the home, from the household appliances to the electronic equipment at work — generates electric and magnetic fields. Even cars, buses, trains, and planes generate electromagnetic fields as they travel. Although you are not consciously aware of them, these fields are detected by your body,

26  —  The Force

and they cause certain biological changes. The question is, how significant are those changes for your health? The internationally recognised authority on the health effects of electromagnetic fields is the World Health Organization (WHO) and in particular its offspring, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). In 2005, the WHO convened a task force to consider this question. It concluded that ‘there are no substantive health issues related to ELF electric fields at levels generally encountered by members of the public’.1 The authorities in most countries of the world have adopted this view in some form or other. On the surface, this seems reassuring. It suggests that if we comply with international guidelines, we have nothing to worry about. However, in reality that is far from the case. We will see on page 31 how the WHO justifies its position, but for now let’s look at what has been happening to people’s health.

Childhood leukaemia ‘There is definite scientific evidence that exposure to magnetic fields from powerlines greater than 4 milligauss … is associated with an elevated risk of childhood leukaemia. Some scientific research indicates an elevated risk at levels of 2 milligauss.’ — Dr David Carpenter

John once measured a home owned by Sydney couple Matthew and Stella, located close to a high-voltage powerline in the city’s west. Inside the house, fields were generally in the order of 12 milligauss (mG). In the course of discussion, John remarked that the two seemed to be in good health. ‘We’re concerned about our health and we take pretty good care of ourselves,’ replied Matthew. ‘But I wouldn’t have my grandchildren living here for quids.’ ‘Why not?’ asked John, surprised. ‘Because the neighbours on each side of us have both lost children to leukaemia.’ In the developed world, the first hint that electromagnetic fields might pose a risk to health came unexpectedly during the 1970s. Dr Nancy Wertheimer, an epidemiologist investigating childhood leukaemia, happened to notice that children with the disease lived near wiring configurations that suggested high exposures. After several years of checking

Powerlines and Appliances   —  27

and re-checking her work, she and fellow scientist Ed Leeper published a paper in 1979 — to a fairly universal chorus of dissent. It was clear that virtually no one wanted to consider that this ubiquitous environmental presence might pose a risk to health.2 However, despite the persistent efforts of nay-sayers, other studies began to vindicate Wertheimer’s findings. In the next two decades, researchers in locations such as the United States, Sweden, Thailand, Britain, and Canada also found a connection between childhood leukaemia and electromagnetic fields from the power system. Moreover, this link was found even with fairly typical levels of exposure — levels that were just 1/250th of international guidelines! The cat was truly out of the bag. By 2000, there were a substantial number of studies into the link between powerlines and childhood leukaemia. Researchers had begun to conduct larger (‘meta’) analyses, which allowed them to use a far bigger database than was available for individual studies. One such study was conducted by Dr Anders Ahlbom of Sweden. He found that children exposed to just 4 mG had double the risk of developing leukaemia.3 In 2001, a review was conducted in the United Kingdom by the prominent epidemiologist Sir Richard Doll, who had some decades previously made the connection between smoking and lung cancer. It also found a doubling of the risk of childhood leukaemia among children exposed to fields of 4 mG or more.4 In a different type of study conducted that same year, US epidemiologist Dr Samuel Milham cast his attention backwards for a historical perspective on the link. What he found was alarming — he showed that childhood leukaemia rates had increased in children aged between two and four just after electricity had come to their neighbourhoods. He also found that the greater the degree of electrification of an area, the higher the leukaemia rate. And this was occurring not just in one country but many. Milham concluded that ‘the childhood leukaemia peak of common acute lymphoblastic leukaemia may be attributable to electrification’, and that 60 per cent of childhood leukaemia may be preventable.5 By 2002, the body of evidence linking electromagnetic fields with childhood leukaemia had grown again. The International Agency for Research on Cancer published a monograph in which it classified magnetic fields of over 4 mG as ‘possibly carcinogenic to humans’. The strength of the association was limited by lack of supporting evidence from animal studies.6 We shall shortly see the reason for this. Since then, other studies have strengthened the connection between electromagnetic fields and childhood leukaemia. In 2005, the largest

28  —  The Force

study on the topic to date was carried out in Britain. Conducted by Dr Gerald Draper from Oxford University, it analysed the records of over 29,000 children with cancer, and found that those born in homes within 200 metres of a high-voltage line had over one and a half times the relative risk of leukaemia of children who were born further away.7 In 2006, another particularly telling study was conducted in Japan by Dr Michinori Kabuto. It covered a wide geographical area that was home to over half of the Japanese population below 15 years old, and involved 312 children with leukaemia. The researchers took careful measurements in the homes, particularly the bedrooms, of the leukaemia patients. They found that children exposed to 4 mG or more had two and a half times the usual risk of developing acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. But the real surprise was regarding children with acute myelocytic leukaemia: Kabuto found that children exposed to 4 mG or more had, incredibly, over four and a half times the usual risk of developing this disease.8 The following year, Australian and UK researchers announced the results of their collaborative study on leukaemia rates in Tasmania, Australia’s smallest state. The researchers found that people who lived closest to high-voltage lines had a greater risk of leukaemia than those who lived further away. They also found that the more time people spent living close to high-voltage lines, the greater their risk of leukaemia, and every year lived within 50 metres of the lines increased the risk of developing the disease by 7 per cent. In addition, they discovered that the higher the voltage, the greater the risk: for example, living within 300 metres of an 88-kV line increased the risk of leukaemia by 33 per cent, but living within 300 metres of a 230 kV line increased the risk by 45 per cent. Finally, the study found that people who had lived near high-voltage powerlines as very young children had a higher risk of leukaemia than those who had done so later in life.9 Below is what other key studies have found. • Children exposed to 2 mG in the United States had nearly double the risk of leukaemia and those exposed to 4 to 5 mG had over six times the risk.10 Children in California living near very high-current wiring configurations had double the risk of the disease.11 • Canadian children living in high-current wiring configurations for two years had 1.7 times the risk of leukaemia.12 Children under six years old exposed to 1.5 mG had nearly three and a half times the risk of leukaemia.13 • Children in Scandinavia exposed to 2 mG or more had double the risk of leukaemia and those exposed to 5 mG or more had five

Powerlines and Appliances   —  29

times the risk of the disease while in Germany, children exposed to over 2 mG at night had over three times the risk of leukaemia.14 • Children living within 100 metres of a high-voltage powerline in Taiwan had an elevated risk of leukaemia.15 • A review found ‘a consistent risk of childhood leukaemia’ from residential magnetic fields.16 Another review found that children exposed to over 3 mG had 1.7 times the risk of leukaemia.17 • In Mexico, children with Down syndrome exposed to 6 mG or more had nearly four times the risk of developing leukaemia.18 The link between childhood leukaemia and electromagnetic fields is the strongest evidence we have so far that these fields may pose a health risk. However, the WHO has not factored it into the setting of international guidelines because the link has not yet been proven conclusively. For this kind of proof, international authorities would need to see similar results from animal experiments and, by and large, this has not been forthcoming. However, there’s a reason for this — experimental animals and cells are usually exposed to a simulated field. It’s often a pure, simple, uncomplicated sine wave like that generated at the power station. On the other hand, people are exposed to quite different signals in real life, as we have seen in Chapter 2: all sorts of ‘hash’, or distortion, is added to the pure sine wave when people turn switches on or off, use equipment with thrystors, or operate appliances which use powerlines to conduct highfrequency signals. As long as scientists try to test the link between powerlines and leukaemia by exposing animals and cells to signals that are quite different from those to which people are exposed, they are doomed to failure. Some might say this is a convenient outcome. Another reason why studies showing effects from EMF have not been factored into the WHO guidelines is because researchers have not yet found a ‘mechanism’, an irrefutable scientific explanation to account for how these fields could cause the disease. Without such an explanation, there’s no reason to assume that EMF ‘causes’ childhood leukaemia. In other words, in the world of science what scientists don’t understand doesn’t exist; it’s a bit like saying that God doesn’t exist because he/she can’t be measured and confirmed in the laboratory. Even so, there are some scientists who believe that there is already enough evidence to show that electromagnetic fields cause childhood leukaemia. As early as 2002, three scientists commissioned by the California Department of Health Services presented their verdict on the likelihood that electromagnetic fields had an impact on public health. After eight years and an expenditure of US$7,000,000, they released their report.

30  —  The Force

It concluded: ‘To one degree or another, all three of the DHS scientists are inclined to believe that EMFs can cause some degree of increased risk of childhood leukaemia, adult brain cancer, Lou Gehrig’s disease, and miscarriage.’19 Another independent review was the BioInitiative Report, the results of which were published in 2007. A group of 14 scientists and health experts analysed the available research and concluded that ‘[t]here is little doubt that exposure to ELF [extra-low frequencies] causes childhood leukaemia’. Their findings suggested that these fields are also a risk factor for adult leukaemia, Alzheimer’s disease, and genetic damage, among other problems, as we will see in Chapters 7 and 8. If governments and industry admitted there was a risk at 4 mG they would be accepting liability for the dangerous standards and practices that are currently in place. It would mean expensive changes to infrastructure for industry, redesign of commonly used equipment, reclassification of risk in existing occupations, and a massive reduction in the value of homes situated along high-voltage corridors. Even if the link between electromagnetic fields and childhood leukaemia is accepted, there’s a convenient escape clause that appears at regular intervals — that childhood leukaemia is a rare disease. If leukaemia affects only a small percentage of the population (estimates suggest there are about 42 cases per million) then is it worth taking costly action to protect the population at large? Your view on that will depend, I expect, on whether someone you know happens to be one of these vital 42 cases. Unfortunately when economic and political considerations such as these enter the health debate, what seems like a straightforward observation — that exposed children are getting sick — is obscured behind a smokescreen of confusion.

Anecdotal evidence of other health concerns There are hundreds of reports from people claiming to be affected by electromagnetic fields. Separately, these case studies prove nothing — they are certainly not scientific evidence. But, together, they paint a picture that these fields may be affecting the health and wellbeing of some of the people exposed to them. Irene had consulted her local GP, without success, for a number of uncomfortable symptoms. She suffered from severe depression, as did her husband; she had also been having difficulties sleeping for many years and was taking medication for sleep apnoea. Irene had also frequently

Powerlines and Appliances   —  31

experienced a strange sensation of pressure over her temples, which she described as feeling like she was wearing a tight cap around her head. After hearing me speak about electromagnetic radiation on the radio, Irene realised that she was sleeping on the other side of the wall from a meter box and next to an answering machine and a clock radio — all of which generated electromagnetic fields. That night, Irene moved her bed away from the meter box and the appliances away from the bed. She noticed an immediate improvement in the way she felt, and six weeks later reported that she felt healthy, no longer needed medication for sleep problems, and believed she no longer suffered from depression. As an additional bonus, the feeling of tightness around her head had disappeared. Dane was a normal, active 14-year-old with a problem: he was continually exhausted. He needed excessive amounts of sleep and would often come home from school and go straight to bed. Dane was sleeping on an electric blanket that generated fields of around 25 V/m. After his mother removed the blanket from his bed, Dane’s energy levels improved and his sleep patterns returned to normal. These are the real experiences of people living with electromagnetic fields. They may not have the force of laboratory-based scientific evidence, but they do support the connection which science has already identified — that electromagnetic fields are interfering with our bodies and impacting on our health. If this is the case, the obvious question to consider is how much exposure is safe?

Guidelines, standards, and safe levels There are two recognised sources of guidance on setting standards for EMR around the world. The first is a set of guidelines updated in 2010 by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), which are endorsed by the World Health Organization. The second is a standard developed in 2002 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), a society of technical and professional engineering with headquarters in the United States. Most countries in the world have based their regulations on one or both of these documents. However, both only provide protection against a limited number of short-term effects. The ICNIRP guidelines claim to provide ‘protection against all established adverse health effects’. While this sounds reassuring, the reality is that the only established health effects it considers are acute, short-term effects such as ‘shocks and burns’, ‘surface electric-charge

32  —  The Force

effects’, and the occurrence of phosphenes (flickering lights in the peripheral vision).20 It does not protect against ‘everyday chronic low-intensity ... power frequency magnetic fields’, such as those associated with childhood leukaemia, because it does not accept that the fields cause leukaemia (as we will see in later chapters). Similarly, the IEEE addresses only ‘established’ short-term effects. When it comes to problems from long-term, chronic exposure, both documents state that there is ‘insufficient’ evidence to set protective limits. In other words, neither international standard provides protection against long-term, continuous exposure. However, this is exactly the sort of exposure that you and I receive if we’re living or working near powerlines or electrical equipment. The levels that ICNIRP and the IEEE allow for general public exposure and for workers are shown in the following table. These are for frequencies that are relevant to the power system. General public and occupational exposure levels Magnetic field General public ICNIRP guidelines (2010) Occupational

IEEE standard (2002)

Electric field

2000 mG

5000 V/m

10,000 mG

10,000 V/m

General public, head and torso

9040 mG

5000 V/m

Occupational

27,100

20,000 V/m

These international guidelines are often referred to as if they provide public health protection. However, let’s be clear about what they are really saying: they do not state that complying with these levels will guarantee safety. They do indicate that compliance prevents a person from experiencing acute short-term effects such as electrostimulation and flickering lights, but if you want safety in the long term, there’s no guidance for you in these documents. As we have seen in relation to childhood leukaemia, a survey of the relevant research suggests that the ICNIRP’s 2000 mG exposure threshold for the general public is not really ‘safe’ at all. Over the last three decades a number of studies have found evidence of health problems at levels of exposure of 4 mG and under. This is what led the International Agency for Research on Cancer to classify magnetic fields of 4 mG and more as ‘possibly carcinogenic’. The BioInitiative Report concluded:

Powerlines and Appliances   —  33

Increased risk for childhood leukaemia starts at levels almost one thousand times below the safety standard … The existing ICNIRP limit … is outdated and based on faulty assumptions. These limits can no longer be said to be protective of public health and they should be replaced. It recommended a limit of 1 mG for locations near powerlines and 2 mG for all other new buildings. It also recommended a limit of 1 mG for areas that will be occupied by children or pregnant women. Based on these findings, it makes good sense to keep exposures below 4 mG and as low as 1 mG where possible. Unfortunately, it is not as easy to arrive at a ‘safe’ level of long-term exposure to electric fields, as less research has been done on this question. One of the few researchers to focus on electric fields is UK biologist Roger Coghill. He measured electric fields at the beds of children who had been diagnosed with leukaemia and found that sleeping in a field of 20 V/m gave almost a five-fold risk of developing the disease.21 Another relevant study was conducted in Canada and the results were published in 2000. In their research on over 31,000 workers at Ontario Hydro, Paul Villeneuve and his colleagues found higher rates of leukaemia and Non-Hodgkin lymphoma than among the general public. They were particularly high among workers exposed to fields between 10 and 40 V/m. Those who had worked in high electric fields for the longest periods had eight to ten times the risk of developing leukaemia.22 As you can see, these levels are significantly lower than the 5000 V/m or more allowed by international guidelines.

Prudent avoidance ‘Precaution, whether or not described as a formal principle, has served mankind well in the past and the history of public health instructs us to keep the spirit of precaution alive and well.’ — John Graham

The evidence on childhood leukaemia suggests that even extremely low electromagnetic fields — as low as 1/2000th of those allowed by international guidelines — may be a risk factor for health.23 Add to this the fact that international standards do not protect against continuous, long-term exposure, and you have a very real public health problem. To solve this conundrum, many administrators are turning to a policy of ‘prudent avoidance’.

34  —  The Force

Prudent avoidance, or the precautionary approach, embodies the idea of preventing exposure where possible. It’s a sensible method that’s applied in many areas of life to prevent unnecessary risk. For example, it’s common to wear seatbelts while driving, enclose backyard pools with a childproof fence, buy products free of artificial additives or pesticides, and practise safe sex.

Use of ‘prudent avoidance’ The term ‘prudent avoidance’ was first applied to electromagnetic fields by doctors Morgan, Florig, and Nair, from Carnegie Mellon University. In their 1989 report to the US Office of Technology Assessment, an advisory body to the US president, the authors defined prudent avoidance as ‘taking steps to keep people out of fields by rerouting facilities and redesigning electrical systems and appliances’.24 In Australia, the term was used by former chief justice Sir Harry Gibbs to mean ‘doing whatever can be done at modest cost and without undue inconvenience to avoid the possible risk [to health]’. In his 1991 report into high-voltage powerlines, Gibbs recommended that electrical authorities adopt a preventative policy of prudent avoidance regarding the selection of routes for powerlines: The epidemiological studies into the effects, if any, of electro magnetic fields at extremely low frequencies support the view that it is possible that exposure to those electromagnetic fields causes an increased risk of developing cancer in childhood and an increased risk in adults of developing leukaemia, lym phoma, and brain tumours.25

Prudent avoidance of electromagnetic fields is something that can be practised at every level of society. Legislators can enact regulations to reduce the public’s exposures at home and work to below 4 mG. They can encourage the local generation of electricity to avoid the need for high-voltage powerlines to transport electricity long distances. Power companies can locate infrastructure away from homes and schools. Manufacturers can design products to reduce exposure. Town planners can design for separation between infrastructure and living areas, and architects can require appropriate wiring configurations and the placement

Powerlines and Appliances   —  35

of meter boxes away from bedroom walls. Businesses can keep workstations away from equipment that generates high fields, and reduce the time that workers spend in high fields. And you and I can prudently avoid exposure by following the suggestions you’ll find in this book.

What’s being done about the risks? While there’s almost universal support for the concept of prudent avoidance, the important question is how this can be achieved in practice. In the last few decades there have been some bold initiatives by governments, business, unions, and legislators in many corners of the world to help reduce people’s exposure.

Action around the world To address the issue of fields from powerlines and appliances, a number of countries and organisations have adopted precautions to reduce exposure. Australia In 1992, the Victorian state government commissioned a panel, chaired by Professor Hedley Peach, to report on the link between electromagnetic fields and health. It recommended the following prudent avoidance strategies to reduce public exposure to EMR from power sources. • Substations located in buildings should be designed to reduce magnetic fields within the occupied areas of the building. • Design of new transmission and distribution facilities should be based on a policy of prudent avoidance and consideration should be given to the proximity of houses, schools, and other sensitive locations. • New double-circuit transmission lines should be reverse-phased.26 • New suburban lines should be undergrounded or strung overhead and bundled. • Research should be undertaken into ways to reduce fields from transmission lines, home wiring systems, and household appliances.27 Following this report, several unions implemented precautions to protect their workers. On 22 June 1995, library supplier Raeco signed an agreement with the Australian Services Union stipulating that no library worker would be exposed to an average magnetic field above 4 mG — although in practice higher exposures have been known to occur.28 In 1998, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) developed a policy that recommended workers be exposed to an average of no more

36  —  The Force

than 2 mG during an eight-hour day. It also recommended precautions to reduce exposure from desktop computer monitors and laptops. Some of Australia’s power companies have also adopted precautionary approaches to reduce unnecessary public exposure. In 1991, the country’s peak electrical body, the Electricity Supply Authority of Australia (as it was then called), adopted a policy of prudent avoidance. In 2002, Queensland power company Energex found itself entwined in a legal tussle with Logan City Council over the construction of a new substation adjacent to housing. During negotiations with the council, it agreed to restrict magnetic fields from substations and transformers to 4 mG at defined points in order to reduce public exposure.29 However, surely the most significant development for prudent avoidance in Australia is the formulation of the first Australian standard, which is expected to be finalised in 2011. The draft standard allows exposures of up to 3000 mG for members of the public — three times the limit of Australia’s previous guidelines and higher than those recommended by the ICNIRP. However, recent versions of the draft have included strong precautionary recommendations, including an annex listing precautions that can be taken by home owners; builders; architects; electricians; planners; managers of childcare centres, schools, and businesses; and the electricity supply industry. If these precautions are included in the published version of the standard, the document could raise the bar for public health protection. If not, it will be among the weakest EMF standards in the world.

Canada Like the United States, Canadian municipalities have introduced stricter limits for public exposure adjacent to high-voltage powerlines. In 2006, the state of Ontario considered legislation to eliminate the problem of ground-current pollution. You will recall from Chapter 2 that ground currents occur when electricity fails to return to the source via the neutral wire and instead finds its way back to the power station by an alternative route. This form of pollution is a particular problem in locations where electricity is distributed by a single active wire with no neutral return, such as that used in many rural areas. (The electricity’s only way back to the power source is through another conductor, such as the earth.) It has for many years been the source of complaints from farmers, who have blamed it for problems experienced by farm animals. The bill, known as the Ground Current Pollution Act 2006, required electrical utilities to address consumer complaints about ground currents within six months

Powerlines and Appliances   —  37

and to eliminate the problem in the state within ten years. The bill went as far as a second reading on 19 October 2006, but was not endorsed by parliament.30 In 2008, Toronto City Council delivered a report aimed at reducing public exposure to electromagnetic fields from high-voltage powerlines. It stated: ‘Given the possible link between the exposure to EMF and leukaemia in children, taking practical actions that can reduce exposures to children is prudent.’ Among the recommendations were requirements for EMF management plans in new developments to minimise exposure among young children and that electricity provider Toronto Hydro report on ways to reduce emissions.31

France As part of the wave of growing public awareness about the risks of electromagnetic radiation, the country’s Green Party adopted a policy advocating lower exposure standards for powerlines and electrical equipment. In a motion announced on 14 June 2009, the party advocated adopting the recommendations of the BioInitiative Report, which are 2.5 milligauss for powerlines and electrical equipment. This is 1/800th of the ICNIRP’s guidelines. In announcing the new limits, the party referred to the ‘modification of ecosystems caused by the uncontrolled development of techno-science, such as the technologies using electromagnetic radiation’. Holland In 2005, the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning, and the Environment developed guidelines limiting magnetic fields from high-voltage lines. It required magnetic fields to measure no more than 4 mG in new buildings. In order to comply with this, Dutch electricity-transmission operator TenneT, which is responsible for the supply of electricity in the Netherlands, developed a new style of high-voltage powerline. The design, known as Wintrack, features slender pylons that allow lines to be spaced closer together than on conventional high-voltage lines. This significantly reduces the magnetic field they produce at ground level, too.32 Israel Although the Israeli government has adopted the 1998 ICNIRP guidelines of 1000 mG for public exposure as its official standard, the Ministry of Environmental Protection has adopted a much stricter limit. In 2001, it recommended that fields from electrical facilities should be no higher than

38  —  The Force

10 mG in public and populated areas. In 2008, it issued a warning on its website encouraging people to keep mobile-phone chargers and transformers away from their beds while they sleep. ‘Placing a transformer less than half a metre away from the body in general and the head in particular is tantamount to sleeping under a [high-] tension line,’ said Dr Stalian Ghelberg, head of the Noise and Radiation Abatement division of the ministry. The warning, which was widely reported in the press, came after the ministry found in a random survey that most people sleep with their phone chargers beside their beds. It had measured fields of around 1000 mG directly next to the chargers, and fields of less than 2 mG half a metre away.33

Sweden The Swedish government has adopted a 2 mG limit in its official policy on prudent avoidance in planning. This means that new children’s facilities can be built only in areas where the ambient EMR exposures are less than 2 or 3 mG. It also obliges builders and engineers to construct or renovate buildings in such a way that exposures are reduced to 2 or 3 mG. The guidelines state: ‘Where new electrical installations and buildings are concerned, efforts should be made already at the planning stage to design and position them in such way that exposure will be limited’.34 The Swedish government is also the first in the world to recognise the condition of electromagnetic hypersensitivity, which we will read more about in Chapter 9. United Kingdom As early as 1999, the UK’s Local Government Association, which represents 50 million people, issued a strong statement on the need to adopt precautions to protect community health from electromagnetic fields. The document commented: it is surely unacceptable that the public’s health should be subjected to the possibility of compromise through the application of arguments which appear to be based on the need to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, a causal link in terms of absolute scientific proof. It recommended that restrictions be placed on new developments near powerlines and called for further research into the health effects of EMR.35

Powerlines and Appliances   —  39

During 2006 and 2007, five members of parliament considered the link between electromagnetic fields and childhood leukaemia in a crossparty inquiry. In its report, the panel asked the government to ‘recognise the potential risks to children’s health caused by exposure to EMF’. It recommended a moratorium on the construction of new homes and schools near high-voltage powerlines and a moratorium on the construction of new high-voltage powerlines near homes and schools. It also advocated greater consumer education, increased research funding, and local generation of electricity to avoid the need for more high-voltage lines.36 In 2007, the Stakeholder Advisory Group on ELF EMFs (SAGE), established by the Department of Health in 2004, released a report suggesting practical precautions for reducing exposure to electric and magnetic fields. The group recommended halting the construction of new buildings near powerlines and of new powerlines near existing buildings, and advised the government to provide information to householders on ways to reduce exposure.37 The government’s response to the SAGE report, which appeared in October 2009, recognised the value of equipment manufacturers and power companies taking precautions to reduce fields, but failed to implement any effective strategies to achieve this.38

United States In 1999, after six years of evaluating the science, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) released a report, which recommended low-cost precautions to reduce exposure: NIEHS suggests that the power industry continue its current practice of siting powerlines to reduce exposures and continue to explore ways to reduce the creation of magnetic fields around transmission and distribution lines without creating new hazards. We also encourage technologies that lower exposures from neighborhood distribution lines provided that they do not increase other risks, such as those from accidental electrocution or fire ... finally, the NIEHS would encourage the manufacturers of household and office appliances to consider alternatives that reduce magnetic fields at a minimal cost. We feel that the risks do not warrant major and expensive redesign of modern electrical appliances, but inexpensive modifications should be sought to reduce exposures.39

40  —  The Force

While the country’s official limits are in line with the IEEE and 1998 ICNIRP limits for exposure, some states have adopted more precautionary limits for the edge of high-voltage corridors.

Other European countries • While the Swiss government has adopted the 1998 ICNIRP limit of 1000 mG, it has also instigated a lower exposure limit of 10 mG for locations of ‘sensitive use’, which include children’s playgrounds and rooms occupied for ‘significant periods of time’, although what constitutes a significant period is not defined. • In Luxembourg, local governments have been encouraged not to approve building projects on land near high-voltage lines. • Since 1993, Denmark has had a precautionary policy in place that stipulates that high-voltage electrical installations are not to be built close to existing homes, and homes are not to be built near high-voltage installations. However, it does not stipulate just what degree of separation is required. • Russia has electric field limits that are 1/10th the ICNIRP level in living areas outside buildings. • While Italy has adopted the 1998 ICNIRP limit of 1000 mG, it also has lower limits in place for locations with exposures of more than four hours a day (30 to 100 mG). Some regions have adopted even lower limits of 2 mG for sensitive areas where people spend more than four hours a day, such as schools, homes, nurseries, and hospitals. • The Slovenian government has adopted the 1998 ICNIRP limit of 1000 mG. However, a more precautionary limit of 100 mG is in place for ‘protected areas’. These areas include ‘hospitals, health resorts, residential areas, tourism buildings, nurseries, schools, playground, public parks and recreational areas, public centres which include services and restaurants’.40 Other concerned bodies European Parliament The European Parliament is an influential body that has 27 member countries and represents over 500 million people. The parliament expressed concerns about electromagnetic radiation, and on 2 April 2009 it adopted a report calling for precautions to reduce public exposure. Among the recommendations were ‘reasonable’ distances between

Powerlines and Appliances   —  41

powerlines and homes, schools, creches, and health-care centres; consultation before the construction of new lines; and the devleopment of a new standard for high-voltage lines. It also recommended protecting workers from electromagnetic fields and investigating the effects of these fields, particularly from powerlines.41

World Health Organization While the WHO has not admitted that electromagnetic fields may be responsible for public health problems, it has recommended the following precautions for governments and power companies: Government and industry should monitor science and promote research programmes to further reduce the uncertainty of the scientific evidence on the health effects of ELF field exposure. Through the ELF risk assessment process, gaps in knowledge have been identified and these form the basis of a new research agenda. Member states are encouraged to establish effective and open communication programmes with all stakeholders to enable informed decision-making. These may include improving coordination and consultation among industry, local government, and citizens in the planning process for ELF and EMF-emitting facilities. When constructing new facilities and designing new equipment, including appliances, low-cost ways of reducing exposures may be explored. Appropriate exposure-reduction measures will vary from one country to another. However, policies based on the adoption of arbitrary low-exposure limits are not warranted.42 Elsewhere, legislators have taken opportunities to restrict public exposure to electromagnetic fields by implementing rules that offer a higher level of protection than that provided by international standards. Several countries have introduced limits that are much stricter than international standards, as you can see from the table on the following page. In addition, Ireland does not permit powerlines or substations within 22 metres of schools, and Sweden and New Zealand support voluntary measures to reduce exposure. The result is great variation in the levels that are considered to be acceptable. The table shows the range of maximum magnetic fields that different authorities consider appropriate for general public exposure.

42  —  The Force

Maximum short-term exposure to magnetic fields Magnetic field

Country or agency

9040 mG

IEEE standard (2002)

3000 mG

Australian draft standard (2007 version)

2000 mG

ICNIRP guidelines (2010)

Maximum limits or levels for the general public

150–200 mG United States

Limit from high-voltage powerlines at the edge of right-of-ways or other specified locations (regulations, policies, or practices that apply only in certain states)

100 mG

Italy (2003)

Limit for locations where people spend more than four hours per day (legislation)

30 mG

Italy (2003)

Limit for new powerlines and homes where people are likely to be exposed 24 hours a day (legislation)

10 mG

Switzerland (1999)

Limit for ‘sensitive-use’ locations such as schools and hospitals (legislation)

10 mG

Israel (2001)

Limit for 24-hour exposure (government guidelines)

4 mG

Netherlands (2005)

Limit for new buildings and powerlines (government advice)

2.5 mG

France (2005)

Limit recommended by the Green Party

2 mG

Italy (2003)

Limit for locations where people spend more than four hours per day (regulations that apply in three regions)

2 mG

BioInitiative Report (2007)

Limit recommended for new facilities

1 mG

BioInitiative Report (2007)

Limit recommended for new facilities near powerlines

>4 mG

IARC (2002)

Level classified as ‘possibly carcinogenic to humans’

Powerlines and Appliances   —  43

Dr Martin Blank, Associate Professor in the Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics at Columbia University, has been researching the effects of EMF for years. From a review of the literature, he has concluded that the threshold for triggering stress in the body occurs at just 5 to 10 mG.43

Forms of exposure You, your family, and your employees may be subjected to many forms of exposure in the home or workplace, including exposure from appliances, powerlines, substations and transformers, and ‘dirty electricity’.

Exposure from appliances Unless you are living or working near a high-voltage powerline, the main sources of exposure inside your home or workplace are likely to be appliances and the wiring that feeds them. You have the opportunity to control these exposures. We can compare appliances to the street lamps in your neighbourhood. Each lamp casts a small pool of light and, depending on their location, some will be more intense than others. As you stand beneath one of them you are able to see the time on your watch, but visibility diminishes when you are even a short distance a way. Like the street lamp, each appliance in your home or workplace casts a field of electromagnetic energy that dissipates with distance. Your exposure depends not just on the intensity of this field but how long you spend in it. Many common household appliances — toasters, electric ovens, and stereos — do not cause significant exposure because its rare to spend time close to them while they are operating. Sometimes electrical authorities have misleadingly compared the fields from highvoltage powerlines to those from typical domestic appliances such as hairdryers. While it’s true that the fields might be similar, because of the time of exposure involved the amount of exposure a person receives is not. Inside the home, the appliance that causes potentially the highest exposure is the meter box, which is often located on a bedroom wall. If the bed is positioned next to it, it’s possible for the occupants to be exposed to up to 100 mG all night as they sleep. John and I have observed over the years that people sleeping in locations such as this often have chronic health problems, depression, and sleep difficulties. You can often reduce your electromagnetic field exposure considerably by making sure that you keep unnecessary appliances away from locations in which you spend long periods of time. For example, do not

44  —  The Force

keep digital alarm clocks, electric blankets, mobile phone chargers, or powerboards near the bed while you sleep; keep electrical equipment such as computers and televisions out of the bedroom; and try to keep your workstation as far away from electrical equipment as possible and your computer’s hard drive away from your body as you work. Of course, the wiring that feeds your appliances also emits electromagnetic fields; however, there are ways of reducing these, as we will see on page 48.

Exposure from powerlines You might be living, or considering purchasing, a home near a highvoltage powerline and may be wondering what electromagnetic fields it is emitting. The best way to ascertain your exposure is, of course, to have the fields measured. However, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has compiled data on exposure from a range of high-voltage powerlines. The following table will serve as a rough indication of exposures at various distances. Typical EMR exposure from high-voltage powerlines Standing At approx. At approx. At approx. At approx. beneath 15 metres 30 metres 61 metres 91 metres (50 feet) (100 feet) (200 feet) (300 feet) away away away away 115 kV line Average use

30 mG

7 mG

2 mG

0.4 mG

0.2 mG

Peak use

63 mG

14 mG

4 mG

0.9 mG

0.4 mG

Average use

50 mG

20 mG

7 mG

1.8 mG

0.8 mG

Peak use

118 mG

40 mG

15 mG

3.6 mG

1.6 mG

Average use

87 mG

29 mG

13 mG

3.2 mG

1.4 mG

Peak use

183 mG

62 mG

27 mG

6.7 mG

3.0 mG

230 kV line

500 kV line

Source: Environmental Protection Agency, ‘Electric Magnetic Fields in Your Environment’, 1992.

Powerlines and Appliances   —  45

It’s not just how far you are from a powerline that determines the exposure you and your family will be receiving. As you can see from the table, the magnetic field varies considerably according to the demand for electricity. The more current flowing through the lines, the higher the fields will be. Don’t forget about the fields that are being generated inside the house, too. On one occasion, a real-estate agent watching John take measurements of the electromagnetic fields in a house told him that he felt powerlines contributed to health problems. When John asked why, he explained: ‘In my first six years in real estate, I sold new houses under large powerlines, and almost always they would be resold within two years. Families who would give a reason said that they had had nothing but sickness since moving in.’ Living near a high-voltage line certainly doesn’t guarantee health problems — many people have lived close to powerlines for years without any apparent ill effects. However, it does increase the electromagnetic fields to which a family is exposed. Some people believe the metal towers that support the lines are a risk to their health, but that’s not the case. It’s the lines themselves that emit electromagnetic fields, not the towers, which merely support the lines. In fact, there are often higher readings from the lines in the middle of a span, where they dip closer to the ground, than at the towers, where they are higher and therefore further away. Likewise, there’s a common belief that placing powerlines underground will reduce their fields. If only it were so simple! When cables are put underground, they are shielded by the earth and so they produce almost no electrical field. However, the magnetic field remains. It is conducted through the earth to ground level, where it can be measured. In fact, the magnetic field from an underground line may be even higher at ground level, because it is only a metre or so below the feet, than that from an above-ground line, which is further away. It is possible to underground a powerline in a way that reduces both the magnetic and electric fields: if the three active phases and the neutral wire are laid close to each other in a single conduit, their fields will largely cancel each other out. However, this does not always occur in practice — often the three active phases and the neutral are laid in separate conduits.

Exposure from substations and transformers Substations are the nodes in the electricity grid that connect high-voltage and domestic powerlines. High-voltage lines feed electricity into the

46  —  The Force

substation, where transformers convert it into the appropriate voltage for its journey into the powerlines in your neighbourhood. The lines themselves and the transformers within the substation generate relatively high electromagnetic fields. You may be wondering if living or working near a substation is a risk for you or your family’s health. What would your exposure be if you were living, say, next door to or across the street from a substation? That will depend to a large extent on how the substation is designed. Older substations are often bigger than their more modern counterparts, and this means that the equipment is generally located further from the boundary so that the fields at the perimeter are lower. Newer substations tend to be smaller and located much closer to homes and workplaces. Sometimes they’re located in the basements of offices or unit blocks. The fields emitted from these substations will depend on the amount of shielding, if any, that has been installed. The most accurate way to determine the fields from a substation is to measure them.

Figure 12. Freestanding transformers are usually located in areas where powerlines run underground. They tend to be encased in steel boxes, which provide some shielding and help to reduce fields. Nevertheless, these transformers can still emit high fields — I’ve measured over 200 mG at off-peak times.

It may be that there are no discernable fields at the boundary of the substation or the properties around it. But don’t forget the fields from the high-voltage lines that feed into it — electromagnetic fields from

Powerlines and Appliances   —  47

Figure 13. Pole-mounted transformers convert electricity to a voltage that can be used in homes. They service a small area in locations where there are overhead wires.

substations can affect the surrounding homes. You will recall that when the electricity in your home has completed its work it aims to return ‘home’ to the power station via the neutral wire in your household wiring, but some becomes diverted into the ground via the earth stake. The same is true for the substation: because it is earthed for safety reasons, there is usually a higher than average level of return current in the earth around it seeking a way back to the power station. If there are conductive metal pipes nearby, such as water pipes, the current may hitch a ride as it travels through the house. This may result in high fields in your house. These can be eliminated, as you will see in Chapter 11. Your local electricity system includes strategically placed transformers, either mounted on poles or free standing. Their job is to transform the voltage of the electricity from the substation. They can convert a high voltage of, say, 11,000 volts (V), to a voltage that is suitable for home use: 240 V in Australia, 230 V in the United Kingdom, or 120 V in the United States. In addition to the transformers that are part of the power grid, some transformers are located in large buildings. They convert the high-voltage power that is often transported in underground lines to the lower voltages necessary to operate equipment in the building. At the same site, there is often a profusion of electrical equipment, such as switchboards,

48  —  The Force

circuit breakers, and switchgear. Together, these produce high electromagnetic fields that permeate the walls, and can reach those in neighbouring rooms. John has measured fields of up to 700 mG in some office buildings! Are the fields from these transformers a risk factor for health? According to a study from the United States, they may be. In the mid1990s, Dr Samuel Milham studied a group of workers in an office situated above three 12-kilovolt (kV) transformers. Fields were 190 mG at floor level, and 90 mG at just over a metre above the floor. He found that over a 15-year period there were eight cases of cancer. Only one occurrence was in a person who had worked in the office for less than two years — the other seven were found in people who had worked there for two or more years (156 workers fell in this category). The risk of developing cancer, Milham found, increased with the length of employment.44

Exposure to dirty electricity ‘Dirty’ electricity is the hash that interferes with the smooth, regular sine wave that leaves the generating plant. It is caused by people turning equipment on or off, or appliances switching from one power source to another. Some people believe that ‘dirty’ electricity contributes to health problems and that health improves when it is eliminated. Dr Magda Havas from Trent University in Canada found that over 60 per cent of teachers in three schools in Minnesota reported feeling better after dirty electricity was eliminated from the school. They reported fewer headaches and skin problems; less weakness, dry eyes, flushing, asthma, depression, and anxiety; and improved mood. However, 30 per cent reported feeling worse after the changes.45 Dr Havas has also documented cases where eliminating dirty electricity improved the symptoms of people with diabetes and multiple sclerosis.46 Dr Milham found that at a school in La Quinta, California, which had what could only be described as extremely ‘dirty’ electricity, 16 of the 137 teachers had developed cancer.47 Dirty electricity may well contribute to health problems, and there are tips for dealing with it in Chapter 11, but it is unlikely to be the only factor involved.

Reducing fields from wiring In order to lower the electromagnetic fields from the wiring in your home, there are two factors to consider. The first is to ensure a balance

Powerlines and Appliances   —  49

between the amount of current running into your house along the active wire and the amount running out through the return wire. The more balanced the current, the lower the fields. This means the fields will not travel to earth through the return wire and the water pipe. The second is to ensure that when the house is being wired the active and return wires are run close to each other. If they are separated — as happens, for example, with some lights that have dual switches — the fields are increased. If they are spaced alongside or close to each other, the fields to some extent cancel each other out. This is why wires are often bundled or grouped, and sometimes twisted around each other, as you will see on some overhead poles. In an experiment, John ran three active wires separately and measured a field of 300 mG. The same wires moved closer together produced a field of 30 mG. When twisted, the field they emitted was just 2.1 mG — so obviously twisted cabling will produce the lowest emissions in your home. Other ways that you can limit your fields from wiring are described in Chapter 11.

Figure 14. The magnetic fields around an active and a return wire should, to an extent, cancel each other out if the wires are placed close together.

Effect on property values It is not just health that may be put at risk from living close to a hightension powerline or substation. As many people have found to their cost — literally — over the last few decades, this infrastructure can depress the value of their properties.

50  —  The Force

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

In 2010, property prices were reported to have fallen as much as AU$400,000 in the Australian Sunshine Coast town of Eerwah Vale, following plans by company Powerlink to construct a highvoltage powerline.48 In 2001, a real-estate agent from the Melbourne suburb of Moonee Valley said that homes near transmission lines could be up to AU$20,000 cheaper than comparable homes elsewhere. While his agency did not have trouble selling these properties, he noted that buyers tended to rent them out rather than live in them.49 In 1999, the UK National Association of Real Estate Appraisers advised valuers that overhead powerlines devalued properties. This was because of the perceived risks of electromagnetic fields, as well as their visual impact. Electricity companies, it said, were required to compensate owners for such losses.50 In 1998, a US bank refused to mortgage a property next to a substation on the basis that it could cause the property ‘to suffer from environmental conditions’ (that is, according to one bank representative, it may cause a loss of US$50,000 because of its location).51 A survey of real-estate agents in US cities found that being located near a high-voltage powerline devalued a property.52 In 1997, a Canadian court ruled that fields from a substation devalued an adjacent property, justifying an annual reduction of several thousand dollars in the owner’s tax.53 In 1996, a US court ordered Virginia Electric and Power Company to pay US$967,000 to property owners John and Janet Dolzer for devaluation of their property due to EMFs from two 230-kV transmission lines.54 Peter Colwell, writing in the American publication Journal of Real Estate Research in 1996, said that the value of properties near high-voltage powerlines had been reduced.55 Robin Gregory and Detlof von Winterfeldt also found reductions in the value of real estate near high-voltage powerlines.56 In 1993, a New York court ruled that when part of a landowner’s property is seized for the construction of high-voltage powerlines, he or she be compensated for the loss of value to the remainder of the property due to ‘cancerphobia’, whether or not that fear is justified.57 In the same year, a study by a Houston appraiser found that the value of ten properties adjacent to a high-tension line was 13 to 30 per cent lower than those of comparable homes nearby.58 In 1985, a Texan court awarded damages of US$104,275 to a

Powerlines and Appliances  —  51

school district after an electrical company constructed a hightension powerline 40 metres (130 feet) from one school and 76 metres (250 feet) from another. The line was later moved, at a cost of US$8,000,000.59 These examples are not surprising. Over the years I have often been contacted by prospective homebuyers wanting to know whether it is safe to purchase a property near high-tension powerlines. Most report that the home they wish to buy is extremely cheap by usual standards. If powerlines are above ground they will be obvious, but those located underground can often only be detected with a meter. If you’re looking to buy a property, look for fields from powerlines at ground level. If electromagnetic fields from powerlines, wiring, and appliances impact on people’s health — and the evidence suggests they do — then you have a choice to make. If you choose to ignore the evidence and do nothing, the consequence will be continued exposure to the current fields in your home or workplace. If you choose to find out just how much you and your family are being exposed to and want to do something about it, you will find helpful suggestions on ways to limit your exposure in Chapter 11.

Chapter 4

Mobile Phones

‘Exposure to cell phone radiation is the largest human health experiment ever undertaken without informed consent, and has some 4 billion participants enrolled.’ — Lloyd Morgan

It is sleek, colourful, compact, and convenient; it is your umbilical cord to society. With it you can be instantly available to friends, work outside the office, look up directions on the internet and, as the industry so often reminds us, call for help in emergencies. Mobile phones have transformed the way we work, play, and live. They have also captured the popular imagination: more than communications tools, they are fashion items, status symbols, and statements of membership to peer groups. There is such a demand for the accessibility mobile phones provide that people are buying them in droves. There are now more than five billion mobiles in use worldwide. In the first three months of 2009 alone, the industry clocked up sales of over 269 million mobile phones. In Africa, 90 per cent of telephone users use mobiles rather than landlines, and in Europe there are now more mobile phones than people.1 As mobile telephony continues to grow and develop, people are using their phones for longer periods and to perform an increasing range of functions. 53

54  —  The Force In 2008, the country with the highest mobile phone subscription per capita was the United Arab Emirates, where there were more than two mobile phones per person.2

Radiation ‘Existing safety guidelines governing exposure of the public to the radiation employed in mobile telephony are totally inadequate, and the philosophy underlying their formulation is fundamentally flawed.’ — Dr Gerard Hyland

Wherever you are located, whatever kind of phone you use, and wherever it is positioned on your body, you will be absorbing radiofrequency radiation — the sort that is used to cook food in microwave ovens. When you turn on your phone to connect to a friend, it sends a signal of radiofrequency radiation to the nearest phone tower, even before you begin to talk. When you begin speaking, a microphone inside your phone converts the vibrations of your voice into low-frequency electrical signals. These signals are then added to a radiofrequency signal. This combined signal is divided up into short pockets of information that your phone transmits through its aerial to the closest mobile phone base station. The base station transfers the signal to a telephone exchange, which passes it on to another base station and this, in turn, sends the signal to your friend’s phone. Your friend’s phone removes the highfrequency signal, leaving the pulsed low-frequency signal with your message. The earpiece converts this into the sound of your voice and your friend probably doesn’t recognise the difference. If you hold the phone against your head while you make this call, your head will absorb a good part of the radiofrequency signal. If you have a headset and hold your phone against your body during the call, your body will absorb the radiation. In fact, if you hold your phone directly against your body during a call, your body may absorb up to three times as much radiation as allowed by international standards. In 2008, Australian current-affairs television program Today Tonight organised independent testing of four models of mobile phones to find out how much radiation was absorbed when they were held against the body. The tests showed that radiation absorption from three of the four phones was well above the levels allowed by international guidelines of 2 watts per kilogram (W/kg) for the head and trunk (0.08 W/kg for the

Mobile Phones   —  55

whole body). Radiation absorption from the Nokia E65 reached 3.35 W/ kg at 1800 MHz and 5.84 W/kg at 2100 MHz. Absorption from Telstra’s HTC Dual Touch 850 was 2.46 and 2.92 W/kg; from the Sony Ericsson W910, 2.16 W/kg; and from Vodafone’s 226 Sagem, less than 2 W/kg.3 Yet all four phones complied with the Australian standard. This is because Australian regulations allow phones to be tested at a distance of 25 millimetres from the body, rather than directly against the body, as they might be in a shirt or trouser pocket. The situation may be worse if you place the back of the phone against your body because this is where the antennas are usually located. If you check the fine print of your phone’s user manual, you’ll probably find that the manufacturer advises holding the phone a few millimetres away from your head when you use it. If you hold it flat against your head during a call, as most people do, you may be exposed to more radiation than allowed by international standards. Your phone also continues to send sporadic signals to the closest base station while it is turned on, even when you are not making a call. This means that if you leave your phone on while it is in your pocket or handbag, it could irradiate the parts of your body that are closest to it. Any metal near the phone, such as a belt buckle or zip, will increase the amount of radiation that your body absorbs. The amount of radiation that your phone emits during a call will vary according to your location. When your phone is a long way from a base station, it will transmit signals at a higher power to ensure they reach the station. This means that mobile phones in rural areas generally operate at a higher power than in urban areas because the closest phone towers are usually further away. Similarly, if you make a call inside a building, your phone will require more power to penetrate the walls than if you call near an open window or outside the building. If the glass is tinted, it will require even more power. Studies from Spain, South Korea, Britain, the United States, Germany, and Australia all show a high incidence of mobile phone addiction. In Europe, one in ten people now admit being addicted to their mobile phones.4 In 2004, German psychotherapist Dr Andreas Herter found that addiction to text messaging led to depression and personality disorders and had already affected 380,000 Germans. He referred to a married couple who only communicated through SMS, even when in each other’s company!5

56  —  The Force

Cordless phones You might try to limit your exposure to mobile phone radiation by using a landline. But what if your landline is a cordless phone — have you ever thought about whether it emits radiation? Cordless phones are similar to mobile phones in that they transmit microwave radiation between the handset and the cradle — it’s like having a mini mobile phone system in your home. Many cordless phones operate at similar power to mobile phones, and this is more likely to be the case if your phone allows you to make calls while you are some distance from your home. A common cordless phone technology that is used in countries around the world is Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT). This third-generation phone system operates using highfrequency radiofrequency radiation similar to that used by mobile phones (1.8, 1.9, 2.4, and 5.8 GHz). DECT phones can be used to make calls and access the internet, and for an increasing variety of other functions. DECT technology is also used for some baby monitors. Most DECT base stations transmit a radiofrequency signal continuously and at maximum power. This means that you and those nearby are exposed to its signals whether or not you are making a call. If your phone is located near the bed, you are exposed to it all night as you sleep; if it is in the study or at your workstation, you are continually exposed as you work. (And similarly, if your DECT baby monitor is located near the cot, your baby is exposed continuously as it sleeps.) Electronic equipment It is common knowledge that the radiation from mobile phones interferes with delicate electronic equipment. After all, we are accustomed to being asked to turn off our phones or laptops on an aircraft or in a hospital. In fact, you can observe how the radiation from a mobile phone interferes with electronic circuitry in a simple experiment. Turn your phone on and leave it next to a radio. Whenever you hear static from the radio, you know the mobile phone is interfering with the signal. In much the same way, the radiation from a mobile phone interferes with the electronic circuitry of other devices — and perhaps with that of your brain. Electromagnetic interference from mobile phone radiation is a particular problem for those with pacemakers and cardiac defibrillators. Studies have shown that mobile phones, along with walkie talkies, cause interference with the devices, and some have recommended that wearers

Mobile Phones   —  57

keep them away from the heart or avoid them altogether. The World Health Organization admits: Mobile phones may interfere with certain electromedical devices, such as cardiac pacemakers and hearing aids. In hospital intensive care departments mobile phones should not be used as they can be a danger to patients.6 As health specialists develop more implantable electrical devices, the issue of electromagnetic incompatibility is likely to become an increasing problem in the future.

Health concerns ‘Insurance companies do not insure cell phone providers because of the incalculable health risks.’ — Aviva insurance company

The key question that most of us want answered is whether radiation from mobile phones has a harmful effect on health. After decades of study and the expenditure of millions of research dollars, there is still no consensus among scientists. It is clear that high levels of radiation cause changes in the body. They can stimulate nerves and muscles, and cause heat stress and microwave hearing (the ability to hear radiofrequency signals) by heating the tissue. International standards are designed to protect against these thermal effects. It is also clear that low levels of radiation, too low to cause heating, nevertheless have important effects on the body. These athermal, or non-heating, levels of radiation are known to cause changes to the way that cells communicate, and alterations to enzymes, genes, hormones, and brainwave patterns. They have also been linked with serious diseases. Where scientific opinion differs is how significant these changes are for health. Some argue that such changes do not necessarily reflect health problems. Others take the view that these changes are detrimental to the body and can lead to illness or disease, particularly over a long period of exposure. Brain tumours, for example, take an average of 30 to 40 years to develop. Since mobile phones have only been in widespread use since the 1990s, we are still to see the full health impacts of the technology.

58  —  The Force

It may take decades for the effects to become clear, as was the case with cigarettes, asbestos, lead, and other environmental pollutants. Naturally, the telecommunications industry takes the former point of view. If these biological changes are not yet proven to be of consequence for health, then it can be comfortably said that there is ‘no conclusive proof’ of health problems, ‘no established evidence’ of harm, ‘no increase in temperature’, and other similar reassuring statements.7 The World Health Organization also takes the view that mobilephone radiation is not a health problem. Its advice to the public is that: To date, the only health effect from RF fields identified in scientific reviews has been related to an increase in body temperature (> 1°C) from exposure at very high field intensity found only in certain industrial facilities, such as RF heaters. The levels of RF exposure from base stations and wireless networks are so low that the temperature increases are insignificant and do not affect human health.8 This, in one form or another, is the approach that has been taken by many radiation authorities around the world. However, if the low, non-heating effects of mobile phone radiation are insignificant for health, then how do we explain the uncomfortably large body of evidence that has been slowly but steadily mounting over recent years? There are now hundreds of scientific studies showing that athermal levels of mobile phone radiation have produced biological effects that are consistent with health problems. It has been associated with cancer, reproductive problems, changes to performance and sleep, and behavioural problems. As well as this, users have reported a range of other unpleasant symptoms.

The link to tumours ‘It’s possible that mobile phone technology is the 21st century’s tobacco.’ — Dr Vini Khurana

The big concern for researchers, and for users, is whether mobile phone radiation causes brain tumours. The link between mobile phones and brain tumours first gained public attention in the 1990s with some high-profile legal cases. In 1992,

Mobile Phones   —  59

US couple David and Susie Reynard took legal action against the telecommunications industry after Susie developed a brain tumour in the location where her phone antenna sat when she held the phone to her ear. ‘She had a tumour the size of a golf ball right here on the side of her head, which is where the antenna would go when you’re using the phone,’ David Reynard told CBS News.9 In 2000, US doctor Christopher Newman, a 41-year old neurologist with a brain tumour he alleged was caused by the radiation from his mobile phone, took legal action against a number of telecommunications companies for US$800 million. Newman said that he used his mobile phone ‘frequently for 20 to 30 minutes at a time, until the phone got hot, and my ear got hot, and my ear turned red. It hurt.’ According to Newman’s attorney, Joanne Suder: After Dr Newman was diagnosed and began treatment, his own physicians made the correlation between his longtime cell-phone use and his cancer. He also has documented, unfortunately, nine years of a vast amount of cell-phone use, and his terminal tumour is located in the exact anatomical location where the radiation from the cell phone emitted into his skull.10 Neither action was successful, and Reynard and Newman subsequently died from their cancers. But their cases, and their widely publicised beliefs about the cause of their tumours, ensured that media attention was firmly focused on the link between mobile phones and brain tumours. With pressure mounting to find answers about the connection, the International Agency for Research on Cancer initiated the world’s largest research project into mobile phone radiation: a five-year, 13-country study known as Interphone. Its aim was to discover whether mobile phone use was a risk factor for four types of tumour: the brain tumours gliomas and meningiomas, tumour of the acoustic nerve, and tumour of the parotid (salivary) gland. To test the link, scientists asked healthy controls and people with cancerous tumours to recall details of their mobile phone use. The study, which involved 21 scientists, was completed in 2005, although some individual studies from the project were published in 2004. However, the first official results were not released until 2010, owing to disagreements among researchers. Even then, they were ambiguous. When the Interphone study group finally published its results in May 2010, it considered only the risks of developing glioma and meningioma tumours.11 (At the time of publication, the report on studies of

60  —  The Force

acoustic-nerve and parotid tumours had still not been released.) It found that the 10 per cent of people who made the highest number of phone calls had a 40 per cent increased risk of developing gliomas. What is so alarming about this finding is that this group included people who used their phones for just 30 minutes a day. Overall, the researchers did not find an increased risk of brain tumours for short-term or ‘regular’ mobile-phone use, which, at first glance, seems reassuring. What they did find was a highly protective effect for regular users of mobile phones — in other words, they suggested that regular use resulted in less chance of developing a brain tumour. However, the study defined a regular user as someone who made just one call per week over six months or more — and this is anything but a regular phone user in today’s society. And before you rush to your mobile phone to offer this news to your friends, let me share some research on the reliability of the finding. The idea that mobile phone radiation protects against brain tumours is highly unlikely — in fact, so unlikely that this finding suggests some serious design flaws in the study. Lloyd Morgan, a former electrical engineer, brain tumour survivor, and author of many publications on EMR, wrote a critique identifying 11 flaws in the Interphone study. His report was endorsed by a team of international researchers, environmental consultants, and medical practitioners, among other experts. He claimed that the Interphone study significantly underrated the risk of brain tumours from mobile phones by limiting who they included, who they left out, and how they chose to classify exposure. He found, for example, that the study design had excluded people who had died or were extremely ill from brain tumours, which, of course, biased the results towards a null finding. Furthermore, Interphone considered only certain types of brain tumours and overlooked others, which also distorted the results.12 Even the Interphone project team admitted that their finding was unlikely and that selection bias appeared to have influenced the results.13 The Interphone study also reported that there was no increased risk of gliomas and meningiomas among long-term users. This would be extremely good news for such users if the finding was reliable. But, in an amazing twist, the Interphone team published a second analysis of the statistics as an appendix, and it came to quite a different conclusion. This analysis reassessed the data from the various studies, comparing low to high use in an attempt to offset the selection bias that had plagued the study. It showed that people who had been using a mobile phone for two to four years had 70 per cent greater risk of developing gliomas, and

Mobile Phones   —  61

those who had used a mobile phone for ten or more years had double the risk. It also found that those with the highest number of cumulative hours of use had over 80 per cent more gliomas. While scientists debate the findings of the Interphone study, there is another group of experts who believe there is a link between mobile phone use and brain tumours. One of these is Dr Charlie Teo, a courageously outspoken neurosurgeon from Sydney, Australia. Dr Teo has aired his concerns about the effects of mobile phone radiation on many current affairs television programs. ‘If the question is do I believe that mobile phones can cause brain cancer, the answer is yes, I do,’ he said on Australia’s Sixty Minutes program in early 2009. ‘I’m incredibly worried, concerned, depressed at the number of kids I’m seeing coming in with brain tumours. Malignant brain tumours.’14 Another eminent Australian neurosurgeon, Professor Vini Khurana, conducted an independent review of the research on mobile phones and brain tumours and concluded that: There is a growing and statistically significant body of evidence reporting that brain tumours such as vestibular schwannoma [tumour of the acoustic nerve] and astrocytoma [a form of glioma] are associated with ‘heavy’ and ‘prolonged’ mobile phone use. Professor Khurana recommended that people take precautions to reduce their exposure to mobile phone radiation, including restricting children’s use of the devices: There is currently enough evidence and technology available to warrant industry and governments alike taking immediate steps to reduce exposure of consumers to mobile phone related electromagnetic radiation and to make consumers clearly aware of potential dangers and how to use this technology sensibly and safely.15 The final link is the cancer sufferers themselves. People are developing brain tumours in the very part of their head against which they have been holding their mobile phones — the part that has been absorbing the most radiation during calls. Some have told me that before their tumour developed they could feel heat from the phone in just that part of their head after they made or received calls. For some sufferers, this is proof enough.

62  —  The Force

‘I reckon it’s definitely caused by those bloody mobile phones,’ said John Bryant, a farmer from northern New South Wales with a brain tumour behind his left ear. ‘I think this is what has killed me, or will kill me,’ said Brett Kelly, who used a mobile phone for three hours a day, about his brain tumour.16 In September 2008, Mrs Ellen Marks addressed a US congressional hearing on behalf of her husband, whose health did not permit him to attend, about the risks of mobile phone use. Alan Marks had used a mobile phone for over 20 years, averaging over 30 hours of use per month. He had developed a malignant brain tumour in the right frontal lobe of his brain, close to where he usually held his phone. Medical experts agreed that the tumour was likely to be caused by Mr Mark’s excessive phone use. Mrs Marks told the senators that the progress of the tumour had not only robbed her husband of his livelihood and would rob him of his life, but it had caused behavioural changes that made their family’s situation intolerable. She ended her statement with this plea: We are shocked that in light of studies and information suggesting risks that our government has allowed the cell phone industry to conduct business as usual. Cell phones need not be abandoned. The cell phone industry has the capability to make safer devices. In the very least the citizens of our nation should be told the truth concerning this risk so they can protect themselves and their families. I beg of you to take action immediately so that others can be spared the devastation that my family has endured.17 Despite the mounting evidence that mobile phone radiation may be a health risk, manufacturers are developing more and more innovative applications for mobile phone technology. A London fashion company has even designed a jersey dress made of soft circuitry that can be used as a mobile phone. To activate the dress, the wearer slips their SIM card beneath the label. When the dress rings, it can be answered by raising the arm; lowering the arm will terminate the call.18

Tumours and cordless phones If the radiation from mobile phones is a possible risk factor for brain tumours, then what about the radiation from cordless phones? Since 2002, a Swedish team including Dr Lennart Hardell has studied the effects of radiation from cordless phones. It found the following effects.

Mobile Phones   —  63

•

Cordless phone users had nearly one and a half times the number of brain tumours as compared to the general population and 1.8 times the average rate of astrocytoma brain tumours on the side of their head that their phone most often rested against during calls.19 • People aged 20 to 29 who had used cordless phones for five years or more had 4.3 times the normal rate of brain tumours.20 • Cordless phone users had 1.5 times the risk of developing acoustic neuromas and astrocytoma brain tumours and that risk increased with years of use.21 • Cordless phone users had more than double the risk of malignant brain tumours.22 • The risk of brain tumours increased by 8 per cent for each year of cordless phone use.23 • Long-term cordless phone users had five times the risk of astrocytoma brain tumours and more than double the risk of acoustic neuromas on the side of the head that their phone most often rested against during calls; risk was greatest for people who had begun using the phones before the age of 20.24 The risk posed by DECT cordless phones has worried some medical practitioners. In 2002, a group of German medical doctors and scientists signed a joint statement expressing concerns about the effects of cordless phone technology. In their appeal to the Federal Government, the doctors stated: ‘we can see … a clear temporal and spatial correlation between the appearance of disease and exposure to pulsed high-frequency microwave radiation … such as … installation of a digital cordless (DECT) telephone at home or in the neighbourhood’. They called for a ‘ban on mobile telephone and digital cordless (DECT) telephones in preschools, schools, hospitals, nursing homes, events halls, public buildings and vehicles (as with the ban on smoking)’. They also asked authorities to revise radiation standards for DECT phones. If cordless phones emit radiofrequency radiation that has been linked with brain tumours, then is it really appropriate to be using them? Many authorities think not. The German Office for Radiation Protection issued a warning about the use of DECT phones in January 2006. The agency advised that DECT phones are usually the greatest source of highfrequency radiation inside a home because the ‘base station’ is continually transmitting signals: According to current scientific knowledge nationally and internationally, there are indications for biological effects of high

64  —  The Force

frequency electromagnetic fields which are the means of transmission for DECT phones … To prevent possible health risks, the [agency] recommends minimising personal radiation exposure. It suggested locating the base station away from high-use areas and that cordless phone users make only short calls only and use the latest generation of cordless phones, which are emission-free when not in use.25 Similarly, the government of Salzburg issued a warning about DECT technology in December 2005. In an open letter sent to schools, teachers, and parents, Dr Gerd Oberfeld wrote, ‘The official advice of the Public Health Department of the Salzburg Region is not to use WLAN and DECT in schools or kindergardens.’26 Since then, many other authorities, medical practitioners, and scientists have added their voices to the growing swell of concern about DECT technology (see Appendix).

The link to changes in biology and behaviour ‘Long-term and cumulative exposure to such massively increased RF has no precedent in human history.’ — Dr David Carpenter and Cindy Sage

While brain tumours have been the focus of many researchers, they are, of course, not the only problem that has been linked to mobile phone use. Mobile phone radiation has also been associated with low immunity, behavioural problems, and reduced fertility, among other health concerns. The mobile phone industry continues to espouse the safety of the technology, taking refuge behind a considerable number of official reports that have issued reassuring conclusions about mobile phone use. These reports are the work of committees usually convened by governments or comprising bureaucrats employed by governments — and governments reap billions of dollars in revenue each year from the telecommunications industry. A cynic might call such committees biased. It is the independent reports, therefore, that carry most weight in evaluating the health impacts of mobile phone technology. The premier report in this category is the BioInitiative Report, a massive tome that was compiled by a group of independent researchers, scientists, and health professionals. It sifted the available research and drew some

Mobile Phones   —  65

conclusions as far from those of the telecommunications industry as could be imagined. It found increased risks of health problems at levels of exposure far below international standards, and recommended implementation of precautions to reduce exposure. The effects it found included genetic damage, reduced fertility, inflammation, and allergic reactions, stress responses in cells (which can lead to cancer), and freeradical damage (which can lead to disease, including cancer). Another significant independent report was conducted in 2000 by the ECOLOG Institute on behalf of the German telecommunications company T-Mobil. The report, titled ‘Mobile Telecommunications and Health’, found evidence that mobile phone radiation had harmful health effects and that international standards needed tightening. It showed that exposure was linked to DNA damage, chromosome aberrations, changes in enzymes and the brain, interruption of cell cycle and cellular communication, debilitation of the immune system, changes to the central nervous system, and increased risks of cancer. Moreover, it found that effects such as these were occurring at just a tiny fraction of the levels allowed by international standards.27 These are just two of the numerous independent reports that have come to similar conclusions, some of which are referred to elsewhere in this book. Low, non-heating levels of mobile phone radiation have been linked with: • single- and double-strand DNA breaks • changed protein kinases, which are associated with tumour promotion • increased levels of the enzyme ODC (ornithine decarboxylase), which can indicate that cancerous changes are taking place • cell proliferation (such as that which occurs in cancer) • changed behaviour of calcium ions • breaches of the blood-brain barrier • changed brainwave patterns • changed sleep onset, duration, and quality • changed immune function • changed synthesis of proteins • stress responses • tumour promotion in animals exposed to chemical carcinogens.

66  —  The Force

Mobile phones and children ‘It is necessary right now to limit the use of cellular phones by children and teenagers.’ — Dr Yuri Grigoriev

In recent years, mobile phone manufacturers have turned their attention to the lucrative youth market, as the adult market in most developed countries has virtually reached saturation. Mobile phones have been developed specifically for children: US-based company Firefly Mobile has a product called the flyPhone, which allows children to ‘make calls, play games, take pictures, listen to mp3s, watch videos, and text’,28 and Australian company Cicada Mobile has the Gecko phone, with a ‘kidsonly design, interchangeable see-through Gecko™ Skins, 12 unique ring tunes, 7 screen colours, 5 animations, flashing lights’; fireworks and accessories.29 Not surprisingly, children’s use of mobile phones is steadily increasing as a result of products such as these. In Australia, 69 per cent of children under the age of 18 have mobile phones, and in Morocco, over 90 per cent of children aged five to 14 are mobile phone users.30 Even very young children are users: in Britain, a quarter of three-yearolds now use mobile phones, and in Australia as many as 40 per cent of four- to seven-year-olds use the devices.31 In some cases, children reported that their mobile phone was their best friend.32 Not only are children using their phones during the day, but many are sleeping with them. Australian psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg found that millions of children are allowed to keep mobile phones in their bedrooms and that six- and seven-year-olds are staying up until 3.00 or 4.00 a.m. to send messages to their friends. By placing the phone, turned on and in vibrate mode, under their pillow, children are able to detect calls without waking their parents. This means, of course, that their heads are being irradiated as they sleep. Carr-Gregg believes that this sort of phone use also creates a generation of exhausted ‘zombies’ who are less able to learn at school.33 For today’s child, the mobile phone is more than just a means of social connection — it’s become a way to gauge self-esteem. It seems that young people regard the amount of contact they receive on their phone as a measure of their popularity. In a 2008 survey of mobile phone use, one in three Britons aged 16 to 24 said that they would feel unwanted if they didn’t receive a call or text every day.34 Children are choosing their

Mobile Phones   —  67

phones as much for their appearance as their usefulness because they feel under pressure to keep up with or outdo their peers by having the latest and most dazzling type of technology. In a study for the Australian Institute, Christian Downie and Kate Glazebrook found that this ‘competitive consumption’ caused dysfunction ‘in the form of depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, and psychosomatic complaints’.35

A reflection of personality In an interesting study from Australia’s Monash University, Jim Phillips found that the way people use their mobile phones is a reflection of their personalities. In a study published in 2006, Phillips analysed the connection between mobile phone use and personality among 112 volunteers. He found that people who were less agreeable tended to spend more time playing games on their mobile phones. In a previous study he found that people with problem phone use, such as addiction, tended to be extroverts with low self-esteem. ‘These people don’t appear to value what they are doing at a particular time,’ he said.36

Whether it is to boost self-esteem or to stay connected, more and more young people are becoming addicted to their mobile phones. ‘They’re actually beginning to interfere in the lives of users who don’t know when to turn them off,’ says Lisa Merlo, assistant professor of psychology at the University of Florida. She has identified signs of mobile phone addiction as the compulsive need to check for messages or agitation when asked to turn off the phone.37 Psychologist Maria Paz de la Puente, who works with addicts, says that ‘one of every three teens admit to being “hooked” by their cell phones’. She and biologist Alfonso Balmori believe that mobile phone addiction could have a physiological basis by interfering, as drugs do, with neurotransmitters in the brain.38 In March 2010, a London hospital launched a rehabilitation clinic for children addicted to technology — catering for some as young as 12. Is this prolific use of mobile phones good for our children’s social development? More importantly, is it damaging to their long-term health?

68  —  The Force

Concerns about radiation in children ‘The danger of brain tumours from cellphone use is highest in children, and the younger a child is when he/she starts using a cellphone, the higher the risk.’ — Lloyd Morgan

In September 2008, Swedish oncologist Professor Hardell created a storm when he announced the results of his research on children. In his address to the Royal Society of London, Professor Hardell said that children have a higher risk of brain tumours than adults. (You will recall that Hardell found a 1.5- to 2-fold risk of tumours for ipsilateral phone use.) In fact, he told his audience, he’d found that people aged 29 had over a five-fold increased risk of developing gliomas if they were under 20 years old when they began using mobile phones. ‘This is a warning sign,’ Dr Hardell told reporters.39 Children are more vulnerable to the radiation from mobile phones for a number of reasons. They have thinner skulls, and therefore radiation is able to penetrate further into their heads. As children and foetuses grow, their cells are often dividing, and during this process they are more vulnerable to radiation. Because a child’s head can be similar in size to the wavelength of mobile phone radiation, the radiation can resonate in their heads, causing a greater impact. Some mobile phones emit signals that lie in the range of alpha and delta brainwaves, the very brain patterns that are constantly changing in children up to the age of about 12, when the alpha rhythm becomes established.

Figure 15. These images show that a child’s head absorbs more radiation than an adult’s. © 1996 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).

Mobile Phones   —  69

Add to this the fact that the current generation of children is the first to be exposed to radiofrequency radiation for potentially their entire lives, and that this sort of radiation has a cumulative effect, and the risks for children seem concerning. Even foetuses can be affected by the radiation from mobile phones. A joint study from Denmark and the United States surveyed the mothers of over 13,000 children who were aged seven between 2005 and 2006, and found that mothers who had used a mobile phone while they were pregnant were 54 per cent more likely to have children with behavioural problems, such as hyperactivity and difficulties interacting with other children.40 In 2008, an Egyptian study found that pregnant women’s use of mobile phones affected their unborn babies; the researchers measured increases in heart rate and decreased cardiac output in foetuses who had been exposed to mobile phones.41 For would-be fathers there is a further caution. A number of studies have now shown that men who use mobile phones have reduced sperm quality and motility and an increased risk of infertility.42 It’s worth keeping in mind that your sensitive reproductive organs may be absorbing the radiation if you carry a mobile phone in your hip pocket while it is turned on.

Hardell is not the only person to sound the warning about children’s use of mobile phones. There are now many scientists, doctors, governments, and agencies that have urged precautions to restrict use by children. Among the authorities that have made these recommendations are: • the European Environment Agency • the European Parliament • the French Green Party • Toronto Public Health • the Israeli Ministry of Health • the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection • the French Ministry for Health, Youth, and Sports • the Doctors’ Chamber of Vienna • the Irish Doctors Environmental Association • the British Ministry of Education • the British Health Protection Agency • the German Academy of Paediatrics • the Canadian Green Party

70  —  The Force

•

Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland, former director general of the WHO and former prime minister of Norway • Senator Lyn Allison, chair of the Australian Senate Inquiry into Electromagnetic Radiation • the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). Therefore, even though children’s use of mobile phones has not been proven conclusively to cause health problems such as brain tumours, there is evidence of an association — and to ignore this might not be in the best interests of your child. On 25 September 2008, Dr Ronald Herberman neatly summarised the situation in a presentation to the US Congressional hearing on cell phone use and tumours: I cannot tell you conclusively that phones cause cancer or other diseases. But, I can tell you that there are published peerreviewed studies that have led me to suspect that long-term cell phone use may cause cancer. It should be noted in this regard that worldwide, there are three billion regular cell phone users, including a rapidly growing number of children. If we wait until the human evidence is irrefutable and then act, an extraordinarily large number of people will have been exposed to a technology that has never really been shown to be safe.43

Driving and mobile phones The metal shell of cars, trains, buses, taxis, and lifts reflect mobile phone signals so that they bounce around the enclosed space, irradiating not only the user but also other passengers. You can reduce your exposure while driving a car by using a hands-free kit with an external aerial. However, it is definitely not a good idea to install an antenna near the rear window, particularly if a young child travels in the car.

How safe are ‘safety precautions’? Concerns about the health risks of mobile phone radiation have spawned a market for ‘safer’ phones and ‘low-radiation’ products. Consumers are looking for ways to protect themselves and their families, and manufacturers are seizing the opportunity to profit from their fears. While the concept of reducing exposure to mobile phone radiation

Mobile Phones   —  71

is to be applauded, not all methods claimed to do so are equally valid, nor all advice equally sound.

Specific absorption rate (SAR) The specific absorption rate (SAR) is the rate at which radiation from a phone is absorbed into the user’s head. A phone with a higher SAR would mean that more radiation is likely to be absorbed by the user, and one with a low SAR would mean a lower level of exposure is likely. SAR levels are expressed in terms of watts per kilogram (W/kg). The SAR limits in Europe and Australia are 2 W/kg, averaged over ten grams of tissue. In the United States and Canada, the limit is 1.6 W/kg, averaged over one gram of tissue. SAR levels are measured in purpose-built laboratories under very rigorous conditions. A model of a human head (a phantom) is filled with a mixture of water, cellulose, salt, sugar, and preservative to simulate the human brain. A mobile phone is placed in a precise position and set to operate at maximum power while probes are inserted into the phantom to record how much radiation has been absorbed. Many of the precautionary recommendations you have read include choosing phones with low SAR readings. The problem is that SAR levels are not always the best guide to how much radiation a user would receive from a phone. This is because laboratory experiments don’t always replicate what happens in real life: the amount of radiation that a user absorbs will change depending on how and where they use a phone — for example, different readings will occur depending whether they use it at low rather than high power, or if they tilt it this way rather than that way. It will also change according to the shape, size, and mass of a person’s body. For instance, shorter people, including children, tend to absorb more radiation than taller people. This means that the amount of radiation you will absorb from your phone will likely be different from the amount someone else would absorb using your phone. Furthermore, SAR measurements are not measured on the human brain — which, for ethical reasons, is a very good thing. However, this does call into question the value of these measurements when applied to real people. You can decide whether a phantom head filled with water and additives is a good approximation for your brain. Personally, I like to think mine is slightly more complex! Information about SARs can be found in packaging of many mobile phones and on manufacturer’s websites. However, using a phone with a low SAR does not protect the user as effectively as holding the phone

72  —  The Force

away from their head during a call. Lloyd Morgan, author of a report on the findings of the Interphone study, believes that distance is the key to reducing exposure. He claims that a person will absorb more radiation from a phone with low SAR levels held against the head than a phone with high SAR levels held just a quarter of an inch (less than one centimetre) away. ‘Holding a cellphone six inches [15 centimetres] from the head results in a 10,000-fold reduction in the radiation absorbed by the brain,’ he wrote to me in 2010.44

Phones with the lowest SAR levels The Environmental Working Group, a not-for-profit based in the United States, publishes a list of SAR levels for different types of phones. At the time of publication, these ten phones were listed as having the lowest SAR levels. 1. Sanyo Katana II [Kajeet] 2. Samsung Rugby (SGH-a837) [AT&T] 3. Samsung Memoir (SGH-T929) [T-Mobile] 4. Samsung SGH-t229 [T-Mobile] 5. Helio Pantech Ocean [Virgin Mobile] 6. Sony Ericsson W518a Walkman [AT&T, AT&T GoPhone] 7. Samsung SGH-a137 [AT&T, AT&T GoPhone] 8. LG Shine II [AT&T] 9. LG CF360 [AT&T, AT&T GoPhone] 10. Samsung Flight (SGH-A797) [AT&T] 45

Protective devices As concern about the safety of mobile phone radiation has grown, so has the proliferation of so-called protective devices that claim to reduce exposure. Be warned — there are some that don’t provide protection, some that may only possibly provide protection, and some that make people’s symptoms worse. Certain types of shields block some radiation from phones, but as a result the phones have to operate at a higher power in order to connect with the base station. Some devices, when dismantled, do not have any circuitry that could offer radiation protection. Some claim to ‘harmonise’ radiation using theories and concepts that have not been accepted by conventional science. The first thing to know about these devices is that there is no

Mobile Phones   —  73

requirement for them to be independently tested, so most testing will be paid for by the manufacturer. There are also no international standards covering these devices. This means that consumers have no way of ascertaining whether they work or of validating the manufacturer’s claims. Another important consideration is that using a so-called protective device can create a false sense of security, and you might feel tempted to spend longer on your phone than you otherwise would. If the device is not really providing the protection that is claimed for it, you risk being exposed to more radiation than you would had you taken more orthodox precautions.

Buyer beware! In 2000 I was involved in conducting an independent, double-blind study on a protective device in Sydney, Australia. It exposed volunteers to mobile phone radiation for ten minutes at a time with and without the device attached. (Users were not aware of whether or not the device was in place.) When the volunteers were exposed to the mobile phone without the device, there was evidence that their bodies were under stress. When they were exposed to the phone with the device in place the effects were, in some cases, worse.

Bluetooth connections Some precautionary recommendations include the suggestion to use a hands-free device with a Bluetooth connection. This allows users to hold a mobile phone at a distance during a call, and the information is transferred by radiofrequency radiation to a Bluetooth headset. Yet while it allows you to keep your phone away from your head as you use it, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it is safe. Firstly, if you keep your phone in your pocket or on a belt while you’re talking, the parts of your body that are close to it will be absorbing radiation. Secondly, the Bluetooth signal is a radiofrequency signal (usually 2.4 GHz) that is very similar to a mobile phone signal. So you’re exchanging one form of radiation for another — you can decide whether this seems like a good idea. There are claims that Bluetooth connections are ‘safe’ because they operate at lower power than a mobile phone. That would be reassuring if low-power radiation were indeed safe. As it is, there’s evidence that it’s not just the power level that is significant for causing unhealthy reactions — more of that in Chapter 10.

74  —  The Force

International standards for radiation protection Standards have been developed to limit public and occupational exposure to the harmful effects of microwave radiation. The two leading world standards are those developed by the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a set of guidelines that are endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO); and those formulated by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). Radiation authorities in most countries have based their own standards on one or both of these documents. The ICNIRP guidelines are the basis for standards in 54 countries, including Australia, Britain, Germany, Netherlands, Japan, Switzerland, Spain, Greece, and Brazil. The WHO encourages countries to adopt this standard and has developed a framework for the ‘harmonisation’ of international standards with the participating countries and eight international organisations. The IEEE standard has influenced the United States and Canadian standards. The WHO has assembled a database of standards worldwide. It can be accessed from the WHO website.46

In many ways the ICNIRP and IEEE documents are similar. Both protect from thermal effects, which can elevate body temperature above one degree Celsius, and both limit the amount of radiation that can be absorbed by the body. The general public limits they recommend for the whole body are as follows. ICNIRP and IEEE general public limits for mobile phone radiation ICNIRP

IEEE

900 MHz (GSM)

0.08 W/kg

0.4 W/kg

1800 MHz (3G)

0.08 W/kg

0.4 W/kg

2400 MHz (3G)

0.08 W/kg

0.4 W/kg

But let’s be clear: these international standards protect against only a small number of acute effects — shock, burns, and significant heating in parts of the body. They don’t protect against other effects, those caused by lower exposures that do not induce shock, burns, or heating but nevertheless cause changes in the body. They don’t protect against the sort of radiation that you are exposed to if you use a mobile phone for many hours over many years. They don’t protect against the cumulative

Mobile Phones   —  75

effects of radiation, and they don’t protect those people who are particularly vulnerable to the effects of radiation in the first place. The reason for this, according to ICNIRP and the IEEE, is that such effects have not been proven, according to their very stringent criteria for proof. We’ll see more about this in Chapter 10. If you think that these deficiencies are the only problem with international standards and the approach to setting them, you will be disappointed. There are, in fact, a number of other substantial concerns about their adequacy to protect public health. Firstly, these international standards make assumptions about how much radiation the body can absorb. For example, the ICNIRP guidelines assume the body can absorb 0.8 watts of radiation per kilogram averaged over six minutes without the average temperature rising and thus causing health problems. In other words, it’s okay to be exposed to a brief burst of radiation providing that your exposure remains low for the next five or so minutes. But is that true — how do we know that an intense burst of radiation will not create damage? Secondly, the standards assume that some parts of the body can be safely exposed to much more radiation than others. The ICNIRP guidelines allow for the body to be exposed to 0.08 watts of radiation per kilogram but allows the head to be exposed to 2 watts per kilogram, which is 25 times as much radiation. How do we know that there will not be localised damage? If, for example, you put a finger in a candle flame for more than a few seconds, your whole body would not heat up by one degree Celsius, but there would be some quite obvious localised damage. Your finger would burn and blister, reminding you to be more careful next time. The IEEE standard, like the ICNIRP guidelines, confines itself to protecting against what it calls ‘established’ effects. It admits that there is not enough scientific information available to protect people from ‘all possible combinations of frequency and modulation’.47 It does not take into account the fact that some groups of people seem to be more vulnerable to the effects of radiation than others or that damage from radiation is thought to be cumulative — even though there is evidence for both of these ideas. Neither standard accounts for important questions such as: can children absorb as much radiation in the head as adults? Do all people respond in the same way, or do we absorb radiation differently? Can pregnant women dissipate heat as effectively as other people? Do we dissipate heat as well in summer as we do in winter, or after exercise? How do we know that adverse health effects don’t occur if only parts of the body, particularly the brain, are heated more than others?

76  —  The Force

How the brain reacts to radiation There is evidence that different parts of the brain react differently to mobile phone radiation. Dr Henry Lai was interested in discovering how EMR would affect a system of neurotransmitters called the cholinergic system. He exposed rats to pulsed radiofrequency radiation at similar levels to that emitted by mobile phones (2450 MHz for 45 minutes). He found that in some parts of the rats’ brains – the striatum, hypothalamus, and inferior colliculus – the activity of the cholinergic system remained unchanged. However, in the hippocampus and the frontal cortex, there was actually a decrease in cholinergic activity. Proper functioning of the cholinergic system in the hippocampus and frontal cortex are important in memory and learning.48

Another concern about international standards is that they apply arbitrary ‘safety factors’, which they claim provide protection for workers and the general public. The ICNIRP guidelines allow workers in radiofrequency industries to be exposed to 0.4 watts of radiation per kilogram but keeps public exposures to 0.08 watts of radiation per kilogram. This is because such workers are aware of the radiation they are exposed to and trained to take appropriate safety precautions; the general public is not usually aware of the presence of radiation and has no training in minimising exposure. However, people who are exposed at home — for example, if their house is close to a base station — can actually be exposed for potentially many more of the 168 hours per week than the approximately 35 hours to which the average radiofrequency worker is exposed. In other words, in the case of a base station the public can potentially be exposed for almost five times as long as workers, and this negates the additional ‘safety factor’ of recommending a lower limit for the general population. And what about the long-term, athermal effects, you might wonder? Who’s protecting me from these? The answer is: no one. I emphasise there is no protection for you against low-level, athermal effects of radiofrequency radiation. While international authorities hide behind the façade of these highly dubious standards, an increasing number of researchers believe that there is convincing evidence that standards need to be tightened. A number of brave individuals have called for more responsible approaches to the setting of standards. One of these was veteran EMR researcher Dr Ross Adey, distinguished professor and award-winning

Mobile Phones   —  77

author of more than 400 scientific publications. Dr Adey believed that there was substantial evidence that athermal levels of EMR posed a risk: The laboratory evidence for athermal effects of both ELF and RF/microwave fields now constitutes a major body of scientific literature in peer-reviewed journals. It is my personal view that to continue to ignore this work in the course of standard setting is irresponsible to the point of being a public scandal.49 Since Dr Adey wrote this statement in 1995, significantly more evidence has become available to support his views. Dr Henry Lai made headlines with his discovery that the radiation from mobile phones leads to breaks in DNA strands. Does he believe that standards should be based on thermal effects of radiation? ‘My answer is “no”,’ he says. ‘Standards should base on at what level of exposure biological/health effects are observed.’50 The editors of the BioInitiative Report agree. They criticised the assumptions underlying international standards and called for biologically based standards to be introduced. ‘What is clear,’ the report concluded, ‘is that the existing public safety standards limiting these radiation levels in nearly every country of the world look to be thousands of times too lenient.’51 The report found evidence linking mobile phone use with stress, genetic damage, changes to brain function and immunity, and, in long-term users, brain tumours. There are many other researchers who have found evidence of risk from mobile phone radiation at athermal levels of exposure, and have subsequently questioned the adequacy of existing standards. There can be no doubt that radiation standards worldwide are not providing long-term protection for all dimensions of public health. However technically and scientifically dazzling the process of setting standards may appear to be, it is essentially a flawed bureaucratic process driven by political and economic considerations with more than an occasional dash of industry involvement.

Case study: Australia ‘I am astounded at the high degree of self-regulation in Australia. Industry and users of the technology are in the majority on the standards committee.’ — Dr Neil Cherry

The development of Australia’s current radiation protection standard illustrates this near-sightedness. In 1996, the interim Australian standard

78  —  The Force

(known as AS2772.1) allowed the public to be exposed to 2 watts per kilogram from mobile phones (and 200 microwatts per square centimetre for phone antennas). However, many third-generation (3G) mobile phones would not comply, and rather than limit the availability of the phones the Australian and New Zealand governments set about changing the standard. The committee responsible for this project was a joint Australian and New Zealand committee called TE7, under the auspices of Standards Association of Australia, the body responsible for most standards set in the country. After numerous meetings both in Australia and New Zealand, the final draft of the standard was prepared. It allowed people to be exposed to more than twice as much radiation from GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications) mobile phones and four and a half times as much radiation from the newer, higher frequency 3G phones. If approved, there would be no reason to restrict the lucrative rollout of the new technology. As the TE7 committee members cast their vote, it soon became apparent that there were not enough in favour of the draft for it to be approved. If you imagine that the failed standard was relegated to the bureaucratic junk pile and forgotten, you are wrong. The committee was forcibly split in two, and the New Zealand members were asked to vote again. After one member of the group changed his vote, the document was approved and became the New Zealand standard. However, Australia was still without an updated standard and those lucrative 3G dollars. The standoff was resolved when the project was withdrawn from Standards Australia and given to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), which also has the regulatory authority to make standards. A new committee was set up, and the starting point for the committee was — surprise, surprise — the failed TE7 standard. After more years, more meetings, and more quoting of scientific studies, the new standard was ready to be approved. By an amazing coincidence, its limits allowed public exposure at the frequencies used by 3G technology and were closer to the levels in the ICNIRP guidelines. Just as the committee members were wondering when they would be asked to cast their vote, it became apparent that there was to be no voting for this new standard. The document was adopted by ARPANSA’s Radiation Health Committee and became enforceable. Success! The standard was safely ‘harmonised’ with the WHO and the future of 3G technology in Australia was assured.

Mobile Phones   —  79

What’s being done about the risks We now have a compelling body of research to suggest that the radiation wireless phones emit is problematic and there are a growing number of scientists and doctors voicing their concerns about it. Mobile or cordless, there is no doubt that radiating devices held next to the head for long periods of time are having an effect on people’s bodies, brains, and behaviour. Given the evidence of risk, and given its magnitude — there are approximately 5 billion users, many of them children — it makes sense to take precautions. Around the world precautions are being called for and, in some cases, put in place. This action to reduce people’s exposure is coming from national governments, local councils, and political parties, among other organisations.

Action around the world To address the issue of radiation from mobile and cordless phones, a number of countries and organisations have issued statements advising people to limit their use of these phones. Australia In March 2000, Sydney’s Royal North Shore Hospital made headlines around the country when it introduced a landmark directive on mobile phone use. It advised staff to use a landline phone or a pager in preference to a mobile phone, and suggested that those who choose to continue using mobile phones hold them at a distance of three to four centimetres from the head. It further suggested that mobile phones be used in the open or near a window to obtain a clear signal without having to increase power and advised staff not to use a mobile phone while driving unless they had a hands-free facility in a car fitted with an external aerial. The question of mobile phone safety was thoroughly debated when a senate inquiry was held in 2001 to address the health effects of EMR, the country’s radiation standards, and recent national research. The inquiry took several months and became a highly politicised event. The chair of the committee, senator Lyn Allison, later said, ‘I became aware that there has been pressure from industry on participating senators to discredit some witnesses.’52 As a result, the committee failed to reach consensus and three reports were handed down: one from the chair and dissenting reports from the other two senators. The chair’s report contained the following precautionary recommendations.

80  —  The Force

•

‘The Commonwealth Government considers developing material to advise parents and children of the potential risks associated with mobile phone use.’ (Recommendation 2.3) • ‘That shielding and hands-free devices are tested, labelled for their effectiveness and regulated by standards.’ (Recommendation 2.4)53 Interestingly, the Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association (AMTA) has also issued guidance on reducing exposure to mobile phone radiation. In 2009, it published on its website a guide for reducing exposure from mobile phones, which includes suggestions such as using a hands-free device.54 In May 2010, Australia’s official radiation authority, ARPANSA, issued a press statement with precautionary advice for parents. It recommended: due to the lack of any data relating to children and long term use of mobile phones, parents encourage their children to limit their exposure by reducing call time, by making calls where reception is good, by using hands-free devices or speaker options, or by texting’.55

Canada Although Canada’s official body on mobile phones, Health Canada, has not expressed concern that mobile phone radiation is a risk, Toronto has taken a stronger stand. Toronto Public Health recommended precautions in a fact sheet, Children and Safe Cell Phone Use, published in May 2008. It states: While cell phones are important for communication and for safety reasons, parents would be advised to use precautions with their children. Children under the age of eight should use landlines and only use cell phones for essential purposes. Older children and teenagers should limit their cell phone use whenever possible. The World Health Organization (WHO) suggests limiting the length of phone calls, or using ‘hands-free’ devices like headsets or ear phones, to keep the cell phone away from the head and body. The amount of RF energy absorbed decreases quickly with increasing distance between the antenna and the user. People can also use the speakerphone mode if appropriate, or use text messaging instead. Parents who buy cell phones for

Mobile Phones   —  81

their children should look for ones with the lowest emissions of RF waves. It also advises children not to use mobile phones when reception is low (for example, when the base station antenna is far away) and when a phone is being used in high-speed travel (for example, while driving in a car) because in these situations the phone must emit more power to maintain reception.56

Finland In a position paper published in January 2009, Finland’s radiation and nuclear safety authority, Säteilyturvakeskus, published precautions for mobile phone use. As well as advising restrictions for children, it cautioned against using mobile phones in areas where they would be forced to operate at higher power and stated that they can interfere with the operation of pacemakers. It also warned about the possible link to cancer: ‘Since it takes years to develop a cancer and mobile phones have been in common use only for about ten years, the possibility that a link between mobile phone use and cancer might be found in later population studies cannot be ruled out.’57 France France, which has been the epicentre of the mobile phone safety debate, has taken strong action to reduce the public health risk of radiofrequency radiation, particularly for children. At a press conference on 26 May 2009, Health Minister Roselyne Bachelot announced new legislation for the manufacture and marketing of mobile phones that can only be used with an earpiece or for sending text messages. She also announced measures aimed at protecting children: bans on the use of mobile phones in primary schools and by children under six, and on advertising phones to children under 14.58 At the same time, the Green Party in Lyons, the country’s secondlargest city, conducted an advertising campaign warning parents to restrict children’s use of mobile phones. Billboards carried messages such as: ‘A mobile before the age of 12! No way!’.

82  —  The Force

Figure 16. This French billboard declaring ‘A mobile before the age of 12! No way!’ was part of an advertising campaign conducted by the Green Party.

Germany One of the early calls for precaution came from the German Academy of Paediatrics. In December 2000, the academy issued a statement advising parents to restrict their children’s use of mobile phones. While the statement encouraged all mobile phone users to keep conversations brief, it recommended particular limits be applied to children by virtue of the risk posed by their growing bodies: ‘Unnecessary, frequent and extended use are to be strongly discouraged. Children only need mobile phones to communicate very infrequently, in exceptional situations.’59 The German government recommends keeping exposures from radiofrequency radiation ‘as low as possible’. In response to questions asked by the Green Party in parliament, the Ministry for the Environment, Natural Protection, and Reactor Safety indicated it supported the use of wired rather than wireless connections because the latter exposed users to higher levels of radiation. It also advised that a number of national agencies were taking measures to encourage people to reduce their personal exposure. These included publishing information leaflets, informing schools about the potential risks for children, and developing lowradiation mobile phones, such as the HTC Blue Angel personal digital assistant.

Mobile Phones   —  83

India In 2008, the Ministry of Telecommunications issued a guide for reducing exposure from mobile phone radiation. It suggested that vulnerable people — such as children, pregnant women, and those with heart problems — avoid using mobile phones, and advised the industry to stop marketing to these groups. Warning about the risks of radiation exposure to the brain, the guide encouraged people to use hands-free devices instead.60 Israel The Ministry of Health has adopted a policy of ‘preventative caution’ for mobile phone use, particularly in regard to children. In 2008, it issued a series of guidelines that recommended limiting children’s use of mobile phones, using a wired rather than wireless earpiece (as wired connections don’t require radiation in order to work), and avoiding the use of phones in enclosed spaces such as trains. The guidelines were drawn up by Dr Siegal Sadetzki, who had earlier found an increased risk of tumours in the salivary glands of mobile phone users.61 The Ministry of Environmental Protection also warned against keeping mobile phone chargers near the bed while sleeping because of the high electromagnetic fields that they emit.62 Italy An Italian court was among the first to recognise the connection between mobile phone radiation and health problems. In 2002, successful businessman Innocente Marcolini began to use his mobile phone for up to five hours each day to conduct business. He subsequently developed a tumour and is now disabled, suffering from paralysis, eye problems, and difficulties talking and eating. Marcolini took his case to the industrial tribunal, which rejected it. However, the Court of Appeal of Brescia found in Marcolini’s favour, recognising that his injuries were caused by occupational exposure to mobile phone radiation. His claim was supported by a neurosurgeon and two neurologists.63 Russia Russia’s exposure limits are much more conservative than those in many European or American countries. Its limits for radiation absorption in the head are five times lower than the ICNIRP limits. On 14 April 2008, the country’s peak radiation authority warned of the risks of mobile phone radiation, particularly to children. The Russian National Committee

84  —  The Force

on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection identified as likely health hazards ‘disruption of memory, decline of attention, diminishing learning and cognitive abilities, increased irritability, sleep problems, increase in sensitivity to stress, increased epileptic readiness’. In addition, it listed a number of expected effects in the future such as ‘brain tumours, tumours of acoustical and vestibular nerves (in the age of 25–30 years), Alzheimer’s disease, “got dementia”, depressive syndrome, and the other types of degeneration of the nervous structures of the brain (in the age of 50 to 60)’.64

Sweden The Swedish government recommended precautions to reduce exposure from mobile phone radiation in 2007. It advised that, in light of the possibility of brain tumours, people use a hands-free set or speaker phone. Other recommendations included advice to avoid holding the phone close to the body and to ensure there is a good connection for calls so that the phone does not have to work harder and use more power to connect to the base station.65 Switzerland The Office for Public Health has said that ‘there is evidence to suggest that high-frequency radiation may have genotoxic and carcinogenic effects’, and has listed the following recommendations in a fact sheet on mobile phones.



• NEVER use a phone while you are driving a vehicle, not even with a hands-free kit! • Use a wireless hands-free system (headphone, headset) with a low power Bluetooth emitter to reduce radiation to the head. • When buying a mobile phone, make sure it has a low SAR. • Either keep your calls short or send a text message SMS) instead. This advice applies especially to chil- dren and adolescents. • Whenever possible, only use your phone when the signal quality is good. • Be wary of radiation shields and other such protective devices that are claimed to limit exposure to radiation. They may reduce the connection quality and therefore

Mobile Phones   —  85



force the phone to transmit at a higher output power. • People active medical implants should keep their mobile phone at least 30 cm away from the implant at all times.66

United Kingdom In mid-1999, London’s Metropolitan Police force issued guidelines for those among its 27,000 members concerned about the safety of mobile phones. The guidelines stated: ‘Does the user really need to use a mobile phone? If so, they should limit the length of time to certainly no more than five minutes. If users are required to make regular and lengthy use of mobile phones, there would be no harm in using an earpiece.’67 Shortly afterwards, the Public and Commercial Services Union advised its 266,000 members to stop using mobile phones in order to protect their health. Under the slogan ‘Don’t gamble with your health’, the union stated that members must not be forced to carry or use a mobile phone. It also recommended that: • phone charge cards be provided to staff • workers requiring a mobile phone while travelling leave the devices turned off for the majority of the time • incoming calls be acknowledged and returned from a landline • phones not be carried next to the body when operational • phones be kept centimetres away from the head during calls.68 In May 2000, an independent study chaired by Sir William Stewart reported on their investigation into the risks of mobile phone use. Dubbed the ‘Stewart Report’, it took a particularly strong stand on the risks associated with children’s use of mobile phones. It suggested that, as children may be ‘more vulnerable because of their developing nervous system, the greater absorption of energy in the tissues of the head … and a longer lifetime of exposure’, mobile phones not be used by children under 16 and manufacturers refrain from advertising mobile phones to children. According to the report: ‘if science has greater power to do good, it also has greater power to do harm. They [the committee] therefore advocate a precautionary approach to new technology where there are uncertainties about the associated risks.’ Sir William said that while he used a mobile phone himself, he would not want his grandchildren to use one. Following this, British education secretary David Blunkett sent guidelines to every school in England to discourage the use of mobile phones by children under 16. His letter stated:

86  —  The Force

Children aged 15 and under ... are likely to be more vulnerable to any unrecognised health risks from mobile phone use than are adults because their nervous systems are still developing. Also, because of their smaller heads, thinner skulls and higher tissue conductivity, children may absorb more energy from a mobile phone than do adults. It also recommended that ‘where children do use mobile phones, they should do so for as short a time as possible’.69 In December 2000, the British Department of Health released two leaflets containing precautionary recommendations; these were sent to stores to be distributed with pre-Christmas mobile phone purchases. The first, entitled ‘Mobile Phones and Health’, suggested ways of limiting exposure, in line with the recommendations of the Stewart Report. It suggested ‘widespread use of mobile phones by children (under the age of 16) should be discouraged for non-essential calls’ and that calls should be kept short.70 In 2005, Britain’s National Radiological Protection Board (now the Health Protection Agency) released a report that endorsed the findings of the Stewart Report: ‘The Board believes that the main conclusions reached in the Stewart Report in 2000 still apply today and that a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies should continue to be adopted.’71 Caught up in the wave of concern about the risks of mobile phone use for children, councils took action. Brighton and Hove Council in East Sussex advised the 55,000 students in its constituency to use a landline in preference to a mobile phone, hold mobile phones away from the head during calls, keep calls short, and choose a mobile phone that uses less power. Following this example, Edinburgh Council began drafting guidelines for mobile phone use for the 60,000 students in its jurisdiction.72 Also in 2005, a committee of the Irish Parliament released a report on mobile phones and base stations in which it recommended procedures for reducing health impacts from the technology. Among its recommendations was that all mobile phones should carry labels specifying their radiation levels.73 In the same year, the Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association (IDEA) adopted a position on EMR which recognised that some people can be more vulnerable to radiation than others and called for government support. ‘A sub-group of the population are particularly sensitive to exposure to different types of electromagnetic radiation,’ the Association stated. It raised concerns about the health effects of

Mobile Phones   —  87

radiation, referring to thirty years of studies that have found evidence of harm, and expressed doubts about the adequacy of current standards.74 In July 2010, Wales’ chief medical officer, Dr Tony Jewell, announced the publication of two leaflets encouraging parents to reduce children’s exposure to mobile phone radiation. ‘Protecting the health of the young people of Wales is a priority, and although current research indicates that using mobile phones does not appear to cause health problems, more work is still to be done,’ he told the press. The leaflets include tips such as keeping calls short, sending text messages instead of calling, holding phones as far as possible from the head, and using a speaker phone or a hands-free kit.75

United States The Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for consumer health, has not admitted that the radiation from mobile phones constitutes a health risk. However, on its website it has included suggestions for reducing exposure, such as keeping the amount of time spent on the phone to a minimum, keeping the phone away from the head, and using a headset.76 The University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute has taken a more proactive stand about the risks of mobile phone radiation. It was the focus of worldwide media attention in 2008 when its director, Dr Ronald Herberman, issued a memorandum on mobile phones to more than 2500 staff members. The memo, titled ‘Practical Advice to Limit Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation Emitted from Cell Phones’, contained the following: 1. Do not allow children to use a cell phone, except for emergencies. The developing organs of a foetus or child are the most likely to be sensitive to any possible effects … 2. While communicating using your cell phone, try to keep the cell phone away from the body as much as possible … 3. Whenever possible, use the speaker-phone mode or a wire less Bluetooth headset … Use of a hands-free headset may also reduce exposures. 4. Avoid using your cell phone in places, like a bus, where you can passively expose others to your phone’s electromagnetic fields … 5. Avoid carrying your cell phone on your body at all times. Do not keep it near your body at night such as under the pillow

88  —  The Force

or on a bedside table, particularly if pregnant. You can also put it on ‘flight’ or ‘off-line’ mode, which stops electromagnetic emissions. 6. If you must carry your cell phone on you, it is preferable that the keypad is positioned toward your body and the back is positioned toward the outside of your body … 7. Only use your cell phone to establish contact or for conversations lasting a few minutes, as the biological effects are directly related to the duration of exposure. For longer conversations, use a landline with a corded phone, not a cordless phone, which uses electromagnetic emitting technology similar to that of cell phones. 8. Switch sides regularly while communicating on your cell phone to spread out your exposure. Before putting your cell phone to the ear, wait until your correspondent has picked up. This limits the power of the electromagnetic field emitted near your ear and the duration of your exposure. 9. Avoid using your cell phone when the signal is weak or when moving at high speed, such as in a car or train, as this increases power to a maximum as the phone repeatedly attempts to connect to a new relay antenna. 10. When possible, communicate via text messaging rather than making a call, limiting the duration of exposure and the proximity to the body. Choose a device with the lowest SAR possible … 77 In mid-2010, San Francisco became the first US city that required retailers to disclose the radiation levels of mobile phones. The legislation requires mobile phone companies to provide retailers with specific absorption rate (SAR) levels for all models of mobile phones and retailers to provide this information to the public. It also commits the city’s Department of Environment to developing resource materials that advise consumers how they can reduce their exposure to mobile phone radiation.

Other concerned bodies European Environment Agency (EEA) This agency plays a leading role in the development of public policy in Europe, providing information to key policy-makers such as the European

Mobile Phones   —  89

Parliament and the European Commission, which has 32 member countries. For some years, the agency has recommended a precautionary policy towards EMR and its executive director, Professor Jacquie McGlade, has questioned the adequacy of the ICNIRP guidelines. In 2007, she stated: Over the last two years the epidemiological evidence of possible cancer risk amongst the 10-year-plus mobile phone user group has got stronger. It is now also supported by preliminary scientific reports on the damaging effect to cells of RF and ELF exposures. This is a cause for concern, given the widespread and generally rising exposure of the public … to RF from mobile phone technology.78 In September 2009, Professor McGlade took a much stronger line on mobile phones at a conference in Washington: The evidence is now strong enough, using the precautionary principle, to justify the following steps: • For governments, the mobile phone industry, and the public to take all reasonable measures to reduce exposures to EMF, especially to radio frequencies from mobile phones, and particularly the exposures to children and young adults who seem to be most at risk from head tumours. Such measures would include stopping the use of a mobile phone by placing it next to the brain. This can be achieved by the use of texting; hands-free sets; and by the use of phones of an improved design which could generate less radiation and make it convenient to use hands-free sets. • To reconsider the scientific basis for the present EMF exposure standards which have serious limitations such as reliance on the contested thermal effects paradigm; and simplistic assumptions about the complexities of radiofrequency exposures. • To provide effective labelling and warnings about potential risks for users of mobile phones. • To generate the funds needed to finance and organise the urgently needed research into the health effects of phones and associated masts.

90  —  The Force

Professor McGlade also called for protection of scientists who sounded early-warning calls about the risks of mobile phone radiation, noting that whistleblowers on similar issues have been maligned and lost their funding.79

European Parliament The European Parliament has also expressed concerns about the risks of mobile phone radiation and suggested strategies for reducing people’s exposure. On 2 April 2009, it adopted a resolution, ‘Health Concerns Associated with Electromagnetic Fields’. It: • endorsed the recommendation that ‘mobile phones should not be used beyond reasonable limits and that landlines should preferred’ • called for a ‘wide-ranging awareness campaign to familiarise young Europeans with good mobile phone techniques, such as the use of hands-free kits, keeping calls short, switching off phones when not in use … and using phones in areas that have good reception’ • called on states to ‘increase research and development funding for the evaluation of potential long-term adverse effects of mobile telephony’ • called on ‘the International Commission on Ion-Ionizing Radiation Protection and the World Health Organization (WHO) to be more transparent and open to dialogue with all stakeholders in standard setting’ • condemned ‘certain particularly aggressive marketing campaigns by telephone operators … for example the sale of mobile phones designed solely for children or free call time packages aimed at teenagers’ • called for ‘labelling requirements whereby the transmitting power would have to be specified and every wireless-operated device accompanied by an indication that it emitted microwaves’.80 Doctors and scientists In the last decade, several international gatherings of scientists have produced resolutions recognising the risks of radiofrequency radiation from mobile phones and other devices and calling for precautions to protect people’s health. These include the Catania Resolution (Italy, 2002), the Benevento Resolution (Italy, 2006), the Venice Resolution (Italy, 2008), the London Resolution (England, 2009), and the Porto Alegre Resolution (Brazil, 2009). The texts of these resolutions can be found in the appendix.

Mobile Phones   —  91

In 2008, the Doctors’ Chamber of Vienna released a warning about mobile phone risks and recommended strategies to limit exposure. Its leaflet ‘10 Medical Rules Relating to Cellular Telephones’, made the following recommendations: • In principle, telephone calls should be as few and as brief as possible. It is recommended that children and youth abstain from conducting cellular telephone calls! • The cellular telephone should not be held near the head while sending out the call! • Cellular telephones should not be used in vehicles (cars, buses, trains) — the radiation there is higher! • While sending SMS messages the cellular telephone should be held as far away as possible from the body! • During a cellular telephone conversation a distance of several metres should be kept from other people — the radiation is harmful to them as well! • No online games (GPRS) should be played on the cellular telephone! • Wired speaker telephones are dubious — the wire conducts the radiation! • LAN or UMTS wireless speaker telephones create a high radiation load! • Cellular telephones should not be kept in trousers pockets — the radiation may harm masculine fertility! • Cellular telephones should be turned off during the night and they should be kept away from the sleeping area!81 It would be wonderful if you and I and our children could have confidence in the process of setting standards, assured that our health and wellbeing were in caring hands and had priority over economic profit. It would be reassuring if there were consensus on what levels of exposure were safe. Sadly that is not the case. As I write, the World Health Organization continues to maintain that exposures below the standard ‘do not appear to have any known consequence on health’,82 industry continues to maintain that there is evidence of harm, people continue to experience uncomfortable symptoms from mobile phone use, and the incidence of brain tumours continues to rise. How culpable mobile phone

92  —  The Force

radiation is has yet to be firmly established. However, for now it may be wise to take the advice of those heralds of common sense and err on the side of precaution. To find out more about how you can reduce your exposure to this form of radiation, see Chapter 11. If you’re still unsure about the effects of mobile phone radiation, try asking some of your friends and colleagues about what they experience when they use their mobile phone, especially for longer calls. The chances are that some will report headaches or warmth or redness of the ear. Other common symptoms include fatigue, sore ears, memory and concentration problems, a ‘fuzzy’ head, sore eyes, and tingling sensations. In early 2000, through my involvement in the EMR Association of Australia, I advertised for people who had experienced symptoms while using a mobile phone for a study that was about to be conducted on the topic. To my surprise, I was absolutely deluged with respondents. They reported heat on the side of their face where they positioned their phone, headaches, pressure, ringing in the ears, dizziness, nausea, and other types of pain. Moreover, many said that continued mobile phone use made the symptoms more severe or caused them to appear earlier in the call, so some of them had stopped using their mobile phones altogether. Are these effects symptoms that we can afford to dismiss, or might they be precursors to more serious problems? Could those people reporting discomfort have been the canaries in the technological coalmine? At this stage we still don’t know, but the evidence of risk is mounting.

Chapter 5

Base Stations and Broadcast Towers

‘Masts should be moved away from conurbations and schools and the power turned down.’ — Dr John Walker

The chances are that wherever you live, you are being affected by the radiation from at least one mobile phone base station. The chances are that wherever your children go to school, preschool, or playgroup, they are being affected, too. Wherever you are, if your mobile phone is receiving a signal from a base station, then so are you. There are already millions of base stations around the world. With more being constructed to service new technology, this is an issue that affects every one of us, especially if we live in an urban area. What are the implications for our health, where can such stations be erected, and what are our rights? Are television and radio transmitters, which broadcast similar radiation, also affecting our health?

How do base stations work? Mobile phone base stations, sometimes called cell towers or masts, are the price we pay for instant connectivity. All emit electromagnetic radiation. Mobile phone antennas can been seen as free-standing monopoles or adorning the roofs of flats, offices, hospitals, and tall structures 93

94  —  The Force

throughout our cities. They range from the looming, scaffold-like towers that dominate the suburban skyline, to arrays of panel antennas located on poles or rooftops, to tiny microcells located on inner-city traffic lights and in train stations, shopping complexes, and offices. Many base stations are placed strategically, to avoid notice — some are hidden in structures such as chimneys or church crosses, while others are blended into the natural environment, for example disguised in trees or as flag poles. Each of these base stations services the mobile phones in its local area, or ‘cell’ — hence the description ‘cell phones’. The diameter of these cells can range from metres to kilometres, depending on the strength of the antenna’s signal. Each of these base stations relays signals to and from the mobile phones it services.

Figure 17. Base stations service all the mobile phones within their cell.

A base station consists of transmitting and receiving antennas, an equipment shelter, and a cable, which connects it to the wider telephone system. The antenna transmits radiofrequency radiation at powers of anything from a few watts to 100 watts or more. Some antennas are omnidirectional, while others transmit signals in a particular direction, in a narrower beam. Whereas in the past antennas were arranged in groups of three — one receiver antenna and two transmitter antennas — newer designs house receiver and transmitters in a single panel box. A base station can handle a limited number of calls at a time, so when engineers find that capacity has been reached they will divide a cell into two smaller cells, each with its own base station. In particularly

Base Stations and Broadcast Towers  —  95

dense population areas, such as the inner city, or in areas where large number of calls are being made, such as an airport, the area will be divided into microcells, each serviced by a tiny antenna. You will sometimes see these antennas attached just above head height to power poles, traffic lights, awnings, and buildings. These signals are transmitted using radiofrequency radiation. Whereas the older analog system operated between 824 and 894 MHz, digital GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications) base stations operate between 850 and 960 MHz (often referred to as GSM 900) and sometimes between 1800 and 1900 MHz (GSM 1800). Third-generation (3G) mobile systems operate at higher frequencies — between around 1800 and 2400 MHz. Whenever your mobile phone is turned on, even when you are not making a call, it is in sporadic connection with the closest base station. As you travel to different areas throughout the course of the day, your mobile phone automatically switches from one cell to the next, so that it is in regular contact with the closest base station. If these signals were visible, you would see strands of pulsing radiofrequency radiation emitted from every phone in your vicinity to a base station — an intricate and constantly changing web.

Siting base stations While mobile phones are a lucrative and popular form of technology among the community, mobile phone base stations are not. Given a choice, what community would want unsightly, radiation-emitting antennas that can devalue properties in the vicinity and potentially impact on health? Governments in many countries have chosen to deal with this conundrum by disempowering communities in favour of allowing telecommunications companies to control the siting of base stations. Many countries have passed legislation that overrides local council and state legislation and gives certain immunities to carriers. In Australia, for example, the Telecommunications Act 1997 requires carriers to obtain council approval before installing ‘tall’ antennas. However, it’s not been easy for councils to reject applications: those who have done so on health grounds have often had their decisions overturned by the relevant state court because the radiation from the antenna will comply with the industry standard. However, as we’ve seen in Chapter 4, this doesn’t necessarily make it safe. In further defiance to local communities, the Australian Government

96  —  The Force

then introduced a second category of phone antennas that are immune from state and local government regulations — so-called ‘low-impact facilities’. This classification, based on appearance only, has nothing to do with the amount of radiation the antennas emit, or the risk to public health. The term really means low visual impact — in other words, the antennas are ‘short’. Classifying a radiation-emitting structure according to its appearance and not its emissions is rather like classifying a pharmaceutical drug according to the colour of its packaging! Similarly, in the United Kingdom carriers are required to obtain council planning permission for ‘tall’ masts, but not for smaller masts, irrespective of the radiation they emit. In the USA, the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 contains a section that prohibits local governments from making decisions about the siting of mobile phone antennas based on concerns about environmental or health effects. Recently, several cities, including Portland, Oregon; Glendale, California; and Sebastopol, California, adopted resolutions asking the federal government to repeal this legislation.1 In using such draconian tactics, governments have effectively disempowered communities and exposed entire populations to unnatural, pulsed signals, while failing to provide standards to cover continuous, long-term exposure. At the height of their arrogance, some carriers have constructed antennas without consultation and without providing information to the community or council. Some of these sites have been in or close to homes, schools, and even hospitals grounds. Needless to say, such behaviour has provoked a strong backlash. In many countries, protests against mobile-phone antennas and base stations have become commonplace; some groups of concerned residents have evolved into lobby groups and anti-tower networks. One of their main concerns is about the health effects of the radiation these structures emit — particularly for young children.

Disguised to avoid notice While hiding antennas in this way may reduce people’s concerns about their visual impact, it does nothing to allay their health concerns. In fact, many people wish to know where these facilities are located in relation to their homes, workplaces, or children’s schools, or a property they are considering buying. In some countries, there are website databases that list the location of mobile-phone base stations and other radio transmitters.2

Base Stations and Broadcast Towers  —  97

Figure 18. While most antennas are clearly visible, some have been ‘blended’ into the environment to evade detection.

Siting base stations near schools As children are usually considered to be more vulnerable to radiation, concerns are often expressed about siting base stations near schools. After all, children spend most of their weekdays at school, and their safety within school grounds is an important consideration for parents and legislators. Some authorities have tried to deal with this problem by introducing bans or guidelines on the siting of base stations within certain distances of schools. In the early days of mobile communications, it was easier for carriers to comply with these bans because cells were larger and it was easier to find alternative sites. However, the advent of newer generations of communications has meant that cells have become smaller, with the result that it’s harder to keep any area free of antennas, including schools. So some of the early policies on distance have effectively fallen by the wayside. In 2004, Australia introduced a code that required carriers to ‘consider … community sensitive locations’ (including schools, childcare centres, and hospitals) when deciding where to locate base stations.3 However, in practice this hasn’t stopped the industry from

98  —  The Force

constructing antennas near schools. At the time of writing, the code is being revised. Even if it were possible to ensure that base stations were located away from schools, this would not necessarily protect children from the radiation these stations emit. Let’s say a telecommunications company wants to provide coverage for an area containing a school. If it is unable to locate a base station near the school, it may have to settle for a site further away. But, as industry representatives have explained to me, all the company has to do is turn up the power of the transmitter to achieve coverage of the same area. This can mean that the school is still exposed to the same level of radiation as would have been the case had the base station been located closer and, on top of that, people living or working near the transmitter are also exposed. This, of course, is a real conundrum for communities concerned about the siting of radiation-emitting infrastructure. In 2010, a Canadian researcher, Dr Magda Havas, developed an interesting approach to the question of siting antennas near schools. She released a report titled ‘The BragTM Antenna Ranking of Schools’, which ranked schools in 50 US state capitals according to the number of antennas located nearby. She gave schools a colour-coded rating as a way of identifying the likelihood of exposure. ‘The more antennas that are near schools the greater the potential exposure of students and teachers to radiofrequency radiation from external antennas,’ Havas wrote.4 The report found that many of the 6140 schools it assessed had nothing to brag about. Approximately a third of schools fell into the green zone, which indicated minimum exposure. Most were in the amber zone, which indicated medium exposure, and 17 per cent were in the red or black zones, which indicated maximum exposure. The school with the worst rating had 304 antennas located within 400 metres (0.25 miles) of the site. The BragTM rating is an approximation of exposure only. It does not replace the need for measurements. However, it does draw attention to the issue of protecting children from the potentially harmful effects of radiation.

Base Stations and Broadcast Towers  —  99

Health concerns ‘It is the consistency of the base station epidemiological literature from several countries that we find striking. In particular, the increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances <500 metres from base stations found in 80 per cent of the available studies.’ — Dr Vini Khurana

It is generally accepted that radiofrequency radiation affects our bodies; what is less certain is just how seriously. The official view is that radiation from mobile-phone antennas is not something that we should worry about. International authorities carefully avoid claiming that exposure is ‘safe’ and instead use deceptive language to suggest that there is no conclusive proof of risk and that demonstrated effects are biological rather than health-related, thereby effectively dismissing them. The World Health Organization has taken the view that ‘there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects’,5 and this opinion is echoed in some form by radiation authorities in most countries around the world. It’s based on the assumption that international standards for this technology protect public health, which is not necessarily the case. In fact, even though in the history of human civilization base stations have not been in place for very long, and even though the amount of radiation they emit is much less than international standards allow, there are already signs that it may be harmful. Little more than a handful of studies have so far been conducted on people living near mobile-phone antennas and, while not all have found evidence of harmful effects, some have — enough to set the alarm bells ringing. In 2002, French researcher and lecturer Dr Roger Santini conducted a survey of people living near base stations in France. He compared the prevalence of 16 symptoms (including fatigue, sleep disruption, headaches, feeling of discomfort, irritability, and memory loss) among people living at various distances from base stations (0 to 10 metres, 10 to 50, 50 to 100, 100 to 200, 200 to 300, and more than 300 metres). He found that the more exposure they received, the more symptoms they had, as shown by the graph on the following page.6

100  —  The Force

Figure 19. A 2002 study conducted by Dr Roger Santini showed that those who lived closer to base stations were more likely to experience symptoms such as fatigue and sleep disorders. Graph compiled by Dr Gerd Oberfeld using the data in Santini’s study.

The following year Dr Enrique Navarro and colleagues conducted a study on people living near two base stations operating at 900 and 1800 MHz in La Nora in Spain. They conducted measurements in people’s bedrooms and used the same questionnaire as the Santini study to identify what symptoms people were experiencing. They divided the participants into two exposure groups and found that people who were subject to greater exposure had more symptoms than those who were subject to less exposure. Exposure was associated with discomfort, irritability, appetite loss, fatigue, headache, concentration difficulties, and sleep disturbance.7 In 2004, the data from the study was re-analysed using a method that allowed researchers to control for age and gender, among other factors. The results showed a clear relationship between the levels of microwave exposure that had been measured in the bedrooms (dominated by GSM 900 and 1800 base station signals) and symptoms. The study found a considerably increased risk of symptoms such as fatigue, headaches, sleep disruptions, depression, and concentration difficulties at exposures as low as 0.001 to 0.01 µW/cm², which was just a fraction of international exposure limits.8 The same year, doctors Ronni and Danny Wolf looked at the link between living near a base station and cancer. They compared the incidence

Base Stations and Broadcast Towers  —  101

of cancer among people in the district of Netanya, Israel, who had been living near a base station for between three and seven years with those living further away. They found that those living closer to the base station had four times as many cancers.9 A 2004 Polish study also showed that people living near mobile phone base stations were more likely to suffer from health problems. It concluded, ‘People living in the vicinity of base stations report various complaints mostly of the circulatory system, but also of sleep disturbances, irritability, depression, blurred vision, concentration difficulties, nausea, lack of appetite, headache and vertigo.’10 Following a request by the German radiation authority Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz, which asked doctors to monitor patients’ health around such transmitters, a group of general practitioners published a study on cancer in people living close to a base station in the German town of Naila between 1994 and 2004. The doctors analysed almost 1000 patient files and found that residents who lived within 400 metres of the base station, which had been in operation since 1993, had more than double the rate of cancer. Moreover, cancers developed on average eight years earlier than in residents living further away. When the doctors considered the cancer rates only for the period 1999 to 2004, that is, when the base station had been in use for five to ten years, they found that the cancer risk in the more exposed group was triple that of the less exposed group. The study also showed that people living near the base station had an increased risk of developing breast cancer and that these cancers were detected on average 20 years earlier than in people outside the 400-metre zone.11 In 2004, Austrian doctor Gerd Oberfeld conducted a study using 12 volunteers with electromagnetic hypersensitivity to determine the shortterm effects of base station radiation. He exposed the participants to radiation the equivalent of that received from the main beam of a GSM 900 mobile phone base station antenna for 15 minutes, at a distance of 80 metres. The exposure was less than 1 per cent of the levels allowed by international guidelines. A shielding curtain was removed at some time during the exposure so that the volunteers did not know when they were being exposed and when they were not. When he compared the brainwave patterns of volunteers before and after exposure, he saw changes in electrical activity in the Alpha 1 band (8 to 10 Hz), Alpha 2 band (10 to 12 Hz), and Beta band (13 to 20 Hz), which, he said, ‘could in the long term lead to distress’. As well as this, subjects reported buzzing in the head, heart palpitations, feeling unwell, light-headedness, respiratory

102  —  The Force

problems, nervousness, agitation, headaches, tinnitus, heat, anxiety, and depression.12 In 2006, Austrian researchers looked at the health of people who had been living near one of ten base stations for at least a year. It found that people living in homes with the highest exposures reported more symptoms of ill health, including three times as many headaches, 2.3 times the incidence of tremor, 2.5 times the incidence of cold hands or feet and concentration problems, 2.4 times the incidence of appetite loss, twice as much exhaustion, and twice as much fatigue. ‘Perceptual speed increased, while accuracy decreased insignificantly with increasing exposure levels,’ it was noted.13 In the same year, an Egyptian study looked at the health of people living near the first base station constructed in the city of Menoufiya. It also found evidence of health problems among residents: The prevalence of neuropsychiatric complaints as headache (23.5 per cent), memory changes (28.2 per cent), dizziness (18.8 per cent), tremors (9.4 per cent), depressive symptoms (21.7 per cent), and sleep disturbance (23.5 per cent) were significantly higher among exposed inhabitants [living near base stations] … the inhabitants opposite the station exhibited a lower performance in the problem solving test … Inhabitants living nearby mobile phone base stations are at risk for developing neuropsychiatric problems and some changes in the performance of neurobehavioral functions either by facilitation or inhibition.14 As a result, the authors recommended that public exposure guidelines be revised. In 2009, an Austrian team conducted a study on a group of volunteers to see how they would react to radiation exposure similar to that from mobile phone antennas. They concluded that short-term exposure had a negative impact on wellbeing.15 In a review of public health in Sweden, local researchers Örjan Hallberg and Olle Johansson found that health improved during the early 1990s but declined from 1997. After considering likely causes, they concluded, ‘A connection with the increasing exposure of the population to GHz radiation from mobile phones, base stations, and other communications technologies cannot be ruled out.’16 In June 2010, a study from Britain was widely reported as exonerating mobile phone towers. The Guardian headline, ‘No Link to Child

Base Stations and Broadcast Towers  —  103

Cancer From Phone Masts, Finds Study’, was one of several similar headlines that appeared in British newspapers. The study, led by Professor Paul Elliott from the Imperial College in London, assessed the risk of cancer in children whose mothers were exposed to radiation from mobile phone towers during pregnancy. It reported: ‘There is no association between risk of early childhood cancers and estimates of the mother’s exposure to mobile phone base stations during pregnancy.’17 This would be reassuring news indeed, if it were not for a number of serious shortcomings in the way the study was conducted. Firstly, the study assessed mothers’ exposures according to the distance they lived from an antenna. This is not a good measure of exposure because it doesn’t take into account the fact that signals are distorted by the environment — for example, the presence of trees or hills reduces exposure, and different types of building materials or surfaces may reflect radiation. Secondly, the researchers didn’t take into account the mothers’ exposure to other sources of radiofrequency radiation. They didn’t consider her use of mobile or cordless phones, her use of wireless computers, or the presence of television or radio transmitters. And thirdly, they didn’t consider her exposure to radiation from masts at work. In other words, instead of comparing a group of exposed mothers with a group of unexposed mothers, the researchers compared two exposed groups, and came up with a meaningless result. Just a month later, a review of the available evidence on phone towers and health was published. It found that the majority of studies reported either cancer or neurobehavioural effects among people living within 500 metres of a base station. The authors suggested that because the exposure of these people was well within the levels allowed by international guidelines, these guidelines maybe inadequate for protecting people’s health.18 And it may not be just the present generation that is affected by the radiation that base stations emit. A 2009 study from Nigeria found that mice kept near two different GSM antennas had a much higher rate of sperm abnormalities than unexposed controls.19 If this effect applies to humans, it could have serious consequences for fertility. One of the interesting features of cancer cells is that they conduct electricity, and so they are possibly more vulnerable to radiofrequency radiation. Professor W. Joines has repeatedly shown that malignant cells in different parts of the body absorb more radiation than normal cells over a range of frequencies.20

104  —  The Force

Reports from doctors, scientists, and the public In addition to these scientific studies, there are also reports from medical practitioners who have observed health problems in people living near base stations. In 2002, a group of German doctors appealed to their government to reduce exposure to high-frequency radiation on the basis of adverse effects they observed in their patients. In a petition that has become known as the Freiburger Appeal, they said, ‘we can see … a clear temporal and spatial correlation between the appearance of disease and exposure to pulsed high-frequency microwave radiation (HFMR), such as installation of a mobile telephone sending station in the near vicinity…’21 Among the symptoms they observed were headaches, migraines, chronic exhaustion, agitation, sleeplessness, tinnitus, susceptibility to infection, and nervous and connective tissue pains (see appendix). In 2005, German medical practitioner Dr. Cornelia Waldmann Selsam wrote an open letter to Edmund Stoiber, president of Bavaria, Germany, expressing concerns about symptoms they observed in patients living near base stations. The letter, which was said to express the views of many doctors, stated: Residents in the vicinity of masts have one or more of the following symptoms: sleep disturbance, tiredness, headache, restlessness, lethargy, irritability, inability to concentrate, forgetfulness, trouble finding words, depressive tendency, noises in the ears, impaired hearing, dizziness, nosebleeds, visual disturbances, frequent infections, sinusitis, joint and muscle pains, feeling deaf, palpitations, increased blood pressure, hormone disturbances, gaining weight, hair loss, nocturnal sweating, nausea.22 Other symptoms that had been observed included tinnitus, learning problems, swelling of lymph nodes, numbness, allergies, thyroid disease, frequent need to urinate, skin complaints, diabetes, tumours and loss of appetite. Dr Selsam wrote that the doctors observed improvements in patients’ health when they were removed or screened from the radiation of the base stations, and called for a health survey of people living near antennas. The prestigious ECOLOG Institute in Germany specialises in researching the environmental and human impacts of technology. In 2000, it conducted a report called ‘Mobile Telecommunications and

Base Stations and Broadcast Towers  —  105

Health’ for telecommunications company T-Mobil, which was translated into English in 2007. The report considered the results of 220 peerreviewed scientific papers on mobile phone radiation that did not involve any heating effects. It found evidence linking exposure to increased risks for cancer, DNA damage, chromosome changes, effects on enzymes, changes in the brain, interruption of cell cycle and cellular communication, debilitation of the immune system, and changes to the central nervous system. As a result, it concluded, ‘We recommend the precautionary limit of 0.01 W/m2 ’ (1.0 µW/cm2) from mobile phone base stations.’23 In 2010, two German medical practitioners carried out an independent study on the effects of base station radiation in the Bavarian town of Selbitz. They surveyed the health of 251 residents and then assessed the radiation levels in different locations in the town. By comparing the two sets of data they were able to link exposure with health problems. The doctors found that the more exposed people were at home, the more likely they were to suffer from health problems such as insomnia and sleep apnoea, depression, sore joints, infection, skin problems, heart and circulation disorders, eye and ear problems, and gastro-intestinal problems.24 In mid-1999, Dr Leif Salford told the Swedish press he believed that exposure to mobile phone radiation at levels comparable to those measured near a base station could cause the protein albumin to leak through the blood-brain barrier. He suggested this might be responsible for neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s. According to Salford, ‘Radiation from the base stations of the mobile phone systems should therefore be enough to affect the brain. Even someone who is in the vicinity of a person making a call may be influenced by the radiation from the phone.’25 There is also evidence that animals may be affected. Dr Wolfgang Löscher reported a range of unusual symptoms in a herd of dairy cows pastured near a television transmitter. After mobile phone antennas were added to the site, the farmer and his family began experiencing health problems and their dairy cows began to exhibit some rather strange behaviour. They could be found shuffling backwards and forwards, turning their heads away from the transmitter, and taking ‘cover’ from it behind farm buildings. The cows produced less milk than normal and experienced more health problems, such as conjunctivitis. One cow that had behaved abnormally in her regular pasture reverted to completely normal behaviour within five days of being taken to a stable

106  —  The Force

20 kilometres away. When returned to the field near the antennas, her symptoms re-emerged. Löscher was unable to identify any factors to account for the strange symptoms other than the presence of the antennas, and concluded that it was possible that the electromagnetic radiation they emitted was related to the problems the cows were experiencing.26 In addition, many of the public believe that the radiation from base stations has affected their health. Over the last 15 years, I have had calls from many people claiming that they — and sometimes also their neighbours — have developed serious health problems after a base station was installed near their homes. I heard one case in which three women who lived in a neighbourhood within metres of a base station developed breast cancer. One caller described an unusual ‘cluster’ of cancers that was developing underneath a base station. He reported that in one office of 20 workers situated directly underneath an antenna, two workers developed breast cancers and two developed other cancers after the antenna was installed. Similarly, I was informed by one individual that three workers in a suburban supermarket developed throat cancers around the same time. According to one doctor, an environmental factor was likely to be involved. The environmental factor that caught the attention of my informant was the forest of antennas on the roof of the building where the employees worked. Cancer is not the only problem reported. Just after a base station was installed 70 metres from her home, a young sufferer of epilepsy, who had previously experienced moderate fits only one or two fits a month, began to have more severe fits four to six times a day. Coincidence? Probably not, because the number of fits the girl experienced dropped dramatically when she was away from home. Eventually, the frequency of her fits decreased when she was at home, too — she later found that the transmitter had been turned off around the same time as her fits decreased. One call that left an indelible impression on me was from a man in Queensland who reported that, en route to a holiday to Cairns, his wife experienced excruciating ‘seizure-like’ symptoms every time the car passed a base station. She was so badly affected by these seizures that he feared for her safety, and was desperate to know how he could get her home again — alive. People I have spoken to also report uncomfortable symptoms ranging from heat and pressure in the head to nausea and dizziness. One caller described how being anywhere near a base station caused her severe problems such as skin rashes and exhaustion, affecting her so badly that when going to the local town she was obliged to travel some

Base Stations and Broadcast Towers  —  107

distance out of her way to avoid passing an antenna. Once, a bus in which she was travelling parked near a base station for ten minutes. My caller reported experiencing symptoms so intense that she was subsequently confined to bed for a week. The residents of a small Sydney community sandwiched between two base stations (one comprising an array of antennas and the other accommodating four carriers) have developed an assortment of symptoms: two have died of cancer; a third suffers from a range of health problems consistent with radiation exposure, including memory and sleep problems, panic attacks, and a poor immune system; and a fourth has developed microwave hearing (a phenomenon in which people report hearing sounds from transmitted signals). Two trees growing directly underneath one of the antennas developed a large amount of dead foliage on top.

Guidelines, standards, and safe levels Two major international documents — the ICNIRP guidelines and the IEEE standard — are the basis for standards in many countries around the world. They provide protection against some short-term, heating effects of microwave radiation, and recommend different limits for different frequencies. They don’t protect against the long-term, continuous, nonheating effects that that you may be exposed to if you live or work near a mobile-phone base station or if your children go to school near one of these facilities. The limits these authorities recommend for general public exposure from mobile phone antennas are shown in the table below. Recommended general public limits for exposure to mobile phone antennas Technology

ICNIRP (1998)

IEEE

Power

Equivalent electric field

Power

GSM 935 MHz

470 µW/cm2

41.9 V/m

623 µW/cm2

3G 1800 MHz

900 µW/cm2

58.1 V/m

1200 µW/cm2

3G 2400 MHz

1000 µW/cm2

61.4 V/m

1600 µW/cm2

In reality, people living near mobile phone antennas are exposed to levels of radiation that are very much lower than international standards allow. For example, in its measurements of 12 base stations in different parts of the country, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) found that exposure levels were a tiny

108  —  The Force

fraction of that allowed by the standard. At only one site did they reach above 1 per cent of the standard.27 Nevertheless, the studies and the reports that we’ve already seen suggest that even exposures that are just a fraction of these two standards appear to be affecting people’s health. If this is the case, international standards are woefully inadequate. And this is the message from a number of courageous scientists who, in recent years, have sounded a contrary note to international regulators, arguing that international standards do not protect public health and that phone tower radiation may be harmful. One of the first of these was New Zealand biophysicist Dr Neil Cherry, who analysed the work of over 600 researchers and concluded that the level of allowable microwave exposure needed to be reduced enormously. According to his investigations, the threshold level of exposure was 0.06 microwatts per square centimetre (µW/cm2) for cancer and 0.0004 µW/cm2 for ‘sleep disruption, learning impairment, and immune systems suppression’. Based on this, he advocated setting an exposure limit of 0.05 µW/cm2, to be reduced to 0.01 µW/cm2 in ten years.28 In June 2000, a number of experienced EMR researchers met in Salzburg, Austria, to consider the health implications of mobile phone antennas. While they could identify no threshold for the development of adverse health effects, they nevertheless suggested some precautionary limits: For the total of all high-frequency irradiation a limit value of 100 mW/m² (10 µW/cm²) is recommended. For preventive public health protection a preliminary guideline level for the sum total of exposures from all ELF pulse modulated high-frequency facilities such as GSM base stations of 0.1 mW/cm2 (0.1 µW/cm²) is recommended. In 2002, Dr Santini gave evidence to a parliamentary hearing about the effects of mobile phone antennas. He told the hearing: In base station environments, those living in the vicinity should not be exposed to an average annual power density above 0.1 µW/cm2 (equivalent to an electric field of 0.61 V/m). Zones where residents’ exposure to high frequencies is above this amount should be clearly marked (signs at ground level, signs with a signaling system, etc.).29

Base Stations and Broadcast Towers  —  109

The BioInitiative Report reviewed the available evidence on radiofrequency radiation from mobile phone antennas. It concluded that ‘the body of evidence at hand suggests that bioeffects and health effects can and do occur at exquisitely low exposure levels: levels that can be thousands of times below public safety limits’. The team called for biologically based standards and suggested a precautionary limit of 0.1 µW/cm2 for ‘outdoor, cumulative RF exposure’.30

Action around the world If international standards are inadequate, if people living near base stations are becoming sick, if even small amounts of radiation are affecting people’s health, then how is the public to be protected? To address these concerns, a number of countries and organisations around the world have recommended precautions to reduce public exposure from base station radiation and protect people’s health.

Australia In the early- and mid-1990s, a number of lobby groups called for a buffer zone around phone towers. In July 1996, the NSW Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations passed a resolution about the positioning of mobile phone base stations. They called for a ‘stop to the installation of telecommunication towers in the grounds, or in the immediate vicinity of schools or preschools, due to the adverse effects to health as indicated in current research’. The following year, the New South Wales minister for education, John Aquilina, stated in state parliament that there should be a 500-metre buffer zone around schools: ‘The Department of School Education objects to the installation of mobile phone towers near schools, and that normally means within a radius of 500 metres. This objection is based on a policy of prudent avoidance.’31 A number of councils also introduced measures to reduce exposure. The first of these was a policy introduced by Sutherland Shire Council in 1997, specifying that antennas were not to be sited within 300 metres of sensitive areas such as homes, schools, childcare centres, hospitals, or aged-care facilities unless average annual exposures were less than 0.2 µW/cm2. This policy did not have legislative force but relied on the cooperation of carriers who, by and large, tried to oblige. Based on this success, other councils throughout Australia quickly followed suit. However, just as it appeared that there was a way to balance the concerns of the public with the economic interests of the carriers, a spanner hit the works in the form of third-generation mobile phone

110  —  The Force

technology. The introduction of 3G networks required carriers to install a greater number of antennas and establish smaller cells, making it impossible for them to keep a 300- to 500-metre buffer zone from sensitive areas. Even if they wanted to, carriers could not comply with the policies and still install their networks, and so the voluntary compliance policies gradually faded away. The federal government responded to the public’s concerns about health by establishing a committee of stakeholders to develop a code of practice to govern carrier behaviour. The 2004 ‘Code for the Deployment of Mobile Phone Network Infrastructure’, as it came to be called, placed obligations on carriers, such as the requirements to advise councils about all proposed phone antennas, consult with the community, and consider whether antennas should be placed in ‘sensitive’ areas. The code did not go so far as to address all of the community’s concerns about phone towers, but it did ensure greater transparency in carriers’ processes and made it possible for communities to at least find out more about what they were being exposed to.32

Austria In 1998, Salzburg’s Department of Public Health recommended restricting exposure to GSM base station signals to 0.1 µW/cm². In 2002, the limits were lowered to 0.001 µW/cm² for outdoor exposure and 0.0001 µW/ cm² for indoor exposure. The recommendations were endorsed by the parliament in the Salzburg region. However, these levels are guidelines only and are not legally enforceable. Belgium In 2007, the city of Brussels established a precautionary limit for GSM base stations operating at 900 MHz. It allows maximum exposures of 3 V/m (compared to 42 V/m in the ICNIRP guidelines). In 2009, the Belgian Constitutional Court reaffirmed this limit after it was challenged by the Belgian government and telecommunications companies. Canada and the United States The Toronto Public Health Authority has recommended precautions to reduce exposure from base stations. It suggested that public exposure be limited to 6 µW/cm2 (or 5 V/m) for 900 MHz antennas and 10 µW/cm2 (or 6 V/m) for 1800 MHz antennas. In the United States, there have been calls for changes to legislation on the siting of mobile phone towers. Many cities, as well as the board of

Base Stations and Broadcast Towers  —  111

the Los Angeles Unified School District, have called for local authorities to consider health effects of antennas. The International Association of Fire Fighters, a US-based union servicing fire-fighters and paramedics in the United States and Canada, has also taken action. In August 2004, it officially adopted a policy which stated that fire stations should not be used for the siting of mobile phone antennas, on the basis of concerns about members’ health. The policy read: the IAFF oppose the use of fire stations as base stations for towers and/or antennas for the conduction of cell phone transmissions until a study with the highest scientific merit and integrity on health effects of exposure to low-intensity RF/MW radiation is conducted and it is proven that such sitings are not hazardous to the health of our members. In arriving at this position, the Association referred to a study that had been conducted by Dr Gunnar Heuser earlier in 2004. It found that firefighters who had been working for more than five years in a fire station with mobile-phone antennas sited on the premises had ‘slowed reaction time, lack of focus, lack of impulse control, severe headaches, anesthesialike sleep, sleep deprivation, depression and tremors’.33

Chile In 2009, the Court of Appeal in Rancagua ordered the demolition of a mobile phone tower in Santa Cruz on the basis that it contravened the country’s constitution. According to Judge Carlos Bañados, the tower violated the right to ‘life and psychological integrity’, the right for ‘health protection’, and the right to live in a healthy, unpolluted environment.34 France In 2009, the Secretary of State for Ecology, Chantale Jouanno, publicly stated that she supported trials to limit emissions from mobile phone antennas. Then, in response to concerns by parents, the city of Lyons ordered the dismantling of a mobile phone antenna at the Victor Hugo School and agreed to turn off antennas in three other schools during lessons.35 The mayor of Oullins, a suburb of Lyons, decreed that no antennas could be constructed if the main beam is within 100 metres of a childcare facility or school, and existing towers would be required to keep exposures to no more than 0.6 V/m. The mayor of Clamart, in the southwestern suburbs of Paris, refused carriers permission to install

112  —  The Force

antennas on several building sites, as well as buildings within 100 metres of schools and a creche. The Association des Maires de Grandes Villes de France (association of French city mayors) asked for the implementation of trials to reduce the amount of exposure in certain areas.36 On 14 June 2009, the Green Party adopted a motion on electromagnetic radiation. It recommended no more than 0.6 V/m for long-term exposure to mobile phone tower radiation — the same level recommended some years earlier by Dr Santini.

Germany The German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz) has adopted a three-pronged precautionary approach to EMR. It recommends keeping exposure of the general public as low as possible, informing the public about the risks of EMR, and involving them in decisions about the siting of base stations.37 India The state of Rajasthan has introduced strict guidelines aimed at regulating base stations and addressing concerns about their health impacts. The regulations forbid the construction of antennas on any medical or educational building and recommend siting antennas in open spaces. Telecommunications companies are required to obtain ‘no objection certificates’ (NOCs) from resident groups and relevant authorities, and an engineering certificate guaranteeing safety of the base station and the building to which it is attached. The regulations also require carriers to pay a levy to the local government authority for each of their mobile phone base stations — both new and those pre-dating the legislation.38 Israel The Israeli Ministry of Environmental Protection has established two exposure levels for RF radiation. The first is a public health threshold, which is based on the ICNIRP guidelines. The second is a precautionary environment threshold, which is one-twentieth of the ICNIRP levels. According to the Ministry: The environmental threshold is based on the precautionary principle, which calls for reaching the lowest possible radiation levels using available technology at reasonable cost. In effect, the environmental threshold is meant to balance two interests: the interest of using radiation sources for public benefit and the

Base Stations and Broadcast Towers  —  113

interest of not harming (either in terms of health or finance) residents or people in the vicinity of radiation sources. It takes into account  chronic, continuous and prolonged exposure to electromagnetic radiation.39

Italy In 2001, the Italian parliament introduced limits far tighter than those of the 1998 ICNIRP guidelines, to which it had previously adhered. It established new ‘attention levels’ of 6 volts per metre (V/m) for places used for extended periods of time, such as homes, schools, hospitals, and leisure areas. It also introduced the idea of lower ‘quality goals’ — the nature of which it did not specify — to be achieved over time. These were left to regional authorities to implement. One of these, the government of Tuscany, introduced a limit of 0.5 V/m, which was 1500 times less than the ICNIRP limit. New Zealand In 1996, the Christchurch City Council introduced a limit on the amount of EMR from base stations to which the public could be exposed. The prescribed level of 2 µW/ cm2 was recognised in legislation.40 In the same year, the New Zealand Ministry of Education issued a statement prohibiting the erection of base stations in schools: Of paramount importance to the ministry is the provision of an environment where boards of trustees, parents, teachers, pupils and other occupants of the school site can feel comfortable. For this reason the ministry has decided cell phone transmitters will not be sited on Crown-owned school sites in the future.41 More recently, a committee of the New Zealand House of Representatives recommended a review of the country’s RF standard, with Greens MPs calling for the review to be independent. In the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee, the Greens stated: There is increasing international evidence … that EMR can cause adverse effects even at low exposure levels that are thousands of times below the public safety limits set in our standard. It is therefore imperative that the scientific basis of our standard

114  —  The Force

be reviewed and that a new standard is developed that protects the public from exposure to biological and chronic effects as well as short term, acute effects.42

Sweden In 2005, a Swedish court set a precedent by declaring the radiation from a 3G base station ‘environmentally dangerous’. The decision by the Swedish Environmental Court of Appeal followed a long-standing controversy between the council of Miljnden and the Swedish phone company UMTS-NET. In making the decision, the court did not require proof that the radiation caused environmental damage, but rather recognised that it was considered to be a risk to the environment on the basis of studies showing potentially dangerous biological effects. The court also took into consideration that antennas caused nearby residents to feel ‘dread’, which it considered to be an unlawful practice.43 Switzerland On 1 February 2000, Switzerland introduced new limits, which are still among the strictest in the world, for sensitive locations such as residences, schools, hospitals, and playgrounds. The legislation requires base stations operating at 900 MHz to limit their emissions to 4 µW/cm2, and those at 1800 MHz to keep emissions to 10 µW/cm2 at any one installation. (An installation is defined as all the antennas on a particular mast or roof.) This is nearly 200 times lower than the levels recommended in the ICNIRP guidelines.44 In 2009, a bill was introduced to the Swiss parliament calling for action on electromagnetic radiation. Proposed by MP Christian van Singer, the bill had 54 co-signatories and sought bans on the installation of antennas near creches, schools, and other sensitive areas. It also called for local government to have the power to introduce strict emission levels, such as ‘levels that do not exceed 0.3 volts per metre’.45 The city of St Gallen is one of the first in the world to construct a wired telecommunications network. The city-wide fibre-optic network is being constructed in conjunction with telecommunications giant Swisscom and will provide telephone, internet, and television services. Swisscom is providing 60 per cent of the funding for the network, which it describes as the ‘communications technology of the future’, in return for use of two fibres in each business and household. Part of the network is already in use and it is expected to be complete by 2019.46

Base Stations and Broadcast Towers  —  115

United Kingdom In May 2000, after months of investigation, an independent panel of 12 eminent biological research scientists, chaired by Sir William Stewart, released the ‘Stewart report’, which recommended precautions for the siting of mobile phone towers and associated infrastructure. It recommended that carriers obtain planning approval from councils for all proposed base antennas — even those under 15 metres, which had previously been exempt; that radiation emissions from all antennas be kept ‘to lowest practical levels’; and that ‘the beam of greatest RF intensity from a base station inside or outside a school yard should not fall on any part of the school property without permission from parents and the school’.47 Following the publication of the report, in 2004 the United Kingdom’s radiation authority, then known as the National Radiological Protection Board, lowered the country’s exposure limits to comply with the ICNIRP limits. The 2005 report by Ireland’s Joint Committee on Communications, Marine, and Natural Resources also recommended strategies for reducing the health impacts from radiofrequency radiation; it advocated changes to planning legislation so that no equipment emitting ‘electromagnetic emissions’ or ‘radiofrequency emissions’ be permitted to be sited near health centres, schools, playgrounds, or other ‘sensitive’ sites.48 European Parliament The European Parliament made a number of recommendations for reducing the impacts of mobile phone antennas. In a resolution that was adopted on 2 April 2009, it advised that: • telecommunications carriers should make sure that transmitters are sited appropriately, and where possible should share masts and transmitters with one another • governments should develop regional antenna plans and make maps of antenna locations that are available for the public • stakeholders should be involved in discussions about the siting of new antennas, and these should be located away from schools, creches, retirement homes, and health-care institutions.49

What can you do about the risks? If you’re confronted with the news that a new base station is to be built near your home, it’s understandable that you may begin to feel disempowered. Depending on where you live, there’s a chance that legislators

116  —  The Force

will have ensured that you do not have any rights to stand in the way of the rollout of this lucrative telecommunications network. Legislation has become the modern rifle power by which economic imperialists blast their way into communities. But legislation can be changed. And it’s changed by people like you and me — and thousands of other individuals; by the power of our actions and our votes. Mobile phone base stations exist only to support mobile phone technology. The stark reality is that if we don’t want the base stations we can’t have the phones. Of the countless people I’ve spoken to who are opposed to the construction of a base station in their community and worried about the impacts of the radiation it emits, most chose to provide me with a mobile contact number. Network providers report this as well. So how seriously do you think they regard the health concerns of callers? The radiation from base stations is a health and environmental hazard that is the direct result of our personal choices. If we don’t want to eat chemically contaminated food, we need to buy organic; if we don’t want global warming, we need to reduce our production of greenhouse gas. In the same way, if we don’t want to live in a community irradiated by base stations, we need to cut down our use of mobile phones. There are tips for reducing your exposure to the radiation from a base stations in Chapter 11. You can also reduce the need for the proliferation of base stations in general by: • using a landline rather than a mobile phone where possible • ringing a person on their landline rather than their mobile phone • asking people to give you their landline rather than their mobile number • giving people your landline number and using an answering machine to record messages if you are not at home • connecting through emails (using a wired, not wireless, internet connection) rather than mobile phones.

Effects on property values Base stations can not only affect health, but property prices, too. There is evidence that, as with high-voltage powerlines, mobile phone towers devalue adjacent properties. Here are a few examples. • A jury in the 295th District Court of Harris County, Texas, awarded US$1.2 million to a couple who claimed that a 100-foot mobilephone tower had invaded their privacy and created a nuisance. The damages payment included compensation for loss of use and enjoyment of the couple’s property, mental anguish, and legal fees.50

Base Stations and Broadcast Towers  —  117

•

A study at Lookout Mountain in Colorado found that declines in property values were associated with the perception of medical harm from a proposed high-definition television broadcast antenna. The author wrote:

•

•

•

The perception of reality is that living within a five-mile radius and having a direct line of sight of a high-definition television antenna can cause medical harm to human beings. This perception may not be based on medical or scientific fact but causes concerns within the community. This perception of reality makes property within the effected zones less attrac tive to both existing occupants as well as prospective new buyers.51

In Ireland, a valuation of properties nearest a mobile phone mast found that ‘they had fallen by around 25 per cent’.52 In addition, Limerick real-estate agent Pat O’Donovan estimated that living near a phone tower devalued properties by reducing the number of potential buyers.53 In Germany, the monthly rent for an apartment was reduced by 20 per cent after mobile phone antennas were installed on the roof without notification to and agreement from the tenant.54 In an Australian Senate inquiry into telecommunications legislation, the country’s three major carriers — Telstra, Optus, and Vodafone — admitted that mobile phones had a ‘small’ impact on property values.55

Television, radio, and broadcast transmitters If base stations pose a possible risk to health, then what about the radiation from higher-power broadcast antennas, such as television and radio antennas? According to the World Health Organization, this radiation affects the body more than that from base stations. In their fact sheet ‘Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health’, they state: In fact, due to their lower frequency, at similar RF exposure levels, the body absorbs up to five times more of the signal from FM radio and television than from base stations. This is because the frequencies used in FM radio (around 100 MHz) and in TV broadcasting (around 300 to 400 MHz) are lower than those employed in mobile telephony (900 MHz and 1800 MHz) and because a person’s height makes the body an efficient receiving antenna.56

118  —  The Force

Yet it goes on to say that radio and television broadcast stations have been in operation for the past 50-plus years, and during that time no adverse health consequences have been established. Health effects may not have been ‘established’, but they have certainly been reported — there have been a number of studies on the effects for people living near television and radio stations, and many of them have found evidence of health problems, as we will shortly see. Nowhere has the safety of broadcast transmitters created greater furore than in Italy. Twenty kilometres north of Rome lies the quaint mediaeval village of Cesano, which has seen a considerable population spurt in the last decade. Cesano has as its neighbour the smallest sovereign state in the world — Vatican City, which is less than two square kilometres in size and has a population of just 800. Vatican City was also home to some 29 transmitters (two medium-wave and 27 short-wave), which broadcast daily religious programs across five continents, in multiple frequencies and ranging in power from 500 to 600 kW. For some years the people living in Cesano had noticed that Vatican broadcasts were interfering with electrical equipment. Intercom speakers would play Vatican programs; farmers could hear hymns reverberating from the metal in their barns; and the ‘voice of God’ was heard coming from mobile phones and even washing machines and fridges. However, residents came to suspect that the Vatican transmissions were causing more than electrical interference. The first to sound the alarm was Carlo Santi, a local doctor, who observed that the rate of tumours in the area was three times the national average. Public concern grew as more people reported cancers and leukaemias; emotions began to rise and people demanded action. The local authorities responded by commissioning an investigation to see just what the cancer rate really was. Paola Michelozzi from the Local Health Authority in Rome conducted a study of leukaemia rates within a radius of 10 kilometres from the Vatican transmitters. What she found was not conclusive of its own accord because of the study’s small numbers, but it was enough to reinforce the residents’ worst fears. There was a higher rate of childhood leukaemia within six kilometres of the transmitters, and the risk decreased with distance.57 Measurements showed that radiation levels in some areas were 15 and 20 V/m — far in excess of Italy’s limit of 6 V/m. Soon the Vatican found itself embroiled in diplomatic and legal action aimed at reducing the amount of radiation from its antennas. In its defence, the Vatican claimed that it was a sovereign state and so not

Base Stations and Broadcast Towers  —  119

subject to the precautionary Italian limits of 6 V/m. It had adopted the far more lenient ICNIRP limits of 5000 V/m, with which its emissions complied. Italian authorities accused the Vatican of arrogance and environment minister Willer Bordon threatened to cut off its power if radiation levels were not reduced. Two Vatican Radio officials were convicted of environmental pollution for causing this radiation and sentenced to ten days in jail, although the sentence was subsequently suspended. The conflict was finally resolved when the Vatican reduced the power of its transmissions so that it complied with the Italian limits. It did this by relocating transmitters to other areas within Italy, and in Monaco — the costs of which were paid for by the Italian government. A win for the people of Cesano, perhaps, but not for residents who found themselves living near the newly relocated transmitters. Another controversial case involving broadcast transmission involved the Radio Location Station in the town of Skrunda in western Latvia. Built by the Soviets in 1971, the station had four transmitters operating at frequencies of 156 to 162 MHz — which complied with the country’s standards. During the 1990s, the station was the focus of six research projects that looked at the effects of the radiation it emitted on people and the environment. One study found that children living in the beam of the transmitter had reduced memory and attention, slower reaction times, and poorer motor function.58 Another found that people who were subject to greater exposure had higher levels of immunoglobulin A, which is found in diseases such as multiple myeloma and liver disease, and autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis.59 Other researchers found that the radiation had damaging effects on cows and vegetation, and birds tried to avoid it. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russians withdrew from Skrunda. The station was turned off and the town was abandoned, leaving many unanswered questions about the long-term effects of radiation on Skrunda’s residents. Of course, the Vatican and Latvian transmitters are not the only broadcast transmitters to come under scrutiny for their effects on health. During the 1970s, several Western Australian researchers, with the support of the Cancer Council of Western Australia, conducted a study into the connection between television signals and chronic granulocytic leukaemia. They compared the survival rates for leukaemia in groups of patients diagnosed before and after several television transmitters in Perth began to operate. On average, those who were diagnosed with

120  —  The Force

cancer in earlier years survived ‘significantly longer’ than those diagnosed in later years. For example, in the period 1951–59, 50 per cent of patients survived for 55 months after diagnosis; however, during the 1960s, 50 per cent of patients survived for just 21 months. What could account for the difference? According to the authors, the point at which survival rate decreased ‘coincides with the start of 3 Television Transmitters, one broadcasting 100 kW day and night’.60 In the northern suburbs of Sydney, Australia, there are three television broadcast towers located in close proximity to one another, creating an ideal environment for examining radiation exposures. In 1996, Dr Bruce Hocking conducted a study on cancer incidence among people living in nine municipalities in the region between 1972 and 1990. He found an increased level of childhood lymphatic leukaemia in the areas closest to the towers.61 In a follow-up study, Dr Hocking analysed the survival rates for childhood leukaemia in patients living in the area who had been diagnosed between 1972 and 1993. He found that children living closest to the television towers had double the mortality rate of those living further away. For those living closest to the towers, 55 per cent survived for five years and 33 per cent survived for ten years. Children living further from the towers survived for longer, with 71 per cent surviving for five years and 62 per cent surviving for ten years.62 These findings suggest that the radiation from the towers may pose a risk to the health of those living nearby. A number of other studies have also found that people living near broadcast towers have a higher incidence of cancer and leukaemia. Korean research found that localities with an AM broadcast tower emitting over 100 kW had a higher rate of cancer and leukaemia deaths — especially deaths among people aged under 30 years.63 A study at Sutton Coldfield, a town in the United Kingdom, found a higher rate of adult leukaemia within two kilometres of a radio and television transmitter.64 On the other side of the globe, children living within 4.18 kilometres of a radio tower in Hawaii were found to have an increased rate of leukaemia.65 A large number of cancers was also reported around a television tower in San Francisco.66 Another particularly convincing study comes from South Korea. Dr Ha and team compared the home addresses of some 5000 children with the location of 31 AM radio transmitters operating at 20 kW or more. They found that children who lived within two kilometres of an AM radio transmitter had double the risk of childhood leukaemia of those living 20 kilometres away from it.67

Base Stations and Broadcast Towers  —  121

As well as cancer, the radiation from broadcast antennas has been linked to the rise in malignant melanomas that has occurred around the world in the past century. An Australian research team led by doctors J. Elwood and J. Lee found that the incidence of malignant melanoma was quite low in women living in the 1800s, but increased with each successive generation. They suggested that whatever was causing the melanomas was inactive in people born before 1903, but fully active in those born after 1923. This period, of course, coincided with the development of worldwide radio communications.68 Similarly, when two Swedish researchers compared the prevalence of FM broadcast towers to the incidence of malignant melanoma in four European countries, they found that the more FM transmitters in an area, the higher the incidence of melanoma.69 A number of other studies have found a higher rate of cancer in people exposed to radiofrequency radiation. Here are a few. • Amateur radio operators exposed to radiofrequency radiation were found to have a higher rate of death from leukaemia.70 • Women working as radio and telegraph operators had higher rates of breast cancer.71 • A higher rate of cancer was found in women exposed to radiofrequency radiation in a plastic-sealing factory.72 • Polish military personnel exposed to RF had a higher than usual risk of developing brain cancer.73

Digital television With the inevitable evolution of technology, the old analog television signals are being phased out and replaced by digital systems in many countries. The main difference between the two is in the way in which the power is distributed: in analog transmissions, most of the power is carried by a single frequency, although some travels on adjacent frequencies; however, in digital transmissions, the power is distributed across a wider band of frequencies. It is too early to say for sure what difference that could make to health — if any. However, three German medical practitioners, each of whom has observed unhealthy effects in their patients since digital transmissions began, believe that the technology is dangerous. ‘The risk associated with terrestrial digital broadcast television transmitters is unacceptable,’ doctors Cornelia Waldmann-Selsam, Christine Aschermann, and Markus Kern wrote in an open letter to President Obama as the United States prepared to phase out analog television transmissions. The doctors

122  —  The Force

referred to health problems that developed within a 20-kilometre radius of two digital television antennas after they were turned on in Hessian Rhoen, Germany. They included: constant headaches, pressure in the head, drowsiness, sleep problems, inability to think clearly, forgetfulness, nervous tensions, irritability, tightness in the chest, rapid heartbeat, shortness of breath, depressive mood, total apathy, loss of empathy, burning skin, inner burning, leg weakness, pain in the limbs, stabbing pain in various organs, weight increase’.74 In addition to these symptoms, the doctors reported suicide, the disappearance of birds from the area, and changes in animal behaviour. ‘In Germany we see strong evidence of a direct temporal association between the start-up of terrestrial digital broadcast television and the occurrence of severe health symptoms,’ their letter continues. They attribute the risks of digital television to the wide band of frequencies that it covers. Given that, after over 60 years of transmissions, we still don’t know whether analog television is ‘safe’, it may be quite some time before we understand the full impacts of its digital successor. There is no doubt that mobile phone and television transmitters, analog or digital, emit radiation that affects our bodies. What is less certain is just how serious those effects are for our long-term health, and whether we should heed those voices who are already claiming to suffer. If you are worried about your exposure from television transmitters, there are ways in which you can identify and reduce your exposure in Chapter 11. As yet, science has no definite answers; it requires more research to be conducted over long periods of time to find out whether being exposed to radiation from this technology is harmful. However, such studies are becoming harder to carry out. As base stations and transmitters proliferate, as the use of mobile and cordless phones increases, and as wireless computers replace wired computers, greater numbers of people are being exposed to radiation on a daily basis. How can we find an unexposed control sample to compare with people exposed to radiation from base stations? In their benevolence, legislators have now created an environment in which base stations are constructed before they are shown to be safe, and

Base Stations and Broadcast Towers  —  123

in which it is now almost impossible to gauge their impacts. These governments have created a social experiment in which all of us are unwitting and often unwilling guinea pigs. The results of this approach will only be truly seen in the years to come. Then, when we look back, we can decide whether irradiating babies and children on a daily basis, allowing alterations to our bodies’ normal functioning, and dramatically changing the electromagnetic environment of the entire planet was really such a good idea. We become contributors to this social experiment when we buy into the technology that promotes it. Before you turn on your mobile phone, purchase an iphone for your child, or install wireless connections, you may want to consider whether they are worth the cost that you — and society — may ultimately pay.

Chapter 6

Computers

‘I am concerned that so many wireless networks are being installed in schools and colleges without any understanding of the possible long-term consequences.’ — Phillip Parkin, General Secretary of Voice Teachers’ Association

Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, couldn’t have been more wrong when he predicted in 1943, ‘I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.’ Today, computers are found in virtually every home, business, school, and industry in the developed world, and they are an essential tool for maintaining our economy and quality of life. In less than a generation they have revolutionised the way we work, play, and communicate. Could you imagine your life without them? At home you would lose the convenience of thermostat-controlled air-conditioning and pre-setting functions for dishwashers, ovens, and video recorders. You would no longer be able to pay bills online or purchase goods from other parts of the world at the press of a button. While your standard of living would be reduced, your expenses would be increased, as manufacturing and business would be more labour-intensive and less productive. Your job would require different skills and your work opportunities would be 125

126  —  The Force

entirely changed. There would be no IT jobs and less opportunity for home-based businesses, but more unskilled jobs. Without computers, the changes would extend into your leisure time: you could not spend time surfing the internet, playing computer games, or connecting socially with other people online. Even the movies you watched would lack the drama of computer-generated special effects. In the developed world, we are rapidly approaching the point where everyone is a computer user. As personal computers have had more functions, including the ability to play music, DVDs, and videos, inbuilt, they have become an essential device to more people. Even children as young as three are regular users of the internet.

A brief history What’s amazing is that this enormous technological revolution has taken place in a very short period of time. In looking back we can see just how far — and how quickly — we’ve come. The first computers were developed in the 1940s, at great expense, utilising thousands of parts and occupying up to several thousand square feet. They were used mainly for research applications and had virtually no impact on the average person’s everyday life. In 1949, the technical magazine Popular Mechanics confidently predicted that ‘computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons.’ By the 1950s, computers became smaller and more efficient as transistors began to replace the bulky vacuum tubes that were used in the earliest models. However, by modern standards they were still largely inaccessible: a Remington Rand computer, for example, occupied 943 cubic feet, cost US$1 million, and could perform only 1905 operations a second — clearly not yet a household appliance. (By comparison, modern personal computers can perform billions and even trillions of operations per second.) The 1960s saw the emergence of the internet. The computer mouse was developed and patented, paving the way for easier and more convenient computer use. However, it was not until the 1970s that computers worked their way into the mass market: businesses could purchase workstations comprising a computer, a monitor, and a mouse. Small and comparatively inexpensive ‘microcomputers’, such as Apple II, became available to individuals. It became possible to send information by email instead of by letter or memo and to store information on floppy disks. In the 1980s, computers became more accessible, more convenient, and able to perform more functions. Microprocessors, containing over

Computers  —  127

one million transistors, came onto the market. IBM introduced the Windows operating system and its personal computer, the PC, which other computer companies quickly began to copy. Laptops became available and data began to be stored on CD-ROMs, which had greater capacity than their floppy disk cousins. During the 1990s, search engines were created, which dramatically increased use of the internet. As a result, the number of websites multiplied like proverbial rabbits, and the number of registered domain names increased from 9300 at the beginning of the decade to 72 million by the decade’s end. During this period, Java programming language was developed, Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) came onto the market, and the world’s first fully computer-generated film, Toy Story (1995), was released. Since 2000, internet use has continued to expand. Broadband internet connections have become commonplace, which made it possible for people to download large volumes of data, including photos, music, and videos. Websites have proliferated: in 2010 there were 196 million active website domain names. Social-networking sites have also become popular — Facebook alone had over 500 million members by mid-2010. The four countries with the highest per capita internet use in 2010 were the Falkland Islands (100 per cent), Norway (94.9 per cent), Iceland (93.2 per cent), and Sweden (92.5 per cent). The country with the highest overall number of internet users in 2010 was China (420 million).1

Children’s computer use Today, children are born into a world of technology where everything from programming the oven to the GPS in the family car can be governed by computer technology. For the modern child, the computer is what the backyard, the sandpit, and mud pies were to his or her grandparents and it defines they way they work, play, and communicate. Most children can use a computer even before they can read. In fact, many preschoolers now are regular computer users. In the United Kingdom, those as young as 22 months are being encouraged to master computer skills under a program called The Early Years Foundation Stage. Introduced in September 2008, this program requires children under two to be able to turn on and operate a computer, and use a photocopier. Children aged between four and five are required to use a mouse and keyboard and simple computer programs.2 Children are also learning to access the internet via computer before they are old enough for school. In Korea, three-year-olds spend an average

128  —  The Force

of four hours on the internet each week. As children grow up, they tend to use the internet for even longer periods. By the time they are five, more than a quarter of Australian children are using it on a daily basis, and in Hong Kong this number rises to nearly eight out of ten. Children are often using computers more than their parents and, in fact, seem to be driving the purchase of computers and internet connections in homes.3 This is the first time in history that computer technology has been used so much and for so long by such a large number of children. The youngest generation is the first to be exposed to this technology potentially for their entire lives. The question is, will there be long-term effects for their health? The countries with the highest percentage of computer use by children aged five to 14 in 2008 were Finland, Netherlands, Slovakia, Hong Kong, Korea, and Lithuania. The countries with the highest percentage of internet use by young people aged 14 to 24 were Iceland, Norway, Korea, and Hong Kong.4

Health concerns It is not easy to understand the health impacts of computers because the technology, as we have seen, is constantly evolving. Around the time that computers first came into widespread use in the 1970s and 1980s, cathode-ray tubes were used to create images on the monitor. These tubes emitted a wide range of frequencies, such as radio-frequency radiation, electrostatic fields, X-rays, and small amounts of gamma radiation.5 The first wave of computer use was accompanied by reports of health problems from some users. These often began after commencing work on a new computer. ‘We all had eye injuries or health problems,’ said one sufferer. ‘After I began using a computer, I started having skin problems practically right away with redness, heat and the like,’ reported another. A third described experiencing dramatic changes when using a computer: ‘There was a tingly, burning sensation in my skin and I lost all feeling on the left side of my face. It felt as if I had a battery in my mouth and everything was swimming before my eyes.’6 In Sweden, where such reports had become relatively common, the Swedish Union of Clerical and Technical Employees in Industry (SIF) surveyed its members to ascertain their reactions to electricity in 1993 and again in 1996. The SIF identified 13 symptoms associated with

Computers  —  129

electricity, most of which related to computer use. It found that nearly half the members surveyed were adversely affected by electrical appliances and that the incidence of problems doubled in the three years between the first and second surveys. The symptoms identified by the SIF, and their prevalence among those surveyed in 1996, were: • vision difficulties, smarting or pain, a feeling of grit in the eyes (48.4 per cent) • dry, red, and blotchy skin (44.6 per cent) • abnormal levels of tiredness, difficulty concentrating (42.9 per cent) • headaches, loss of memory, or depression (37.6 per cent) • stinging, hot, swollen, and blistered faces (36 per cent) • pain in arms, shoulders, and joints (35 per cent) • dry mucous membranes, abnormal thirst (29.4 per cent) • stuffy, runny noses; sinusitis (25.4 per cent) • pain in the face, jaw, and/or teeth (24.3 per cent) • cramps, numbness, or prickling sensations (24 per cent) • faintness, dizziness, or nausea (19 per cent) • sores, blisters, or a metallic taste in the mouth (15 per cent) • breathing problems and palpitations (14.5 per cent).7 These kinds of experiences began to be referred to as ‘electromagnetic hypersensitivity’, or EHS for short, and they are discussed further in Chapter 9. During the same period, there were some reports of miscarriages among computer users. Dr Michael Goldhaber, who tracked the pregnancies of 1583 US women in the early 1980s, found that women who used visual display units (VDUs), or monitors, for more than 20 hours per week in the first three months of pregnancy had a higher risk of miscarriage than women working in occupations where they did not use VDUs.8 Another study found a higher rate of miscarriages in women using VDUs emitting more than 9 mG.9 Even chicken embryos and young chickens exposed to VDUs had a higher death rate and depressed levels of several antibodies.10 Another alarming report made an association with brain tumours. The 1992 Australian study found that women who worked with cathoderay tubes had four times the expected rate of developing gliomas — tumours in the glial cells of the brain.11 Yet before science could come to grips with the full health implications of VDUs with cathode-ray tubes, the technology changed. Flat-screen computers have gradually edged out their more cumbersome predecessors over the last decade, and they now dominate the market. Slimline liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors and plasma

130  —  The Force

screens also emit electromagnetic fields, but these emissions are usually lower than those from older, bulkier monitors. The highest field on my LCD monitor is 18 mG, though most of the screen measures much less. The highest field at my hard drive is 150 mG, right at the back of the unit. Like all magnetic fields, these diminish with distance, so the field at my seat (about a metre away) is 0.4 to 0.7 mG. Yet even these emissions can cause health problems for some people. LCDs contain fluorescent globes and emit high-frequency signals to which some people are particularly sensitive. Plasma screens contain a mixture of different types of gas. Unfortunately, some people develop reactions after using these. Martin Anderson and Leif Westlund, who specialise in ‘sanitising’ electrical equipment in offices in Sweden, have observed firsthand the problems that computer users can experience. They have reported symptoms such as swelling, burning, and sensations of ‘prickling’ among women who began to use LCD monitors, and itching, heat, and redness in one plasma-screen user.12 However, we don’t yet know how widespread these sorts of reactions might be. Electromagnetic emissions from computers are usually blamed for causing these symptoms in sensitive computer users. But there may be another factor equally to blame. Computers contain a plethora of toxic chemicals — new computers contain around 50 different chemical compounds. One of these, triphenyl phosphate (used as a flameretardant), has been found to cause allergic reactions such as itching, nasal congestion, and headaches, and to damage white and red blood cells. Computers also contain chemicals called isocyanates, which are released by heat and can attach to dust particles. When inhaled, they can cause respiratory problems, skin sensitisation, headaches, rhinocleisis (blocked nasal passages), and sensitivity to other chemical exposures. Other chemicals emitted by computers include Bisphenol-A, organophosphatesters, and PCB, all of which have been found to have harmful effects.13 These chemicals are absorbed by the body and can accumulate in fatty tissue. Not surprisingly, people who use computers frequently have been found to have higher than average concentrations of these chemicals in their bodies. Kristina Jakobsson, from the Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine at Lund University Hospital, Sweden, measured workers for the presence of of two chemical flame-retardants used in electronics equipment: tetrabromobisphenol-A (TBBPA) and polybrominated dipehnyl ethers (PBDEs). PBDEs can accumulate in the body (and the environment) and cause irreversible damage to the nervous

Computers  —  131

and reproductive systems. TBBPA has been found to damage the endocrine system of rats and to be toxic to marine life. It can cause allergies and light sensitivity in humans and there is no reliable information about its long-term effects. Jakobsson found that computer technicians had the highest concentration of ethers and most had some TBBPA in their systems. She also found that the concentration of ether in the body was related to the duration of computer use. ‘It is evident,’ her study concluded, ‘that PBDEs used in computers and electronics, including the fully brominated BDE-209, contaminate the work environment and accumulate in the workers’ tissues.’14 Unfortunately chemical emissions from new computers can last for years. Stockholm University’s Connie Ostman found that levels of triphenyl phosphate in computers were highest for the first eight days of continuous use and dropped sharply after that. However, after 180 days of continuous use — equivalent to about two years of ordinary use — they were still ten times greater than the background level of exposure in the environment.15 Not all the health problems associated with computer use are linked to EMR and chemicals. Computer users also risk eyestrain, obesity, postural problems and repetitive strain injury (RSI), which involves damage to tendons, muscles, ligaments, and joints of the hand, arm, neck, and shoulders. Even two hours of computer use per day is a risk factor for this condition, and children as young as seven are being treated for it. Computer use may also be detrimental for children’s vision, as several studies have found. Australian researcher Professor Paul Mitchell found a significantly increased rate of shortsightedness (myopia) among Australian children in a school in western Sydney. He said that myopia in children can lead to more serious eye problems, including cataracts, glaucoma, early onset macular degeneration, and even blindness, in later life.16 Dr Masayuki Tatemichi from Tokyo’s Toto University found that there was a relationship between computer use and near- and far-sightedness, and heavy users had nearly double the risk of developing glaucoma.17 Another Japanese study showed that when a person uses a computer for 90 minutes they require up to one hour to recover their ability to focus at different distances. This, of course, has implications for children’s performance at non-computer-related learning tasks in the classroom.18

132  —  The Force Whether a computer has an LCD or a plasma display, the screen can sometimes flicker. This usually indicates that it is located in a fairly high magnetic field, probably 15 mG or more. It may be worth checking to see whether there is another source of electromagnetic field nearby — perhaps wiring, transformers, or other equipment — that could be interfering with your computer and perhaps your body. If so, you may be able to move the computer and/or move or shield the equipment.

Applying precautions Concerns about the health effects of computer use have not gone entirely unheeded. Sweden, where hypersensitive reactions to computers have been most widely reported, has taken the most proactive approach to protecting computer users and in 1998, the SIF launched a project to support its members. The No Risk in the IT Environment project drew attention to the chemical and electromagnetic emissions from computers and other electronic equipment in order to increase awareness of these invisible hazards. Its stated purpose was to create a working environment free from health risks, and to help create a market for low-emissions products: Today we live in a risk environment that has for the most part never been subjected to research. We often live in the belief that chemical and physical emissions and releases lie within approved limit values. The problem is that the majority of emissions have no officially recognised limit values … When the market offers NO RISK products SIF will have achieved its aim.19 A step towards achieving that aim had already been taken by the Swedish Confederation of Professional Employees, Tjänstemännens Centralorganisation (TCO). In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the union became concerned about the increasing reports of health problems, particularly from computer use, among office workers. Believing that tougher standards were needed to protect workers, it developed its first voluntary standard for computers, the TCO’92, which required stricter limits for radiation emissions. Nokia was the first company to comply with this standard and gain TCO certification. Since then the TCO, now an independent company, has developed further standards for computers and electronic equipment, and many of these are widely accepted by manufacturers.20 In Australia, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) has also taken action to protect its members. In 1998, it developed a policy

Computers  —  133

that advocated far tighter limits for electromagnetic fields than those required by national guidelines. It recommended: • a worker’s average exposure be less than 2 mG per day, averaged over an eight-hour period • a maximum electric field of less than 10 volts per metre (V/m) at 50 centimetres from the VDU • a maximum magnetic field of less than 2 mG at 50 centimetres from the VDU • laptop computers not be used on the operator’s lap • pregnant workers be given opportunities to move to nonscreen-based work • more stringent protections for workplaces that contain childcare centres.21

Wireless internet connections Since those policies were introduced, another revolution has swept the computer industry — the wireless revolution. Wireless internet offers users one key benefit: convenience. Users with a wireless computer simply turn it on and it will connect to the internet automatically, without the encumbrance of cables. Those with laptops which use a wireless internet connection can connect to the internet from locations such as coffee shops or the beach on their holiday. As with mobile phones, wireless computers are a growing commodity. There are several types of wireless networks available. The Wireless Local Area network, or WLAN, links to the internet different types of communication devices, such as laptops, mobile phones, or personal digital assistants, within in a small area. WLAN technology allows users to connect their devices from anywhere within the network. The WLAN network is something like a mobile-phone system for computers. Just as mobile phones connect to a base station, computers within a WLAN network transfer signals to and from a router. As with a base station, the router sends the information on to the next link in the chain. WLAN networks are also known as ‘hotspots’ and can be found, for example, in homes, businesses, airports, libraries, shopping centres, universities, cafes, and schools. There are now well over 200,000 hotspots around the world. Some cities have created WLAN networks that cover an entire municipality.22 Wi-fi is a type of WLAN technology. Another type is the Wireless Personal Area Network (WPAN). This technology allows users to create their own technology networks using radiofrequency signals. It connects all devices with internet capability

134  —  The Force

within a range of about 10 metres — desktop, laptop, and tablet computers, mobile phones, personal digital assistants — so that they can transfer information to one another. Bluetooth is an example of WPAN technology that has been incorporated into millions of products worldwide. Effectively, each WLAN or WPAN network is a communications cell that is alive with electromagnetic radiation. Wireless networks connect computers and other technology using radiofrequency signals rather than wires. This means that radiation is being generated wherever the technology is being used — wherever you can connect to the internet wirelessly, radiation can connect to you. Although you can’t see the signals that connect your computer or phone to the rest of the network, they’re there. What could this mean for your health?

Wireless networks and health concerns Wi-fi networks use a frequency of 2450 MHz (2.45 GHz), the same frequency as mobile phones and microwave ovens. The radiation from a wireless network is emitted at a lower power than that of mobile phones, but there’s evidence, as we will see in Chapter 10, that any benefit from this lower power can be offset by the length of exposure. In other words, if you are being exposed at work for eight hours a day, every day of the week, it may not matter that the power of the exposure is low. There are as yet no studies on the health effects of the radiation from wireless networks because the technology is so new. However, we do have studies about the health effects of mobile phone radiation. Chapter 4 detailed some of the hundreds of studies that have linked radiation from mobile phones with unhealthy effects on the body. The strongest case for health problems comes from studies on brain tumours, which suggest that people who have used mobile phones for ten years or more have a higher risk of developing such tumours. As with mobile phones, international standards do not provide adequate protection against the radiation from wireless networks because they protect only against the short-term, thermal effects of radiation. They don’t protect against the long-term, athermal effects that people experience if studying or working in a radiating environment every day. While it is not possible to know the full impacts of wi-fi technology on health, there are certainly reports that the introduction of wireless networks has affected some people quite badly. English singer, songwriter, musician, and DJ Steve Miller is one of these people. Steve performs in venues across Europe, and in order to

Computers  —  135

maintain his hectic travel and work schedule he makes a point of keeping fit and healthy. He eats fresh, organic, free-range foods wherever possible, exercises regularly, and hardly ever needs to see a doctor. Despite this, Steve experienced a health scare in 2007, when he visited a fellow musician for an eight-hour recording session. ‘Within minutes of sitting in the control room I felt dizzy and a nasty headache came on very quickly,’ he told me. ‘I don’t have headaches normally so I was concerned.’ Steve’s friend had installed a wi-fi computer system the previous month. After the wi-fi was turned off, Steve’s symptoms gradually reduced and he was able to finish the session. Afterwards, he asked his friend to turn the wi-fi back on so that he could send some emails. The same symptoms quickly returned and he had to leave. The following month Steve visited another friend to help him configure his new laptop. It had a wi-fi connection. ‘Immediately after I turned the router on I couldn’t think straight at all. It felt like my brain had turned to jelly and I was incapable of even typing the correct search words in Google,’ he said. Steve hurriedly left the house and finished the setup on his wired connection at home. However, it was about to become harder for Steve to avoid wi-fi signals. About six months later, businesses in Steve’s hometown of Falmouth, Cornwall, started to install wi-fi networks. Steve purchased a cheap wi-fi detector designed to identify the strength of wireless signals on a scale of one to five, designed for would-be users of the networks. What he found was that a wi-fi signal anywhere between one and two caused him to feel depressed and irritable, and anything between three and five gave him a splitting headache, which started as a dull pressure on the top of his head and was quickly followed by dizziness and slight nausea. At first Steve’s friends didn’t believe his claim that he was allergic to wi-fi radiation. ‘They used to rib me about being a hypochondriac,’ he said. Yet as Steve’s story gained media attention, people began sharing similar experiences with him. ‘I have had hundreds of emails showing support from private people that have similar problems,’ he tells me. Among them was Steve’s friend who owned the recording studio. He had become so exhausted and depressed after installing wi-fi that he removed the system and then returned to his normal, cheerful self. Today, Steve Miller’s career is still threatened by his sensitivity to wi-fi. ‘I have had to turn down some amazing gigs and could not even

136  —  The Force

play Glastonbury in 2009, as Somerset Council had wi-fi’d the whole town … If I walk down the main street of my hometown these days I feel lightheaded and can’t stop or go into any of the shops, so I’ve decided to give that part of town a wide berth.’ In 2009, Steve launched his latest album, titled, appropriately enough, Electrosensitive.23

Precautions for wireless technology Stories such as Steve’s suggest that the radiation from wireless networks may not be safe for everyone. Add to this the fact that science has demonstrated that the kinds of radiofrequency radiation they emit can have a detrimental impact on the body and you have strong grounds for concern. Even though wireless computers have only been in use for a relatively short period of time, already some authorities have sounded a warning call. As early as 2004, Lakehead University in Ontario, Canada, introduced a policy that restricted the use of wi-fi on campus. It stated: Microwave radiation in the frequency range of wi-fi has been shown to increase permeability of the blood-brain barrier; cause behavioural changes; alter cognitive functions; activate a stress response; interfere with brain waves, cell growth, cell communication, calcium ion balance, etc.; and cause singleand double-strand DNA breaks at EMF levels as low as 0.005 w/kg … There will be no use of wi-fi in those areas of the University already served by hard-wire connectivity until such time as the potential health effects have been scientifically rebutted or there are adequate protective measures that can be taken.24 When asked why he was concerned about wireless networks, university president Fred Gilbert replied, ‘Potential health effects! There are now so many peer-reviewed studies demonstrating biological effects that it is difficult to imagine that there are no negative health effects.’25 In 2006, a group of international researchers at a conference in Benevento, Italy, signed a statement known as the Benevento Resolution. It recognised evidence of health problems from radiofrequency radiation and called for precautions. Among its many recommendations was that authorities should:

Computers  —  137

promote alternatives to wireless communication systems, e.g. use of fiber optics and coaxial cables; design cellular phones that meet safer performance specifications, including radiating away from the head; preserve existing landline phone networks; place powerlines underground in the vicinity of populated areas, only siting them in residential neighborhoods as a last resort.26 Following the installation of wi-fi networks in some French libraries, some staff became sick, reporting headaches, sore eyes or muscles, dizziness, and vertigo. As a result, in December 2007 the mayor of Paris decided to turn off wi-fi networks in six French libraries. One of these, the Bibliotheque Nationale de France (French national library) issued a press release advising that it would replace wi-fi computer connections with wired connections. Following suit, workers in other libraries have petitioned for the removal of wi-fi connections in their workplaces.27 Shortly after this, the Progressive Librarians Guild, a representative group of librarians based in the United States, recommended the use of wired, instead of wireless, technology in libraries. In a statement on 16 June 2008, the Guild wrote: Research on the health effects of wireless technologies (2.4GHz and 5.0GHz bands) and electromagnetic (microwave) radiation indicates wireless technology, among other effects, may cause immune dysfunction, increased risk of brain tumours and acoustic neuromas, childhood cancers, breast cancer, Alzheimer’s disease … and genotoxicity. Research also indicates that public health standards are inadequate in offering guidance on the use of wireless technologies in community spaces … Progressive Librarians Guild recommends that … information workers address the risks of wireless technology in public spaces, take steps in learning about the risks of wireless in terms of exposure and impact on library services, monitor wireless technology in their facilities, critically evaluate and adopt alternatives to wireless technologies, especially in children’s sections of libraries, create warning signage on risks of wi-fi throughout their libraries and act as a community resource in the public education on wireless technologies.28 In 2007, some high-profile Britons aired their concerns about wireless technology on the BBC’s Panorama program. Sir William Stewart, former

138  —  The Force

chair of the United Kingdom’s Health Protection Agency, told reporter Jeremy Vine, ‘I believe that there is a need for a review of the wi-fi and other areas.’ His call was echoed by MP Dr Ian Gibson, a former biologist and cancer specialist. He said: wi-fi are just being rolled out as great big white heat of technology. Industry rules in this area and the precautionary principle and the safety of people who might benefit to some extent from the technology are completely dismissed. It’s just Wild West country for the companies. They just put them where they want and say there’s no evidence.29 With the floodgates of concern open, other eminent researchers then spoke out. Professor Denis Henshaw from Bristol University said that he supported an inquiry into wi-fi technology: ‘This technology is being wheeled out without any checks and balances.’30 Professor Lawrie Challis from the University of Nottingham is the chairman of the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme. In a newspaper interview in April 2007, he said: ‘Since we advise that children should be discouraged from using mobile phones, we should also discourage children from placing their laptop on their lap when they are using wi-fi.’31 Subsequently, Britain’s Health Protection Agency conducted measurements of wi-fi emissions in schools and found that they were ‘well within internationally accepted exposure guidelines’ — which was never in doubt.32 The more pertinent question is whether these emissions are safe. Concerns about the effects of radiation from wireless networks have been raised in other countries as well. In 2007, Germany’s radiation authority recommended avoiding the use of wireless internet connections: ‘The German Federal Ministry for Radiation Protection recommends … that in view of the regulated limits … supplementary precautionary measures such as wired cable alternatives are to be preferred to the WLAN system.’33 The Bavarian government had previously advised schools to avoid WLAN if possible.34 In April 2009, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on electromagnetic radiation which recognised that wireless technology emits electromagnetic radiation that may have adverse health effects. It proposed that the European Union’s indoor air quality policy should encompass:

Computers  —  139

the study of “wireless” domestic appliances, which, like wi-fi for Internet access and digital enhanced cordless telecommunications (DECT) telephones, have been widely adopted in recent years in public places and in the home, with the result that citizens are being continuously exposed to microwave emissions.35 In April 2009, more than 50 medical doctors and scientists in Holland appealed to the Dutch government to reduce exposure from wireless and other EMR-emitting technologies. In a statement presented to the government, the doctors wrote: We note an overall increase of chronic diseases with uncertain causes. This increase in health and welfare problems occurs simultaneously with the explosive increase in radiation in our immediate environment with the advent of mobile phones and many other wireless applications. We believe that there are causal links between weak electromagnetic radiation and electromagnetic fields (subtle) biological effects. These effects can lead to problems with health and welfare. The doctors recognised health effects from communications technology, including chronic fatigue, skin problems, learning and behavioural difficulties in children, heart attacks, degenerative brain disorders, epilepsy, headaches, migraines, and susceptibility to infections. The signatories called on the government to protect public health and limit exposures by adopting a policy of ‘wired first’, particularly for schools and public buildings. They recommended public warnings about the health risks of mobile and cordless phones and wireless devices, alerting people to the potential dangers of having such technology in living rooms and bedrooms.36 In mid-2009, a detailed book warning of the risks of wireless technologies was sent to the US President, along with politicians and journalists. Entitled Public Health SOS, it was commissioned by the National Institute for Science, Law, and Public Policy, an organisation concerned with legislation to protect public health. The report outlined a range of health effects from EMR exposure and advised against the use of wireless technology by individuals, local areas, and cities.37

Precautions in schools The use of wireless networks in schools is has been a particular concern, as children are often thought to be more vulnerable to radiofrequency

140  —  The Force

radiation. And unlike any previous generation, they could have a lifetime of potential exposure. Electrical engineer Alasdair Philips from British group Powerwatch assessed the potential exposure from wi-fi systems in classrooms. Alasdair’s graphs, below, show the radiation measured from a mobile phone base station 100 metres away and from a wi-fi computer at 50 centimetres.

Figure 20. Alasdair said of his findings: ‘Because each wireless hub can only handle about eight laptops/PCs (or they start really slowing down) this means each classroom needs at least two wireless nodes, often four of them. Measured microwave signals levels in the classroom are similar to typical levels in the main beam 100 to 150 metres from a typical 15-metre mobile phone mast.’

Computers  —  141

In Austria, authorities have actively discouraged the use of wireless technology for computers used by children. In 2005, the Salzburg Public Health Department advised principals, head teachers, and parents not to allow the use of WLAN or DECT technologies in schools and kindergartens. In an open letter dated 5 December, Dr Gerd Oberfeld wrote: WLAN antennas are emitting microwave radiation in the frequency range 2400-2485 MHz — it is the same as used by microwave ovens. The pulses change their amplitude ten times per second in stand by (10 Hz) with a very sharp rise. The exposure depends on the distance to the antenna, which could be very small in the case of antennas built into the notebook. Despite the widespread use of WLAN there are no studies available on short- or long-term effects from WLAN exposures. Based on first empirical evidence from sensitive people the signal seems to be very ‘biologically active’. The symptoms seen so far are the same seen in base station studies: headaches, concentration difficulty, restlessness, memory problems, etc. The official advice of the Public Health Department of the Salzburg Region is not to use WLAN and DECT in schools or kindergartens.38 Educators in Frankfurt, Germany, have also rejected wireless computer networks in schools. In 2006, the Union for Education and Knowledge and the Frankfurt Education Authority stated their opposition to the technology because of the health risks.39 Due to concerns about the health effects of wireless technology, some schools have already dismantled wi-fi systems and returned to wired connections. In 2006, Britain’s Prebendal, Stowe, and Ysgol Pantycelyn schools removed some or all of their wireless networks and replaced them with cabled systems following concerns from parents.40 In 2007, Philip Parkin, General Secretary of Voice teachers’ association, said that he would call on the education secretary to launch ‘a full scientific investigation into the effects of wi-fi networks in schools’. In a briefing to the Press Association, he said: I have concerns about the health of both pupils and staff. I am concerned that so many wireless networks are being installed in schools and colleges without any understanding of the possible long-term consequences. The proliferation of wireless networks

142  —  The Force

could be having serious implications for the health of some staff and pupils without the cause being recognised. I am not saying there is a danger, but I have enough concern to ask for it to be investigated. There are huge commercial pressures which may be why there has not yet been any significant action.41 In early 2009, the mayor of the French suburb of Hérouville-SaintClair announced that wi-fi connections would be removed from all primary schools by the end of the year and promised to launch a public awareness campaign to warn parents of the risks of mobile telephony. Canadian scientist Magda Havas from Trent University also believes that wi-fi technology should not be used in schools. In May 2009, she wrote an open letter to parents, teachers, and schools warning against the risks of wi-fi technology: I am a scientist who does research on the health effects of electromagnetic radiation and I am becoming increasingly concerned that a growing number of schools are installing wi-fi networks and are making their school grounds available for cell phone antennas. You will be told by both the federal government (Health Canada and Industry Canada) as well as by the wi-fi provider that this technology is safe provided that exposures to radio frequency radiation remain below federal guidelines. This information is outdated and incorrect based on the growing number of scientific publications that are reporting adverse health and biological effects below our Safety Code 6 guidelines … and the growing number of scientific and medical organizations that are asking for stricter guidelines to be enforced. For these reasons it is irresponsible to introduce wi-fi microwave radiation into a school environment where young children spend hours each day.42

Computer addiction One of the more serious consequences of children’s computer use is the risk of addiction, which has been shown by reports from many countries. A Spanish study conducted in 2008 found that chat rooms and games were the online activities most likely to breed addiction, and that addiction was

Computers  —  143

most likely to occur in teenagers and young adults, as well as in people with ‘special emotional needs’. Interestingly, the study also showed that internet addiction can support other addictions, such as those to gambling or sex.43 Children who are addicted to the internet can spend many hours online, potentially increasing the amount of radiation they may be exposed to in a single session at the computer.

If you are a parent considering which school your child should attend, or a teacher or principal introducing wireless connections to your school, you might like to remember that there are no international standards protecting against long-term exposure from radiation it emits. Computers have many benefits to offer both children and adults. When used wisely, they offer unprecedented access to a world of information and the opportunity to expand our intellectual horizons. However, when used to excess, they deprive us of important social and sensory experiences, which are necessary for emotional development and the enjoyment and appreciation of life. Modern computers perform a plethora of high-tech functions that just a few decades ago were futuristic fantasies. In this brave new world, computer technology has enabled medical breakthroughs, created intelligent robots, and launched men into space. Equally importantly, it has formed a new environment for our children — a different way of spending leisure time, of communicating, learning, and interacting with the world. If you are a parent, the environment you create today will have a profound influence on the habits, values, and experiences that your children will take into adulthood. For their sake, it makes sense to ensure their childhoods are as rich and as varied as possible. You can provide opportunities for your child to engage in stimulating social interaction; encourage creative, imaginative play; and allow children to interact with and explore nature. And you can take every opportunity to talk with and read books to your child, so that he or she understands that computers are only one means among many of learning and interacting with the world. We still don’t know the full impacts of computers on you, your family, or your employees; nor is it easy to capture impacts of a technology that is evolving so rapidly. If you choose to heed the warning signs that emissions may impact on people’s health — and there are many such signs — it makes sense to reduce exposure. Some simple precautions you can take to limit your exposure can be found in Chapter 11.

The Link To Health

Chapter 7

Electromagnetic Radiation and the Body

‘DNA is actually made like a fractal antenna.’ — Dr Martin Blank

The picture on the television blurs and, exasperated, you leave your seat for a closer inspection. As you approach the set, the picture miraculously clears. Relieved, you return to your seat, only to find that the picture has blurred again. Each time you move towards the set, the picture clears, until you conclude that the presence of your body is influencing the reception in some way. But is it possible for your body to influence electronic equipment? And, just as importantly, is it possible for electronic equipment to influence your body? Most of us have been taught that the body is a biochemical unit made up of billions of tiny chemical factories — cells — which function as a result of complex chemical reactions, such as those involved in respiration or metabolism. Each of these chemical units is composed of atoms, which themselves are composed of still tinier electrical components: neutrons, protons, and electrons. Neutrons are neutral, protons are positively charged, and electrons are negatively charged. Atoms that have lost or gained an electron in their outer shell (ions) have an electrical charge as they search for another atom with which to fill their electrical void 147

148  —  The Force

and bond. It’s the search for a soulmate on a microscopic scale. The electrical nature of the atoms in your cells drives the chemical processes that take place within them. Inside your cells are positively charged potassium ions, while outside are positively charged sodium ions and negatively charged chloride ions. When sodium ions flow through the channels in the cell membrane, they cause a change of 10 to 100 millivolts (0.01 to 0.1 volts) in the membrane. This change occurs in less than a thousandth of a second. It is this action that stimulates the release of chemical messengers to produce a vast range of responses in your body. It follows that the larger organs, structures, and systems of your body also have electromagnetic characteristics. Your organs resonate at specific frequencies. Your bones are piezoelectric and generate currents when compressed or stretched, and fractures result. Blood, which contains small amounts of iron, is partly conductive, as are your tissues and your DNA. Some of your cells contain particles of a magnetic material called magnetite, which plays a role in helping you to orient yourself in relation to the Earth’s magnetic fields. Your heart emits electromagnetic waves measurable by an electrocardiogram (ECG) and your brain emits waves measurable by an electroencephalogram (EEG). When you’re in a deep sleep your brain generates electromagnetic waves, known as delta waves, at 0.5 to three Hertz (Hz); in light sleep it produces theta waves at 4 to 8 Hz; in meditation or relaxation it produces alpha waves at 8 to 14 Hz and in normal daily awareness it produces beta waves at 14 to 35 Hz. Even the tiny follicles of your hair emit a magnetic field, which can be measured using Superconducting Quantum Interference Device (SQUID) technology. If your body is a finely honed piece of electronic circuitry, then it stands to reason that it will respond to electromagnetic signals in its environment. Like the mobile phone that rings when it receives a signal, or like the television that transmits a picture when it receives a signal, your body responds to signals that it receives with its internal antennas. Your eyes perceive light, which is part of the electromagnetic spectrum, and translate it into colour and image. Light is critical to the functioning of your body as it affects your sleep, regulates your body rhythms, influences the chemicals that stimulate weight gain and loss, and affects your mood, behaviour, and health. Similarly, your other senses respond to the energy in the environment. Your skin also detects light, which it uses to make Vitamin D. Your ears perceive vibration as sound. Your nose perceives smell and

Electromagnetic Radiation and the Body   —  149

your mouth perceives taste from chemicals that have electromagnetic qualities. Your brain reacts to all these stimuli by producing electromagnetic fields.1 Given that your body responds to external fields, it’s hardly surprising that it should react to EMR. As illustrated by the example at the beginning of this chapter, you can see this when you find that being close to your television or radio improves the clarity of the picture or sound. This happens because your body is absorbing the signal from the air, rather like an aerial, and conducting it to the set. Whether or not you are conscious of it, your body is constantly picking up signals from your environment in this manner. To put it another way, currents are constantly being induced in your body. This phenomenon has been measured by relevant authorities worldwide. Whenever you are exposed to electromagnetic fields — from a powerline, a hairdryer, a mobile phone, a telecommunications base station, or any other source — a current is set in motion in your body. Any external electromagnetic field will cause an electrical charge to travel through your body. In the same way, it induces an electric field (known as an ‘induced current’) in your body and this, in turn, has an effect on the electrical charges. So although your body may give the appearance of being a separate and distinct unit, it is really part of a seething mass of energy, both natural and human-made. It’s a highly tuned electromagnetic instrument, capable of discerning the tiniest whispers of environmental energies. The question that most of us want to know and that researchers have been grappling with for decades, is what is the implication of this exposure for our health and wellbeing?’ To attempt to answer this, scientists have conducted detailed investigations into the workings of the body at the most fundamental levels — its cells, genes, hormones, and brain.

Cells ‘Together, the receptor-effector complex acts as a switch, translating environmental signals into cellular behavior.’ — Dr Bruce Lipton

Cells are nature’s building blocks for all living organisms; they form the fabric of your body. Each is an intelligent unit, capable of learning and passing information on to its offspring.

150  —  The Force

Every one of these tiny units, says cell biologist Dr Bruce Lipton, is a miniature version of the human body.2 The cell membrane is the skin that connects it to the world and through which it communicates. The nucleus is its brain, as it contains most of its genes and controls most of its activities. Within the membrane is a series of organelles, rather like the organs of the body, each with a specific function. Filling in the gaps is a sea of cytoplasm, composed of water and dissolved substances that in total volume constitutes about two-thirds of the fluid in your body. Each cell responds to the world outside the cytoplasm through protein antennas called receptors, which are located on its membrane. Just as a television antenna picks up signals from a broadcast tower, these receptors detect specific information from the environment, such as light, chemicals, hormones, heat, and energy. And just as the television antenna passes these signals onto the television set, the receptors relay this information to effector proteins in the cell. They respond to the signal by performing actions such as multiplying, dividing, activating enzymes, gene expression (a process by which proteins are formed), or dying. This process is known as signal transduction, and it is how cells are usually thought to be affected by EMR. One of the interesting features of signal transduction is that cells are amazingly sensitive to even very small changes. A tiny signal can be magnified by a cell’s receptors, rather like a message whispered into a megaphone. This means, of course, that our cells have the capacity to respond to extremely small environmental influences. Not surprisingly, the possibility that these tiny, efficient units could be changed by exposure to EMR has been the focus of a large number of in-vitro studies. Researchers have produced voluminous amounts of research to show that both electromagnetic fields and microwave radiation can produce effects on a wide range of different cells. EMR has been shown, for example, to change the growth, shape, and secretion of cells.3 It’s also been found to change cell proliferation and the production of enzymes, interfere with the cell cycle, lead to cell death, and affect genes, as we will shortly see. It is perhaps the ultimate irony that communications technology should be found to interfere with communication at its most fundamental level. Many cellular studies have focused on systems known to be associated with cancer. Some have found that EMR increased the rate of cell division and proliferation, which is a feature of cancer. Other studies have shown that it alters the life cycle of a cell and that if this cycle is interrupted, it can result in uncontrolled growth such as cancer.

Electromagnetic Radiation and the Body   —  151

Still others have found that it affects important enzymes and hormones involved in cancer production or protection. One of these is the enzyme ornithine decarboxylase (ODC), which is present during the development of cancer and is generally regarded by biomedical researchers as an indicator that cancerous changes are taking place. Both electromagnetic fields from the power system and microwave radiation have been shown repeatedly to affect ODC. For example, Dr Craig Byus of the University of California found that a one-hour exposure to a microwave signal of 450 MHz increased ODC activity by 50 per cent without significantly heating the cells.4 Protein kinases, a group of enzymes that are important for cellular communication, protein activity, and the regulation of many cellular processes, have also been shown to react to EMR. When the enzyme tyrosine kinase is activated by EMR, it begins a cascade of events that leads, in some cases, to unchecked proliferation of cells. This can contribute to cancer.5 Calcium, one of the most abundant minerals in the body, is necessary for the normal function of nerves and muscles. It is involved in ‘muscle contraction, bone formation, cell attachment, hormone release, synaptic transmission, maintaining membrane potentials, function of ion channels, and cellular regulation’. It also functions as a ‘second messenger in neural function in which the concentration of calcium inside the cell regulates a series of enzymatic events caused by kinases’.6 Combined with phosphorus, it forms calcium phosphate, which is found in the bones and teeth. EMR has been shown to affect the behaviour of calcium ions, which are the main messengers of the body both between and within cells. Changes in calcium ions could lead to changes in brain function. In 1975, Susan Bawin and Ross Adey reported that exposing nerve cells to a 16-Hz field caused calcium ions to flow out from the cells.7 This effect, known as calcium ion efflux, has since been demonstrated by several other researchers at different frequencies.8 Changes to these ions are consistent with abnormal growth associated with cancer. Moreover, calcium ions are important for regulating melatonin, which is vital to protect against cancer-causing free radicals. Calcium ion efflux can reduce melatonin levels and increase the risk of cancer. Exposure to EMR has been found to activate glutamate, an important neurotransmitter in the nervous system that affects brainwave patterns. Problems with glutamate metabolism can lead to Parkinson’s disease, so it is not surprising that there is some evidence that EMR exposure could be implicated with this condition.

152  —  The Force

Dr Peter French and his team have shown that cells exposed to a mobile phone signal of 835 MHz for 20 minutes, three times a day, over seven days, showed changes in cell growth, shape, and secretion. One of the types of cells studied, the mast cell, plays an important role in the immune system — and in asthma, which raises the possibility that EMR may aggravate this condition, as we will see in Chapter 8. While it is generally thought that EMR affects cells by activating the receptors on the cell’s membrane, it is also possible that EMR acts on electrons moving within the DNA of the cell.9 Yet another possibility is that EMR may be absorbed in the cell by tiny particles of magnetite, which is present in most tissue.10

The stress response Your cells are factories for the production of proteins, which make up your body. The role of protecting these belongs to a specific class of proteins called stress or heat-shock proteins — although they are not, as the name misleadingly implies, related purely to heat stress. When a cell is under stress — from free radicals, extremes of temperature, lack of oxygen, infection, or UV light — its proteins lose their cool and fall into disarray. Heat-shock proteins are often described as chaperones, as they help new or damaged proteins refold, restoring order and function in the cell. An increase in the levels of a cell’s heat-shock proteins, therefore, means that it is under stress. During the last decade researchers have shown convincingly that both electromagnetic fields and mobile-phone radiation stress a variety of types of cells, which then produce heat-shock proteins. Elevated levels of heat-shock proteins have been found in exposed cells of chicken embryos, fibroblasts, rats’ brains, mast cells, breast cancer cells, endothelial cells, and muscle cells.11 According to the research conducted some years ago by Dr French, the health implications of this could be extremely significant. During the 2000 Australian senate inquiry on EMR, Dr French described a new pathway he had identified that explained how the radiation from a mobile phone could lead to cancer. ‘The support for this link,’ he said, ‘is based firmly on the peer-reviewed and published work of other scientists internationally and supported by observations in our own laboratory.’12 French had shown, as others have since done, that the radiation from a mobile phone caused an increase in heat-shock proteins in some cells. When he exposed mast cells to an 835 MHz mobile phone signal, he found an increase in heat-shock proteins. Continued use of a mobile

Electromagnetic Radiation and the Body   —  153

phone, he argued, would lead to continued activation of heat-shock proteins. And while the release of some heat-shock proteins can benefit an organism, chronic activation does not. In fact, it can contribute to cancer in several different ways: it could induce cancer, promote cancer growth, and reduce the effectiveness of anti-cancer drugs.13 ‘This hypothesis provides the possibility of a direct association between mobile phone use and cancer’, French wrote in a paper published the following year.14 This tremendously important finding helps to explain how the radiation from a mobile phone can cause serious problems without actually heating the brain, which manufacturers have long claimed is impossible. The evidence that EMR activates heat-shock proteins is important for another reason: it shows the utter inadequacy of existing international radiation protection standards. According to Dr Martin Blank from Columbia University: ‘EMF standards are based on the assumption that only ionising radiation causes chemical change. The stress response in both ELF and RF ranges has shown that non-ionising radiation also causes chemical change.’ According to Blank, the threshold for the activation of heat-shock proteins from electrical sources is a mere 2 to 8 mG — levels that are frequently encountered in the home or work environment and are merely a fraction of the 2000 mG level allowed by international guidelines.15

Genes ‘DNA damage (e.g. strand breaks), a cause of cancer, occurs at levels of ELF and RF that are below the safety limits.’ — Dr Martin Blank

If cells are the building blocks of life, genes are the codes that determine the characteristics of that life. Genes are responsible for determining sex, height, hair colour, jaw shape — and even many mannerisms. They’re units of hereditary that parents pass on to their offspring. Genes contain the blueprint for making the proteins that constitute the body. This process is called gene expression, and one of the steps involved is known as gene transcription. In each of the trillions of cells in the body there are somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000 genes, all arranged in fixed positions along coiled strands called chromosomes. (There are 23 pairs of chromosomes in each cell — half from each parent.) Your genes are composed of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), which is made up of semi-conductive molecules arranged in the shape of a coiled

154  —  The Force

ladder with three billion rungs. Breaks in DNA can occur on one side of the ladder (single-strand breaks) or both sides (double-strand breaks). If breaks occur, the body’s repair system jumps into action. These types of breaks are usually mended; however, problems are more likely to occur if there are multiple single-strand breaks close together. In this situation, the body may not repair the breaks in the correct order, causing the cell to mutate. A cell may die if too many of these incorrect repairs occur. Because nerve cells are poorly equipped to repair DNA damage, such breaks may impact on them more than on other types of cells. An important focus of research to date has therefore been whether electromagnetic radiation affects gene behaviour. Environmental carcinogens cause cancer by creating permanent mutations in DNA. This is not always a one-step process but can occur in a succession of mutations.

Dr Henry Lai, a professor of bioengineering at the University of Washington, Seattle, is the father of research on the genetic effects of EMR. The story associated with this research is as interesting as the findings themselves. It began in the mid-1990s with a project to study the effects of microwave radiation on rats. Alongside colleague Dr Narendra Singh, Lai exposed rats to a signal of 2450 MHz — a frequency then used for microwave ovens and today also used for many mobile phones — and looked for effects on DNA using a specialised technique called the comet assay. Lai and Singh found that two hours of exposure caused single-strand DNA breaks in rats’ brain cells at levels well within international limits.16 The study had the potential to cast serious doubt on the safety of mobile phone radiation and to focus future research on this promising line of study. The finding could have serious ramifications for human health because, as Lai and Singh later wrote, ‘DNA strand breaks may affect cellular functions, lead to carcinogenesis and cell death, and be related to onset of neurodegenerative diseases.’ However, even before the study was published the first faint tendrils of opposition began to appear. Lai received a phone call from Mike Galvin of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), the funding body for his research. Galvin was investigating a call from someone alleging that Lai was misspending his research funding. Lai hosed down the flare, but soon found himself facing a greater threat.

Electromagnetic Radiation and the Body   —  155

Industry giant Motorola was gearing up to undermine the study before it was even published. Memos obtained by publication Microwave News showed that the company was working with public relations firm BursonMarsteller to downplay the significance of Lai’s findings. Its planned strategies included questioning the relevance of the findings for mobile phone users, referring to studies that found no effects on DNA, and using other ‘experts’ to find problems with the study. ‘We have developed a list of independent experts in this field and are in the process of recruiting individuals willing and able to reassure the public on these matters,’ the memo said.17 With these strategies in place, Motorola’s Norm Sandler assured Burson-Marsteller: ‘I think we have sufficiently war-gamed the Lai-Singh issue.’18 Despite the growing conflagration, Lai continued to investigate the effects of EMR on DNA. In 1996, he and Singh showed that the same frequencies produced both single- and double-strand DNA breaks. Then, in 1997, the team showed single- and double-strand DNA breaks could also be caused by exposing rats to a 60-Hz magnetic field of 1 gauss and under for two hours.19 The next step in the industry’s anti-Lai campaign was to recruit Dr Jerry Phillips from the Veterans Administration Medical Center in California to perform additional research. Phillips conducted an experiment similar to Lai’s, but he exposed cells to a 813.5625 MHz mobile phone signal. He found that exposure for 2 hours and 21 hours both increased DNA damage; however, exposures with different parameters decreased DNA damage.20 At the conclusion of the study, Motorola suggested delaying publication and extending the research; Phillips declined. After the study was published in 1998, Phillips found that his funding source had disappeared and he resigned from scientific research a disillusioned man.21 Following their partnership with Phillips, Motorola began to sponsor the DNA research of Dr Joseph Roti Roti, from Washington University in St Louis, Missouri. Dr Roti Roti and his colleague Robert Malyapa irradiated cells for two hours at the frequency used by Lai and Singh, and found that ‘2450 MHz irradiation does not appear to cause DNA damage’.22 In a subsequent paper, the team found no evidence of DNA damage in cells irradiated at the mobile phone frequencies of 835.62 and 847.74 MHz.23 How can we account for the discrepancy between the Lai and Roti Roti findings? In an interview with Microwave News, Lai and Singh said that the version of the comet assay used by Roti Roti’s team was less

156  —  The Force

sensitive than their own and less likely to detect subtle genetic changes.24 However, to the public the controversy about the validity of Lai’s work remained and the threat to the lucrative mobile-phone industry was averted. Thirteen years later, the debate about the effects of EMR on DNA continues, but with a much larger base of studies. Approximately 50 per cent of these do not show an effect on DNA — at least within the investigated parameters. Yet there is also an abundance of studies that do show genetic damage from the electrical system, mobile phones, and the telecommunications network. For example, Finland’s Dr Dariusz Leszczynski found that exposure to a mobile phone signal of 900 MHz changed the expression of 3600 genes in human cells.25 The following year Dr Lee and colleagues showed that exposure to 2450 MHz affected over 900 genes, depending on the length of exposure.26 Other studies have found that exposure to EMR increases the expression of genes associated with cancer, several of which are important for controlling the disease. Some studies have found that exposure results in changes to the chromosome envelopes that contain the genes. Others have found changes in DNA patterns within the brain. Evidence of genetic damage from EMR was one of the significant findings to emerge from a four-year, multi-nation research project known as REFLEX, the findings were published in 2004. Funded by the European Union and conducted by 12 research teams throughout Europe, the project found evidence of genetic damage due to exposure to EMR from both the power system and radiofrequency radiation. Both types of exposure were found to produce single- and double-strand DNA breaks and errors in DNA repair, which resulted in chromosome damage. What the project clearly showed was that genetic damage was more likely to occur under certain circumstances. Factors that influenced the likelihood of damage from electromagnetic fields included the following. • The length of exposure. The maximum number of breaks occurred when EMF signals were on for five minutes and off for ten minutes. • The type of wave. More DNA breaks occurred from exposure to pure sine waves than to fields from powerlines. • The frequency of the signal. The highest number of breaks occurred at 50 Hz, followed by 16.66 Hz (frequencies commonly used for alternating currents in Europe). • The strength of the signal. The number of DNA breaks increased with increasing magnetic field strengths. • The age of the donors. More breaks occurred in the cells of older people.

Electromagnetic Radiation and the Body   —  157

•

•

• •

The type of cell, for example muscle, fibroblast, or lymphocyte. The highest number of DNA breaks occurred in rat granulosa cells. In human cells, more breaks occurred in fibroblast cells than melanocytes. The genetic background of cells. Cells from patients with various genetic deficits in DNA repair responded differently to magnetic field exposure. Whether the cell was subject to heat stress or UVC exposure. Whether the cell had been pre-treated with the antioxidant Vitamin C.27

DNA and iron Dr Lai developed a theory about the link between DNA and iron to explain how EMR may cause this sort of genetic damage. Mitochondria are the power factories of a cell that take in food molecules, combine them with oxygen, and release energy. In the process of doing so, they also produce hydrogen peroxide, a mild acid. When iron is present in the cell and the cell is exposed to electromagnetic fields, a chemical reaction occurs in which the hydrogen peroxide is converted into hydroxyl free radicals. These are particularly potent free radicals that are known to cause damage to DNA.28 ‘If you give iron to a cancer cell and expose it to EMR,’ says Lai, ‘free radicals result and kill the cell.’29 The free radicals produced by this process are known to cause DNA strand breaks and DNA protein crosslinks (a serious form of damage in which a cell’s proteins become entangled with DNA), to activate the protein kinase C, to increase the stress response in the body, and to alter the calcium balance in cells. Not surprisingly, all these effects have been found in cells exposed to EMR. The way in which a particular cell will respond to this free-radical damage will depend on a number of factors, for example the presence of antioxidants and the amount of iron present at the time. Cells with high rates of iron — such as cancer cells, cells that are multiplying, cells infected by viruses, and brain cells — are more likely to be susceptible to damage. This means that, based on what you have read so far, we can reasonably expect DNA damage to occur in at least some of the situations to which we are exposed daily. Our ability to withstand the assaults on the genetic integrity of our bodies will depend on our individual susceptibility. Those likely to be more vulnerable include children whose cells are actively growing and dividing, the elderly, those with cancer, and people who are unwell. The consequences of a constant barrage of

158  —  The Force

environmental radiation is hard to predict. It may cause illness; it may not. It may cause genetic mutations; it may not. It may cause damage to future generations, but we will only know for sure after widespread use of such technologies has been in place for a long period. By this time, it will likely be too late to reverse the damage.

Hormones The hormone system is the body’s messenger network, and it operates along similar lines to the international postal service. If you send a card or letter, you can be reasonably confident that, as long the details on the envelope are correct, it will be delivered to the corresponding address, anywhere in the world. Like a letter or card, hormones are addressed to a specific location — their chemical signature is ‘delivered’ to the receptor on a target cell. They contain a message that the cell can act on to produce certain effects, which can range from influencing mood to activating digestion, reproduction, growth, or a fight-or-flight response. Hormones originate in the endocrine system — the pituitary, pineal, thymus, thyroid, adrenals, pancreas, and the ovaries and testes. Disruption to the normal functioning of this hormonal network causes effects on the body that can range from temporary mood swings to depression or disease. Therefore, if EMR is impairing this system, the effects could be diverse. So far studies have shown that it can affect male and female sex hormones and the thyroid, pancreas, pineal, and adrenals. Both low- and high-frequency fields have been found to affect the hormone insulin, which is produced by the pancreas and is involved in controlling the amount of sugar in the bloodstream and diabetes. Pulsed, high-frequency electric fields were shown to affect insulin molecules and a low-frequency magnetic field to increase insulin secretion in hamsters. Workers exposed to microwave radiation had problems with sugar metabolism.30 EMR may also affect the hormones that are involved in stress. Stress occurs when the hypothalamus in the brain responds to a crisis by giving out corticotrophin-releasing factor (CRF), which stimulates the pituitary to release adrenocorticotrophic hormones (ACTH) into the bloodstream. The ACTH in turn activate the adrenal glands to release stress hormones such as adrenalin, noradrenaline, and cortisol, which prepare the body for fight or flight. This system is known as the Hypothalamus-Pituitary-Adrenal (HPA) Axis. EMR appears to impact on each part of this axis: it’s been found to increase levels of

Electromagnetic Radiation and the Body   —  159

corticosterone, ACTH, adrenaline, noradrenaline, and cortisol. It’s also been found to affect CRF and endorphins.31

Melatonin ‘There is strong evidence … that high long-term exposure to extremely low frequency magnetic fields is associated with a decrease in melatonin production.’ — Dr Zoreh Davanipour and Dr Eugene Sobel

One of the hormones that has been most studied in relation to EMR is melatonin, which is produced by the pineal, a gland situated near the forehead and at the base of the brain. Melatonin might well be considered the miracle hormone: it has so many benefits that melatonin supplements are sold widely. One of melatonin’s greatest merits is that it is a potent antioxidant, more effective in helping to rid the body of cancercausing free radicals than vitamins C and E, and it’s been shown to reduce the growth rate of breast cancer cells. It’s also useful for promoting sleep, counteracting depression, promoting bone growth, and regulating reproductive hormones and circadian rhythm. In addition, it reduces cholesterol and blood pressure and helps to maintain healthy functioning of the immune system. Melatonin may also help to enhance memory and learning, lessen the frequency of headaches and epileptic seizures, and slow the process of aging and Alzheimer’s disease. If melatonin sounds like a solution to many health problems as its promoters claim, it’s because it has an effect on such a large number of bodily processes — and because it has the capacity to protect against one of the most dreaded diseases of our time, cancer. So there are potentially dire consequences for the body if stressors reduce the production of melatonin. Yet this is just what EMR appears to do. Many environmental studies have found that living or working in high electromagnetic fields reduces the production of melatonin. This was found to be true for sewing-machine operators, railway workers, electrical workers, and people using computer monitors. People who lived near a high-voltage powerline in Quebec had lower melatonin levels than controls, and so did people sleeping on electric blankets — and even women who were sleeping (for the purposes of the study only) over the magnetic field from the base of an electric toothbrush! Very few studies thus far have looked at the effects of microwave radiation on melatonin levels. However, one that did found that people who reported frequent use of their mobile

160  —  The Force

phones had lower than normal levels of melatonin.32 If we accept that EMR, at least under some conditions, can reduce people’s levels of free radical-scavenging melatonin, could this contribute to cancer? The evidence certainly points in that direction. Laboratory animals who are prone to cancer or have been injected with a cancer-causing agent are less likely to develop tumours if they are treated with melatonin. It’s also been found to protect animals against the DNA damage that could lead to the development of a tumour. Yet the protective effect of melatonin seems to disappear when animals are exposed to EMR. Therefore, it’s not surprising that people working in highly exposed occupations should be found to have higher rates of breast cancer, as we will see in the next chapter. EMR has also been implicated with poor sleep, reduced immunity, learning difficulties, and heart and blood-pressure problems — all of which are symptoms of melatonin deficiency. It also appears that melatonin plays an important role in bone growth. Dr Jerome Roth and colleagues in the United States showed that mouse and rat cells produced proteins important for bone formation more quickly in the presence of melatonin levels normally found in the body than without. Because melatonin levels decrease with age, it is possible that melatonin loss is implicated in osteoporosis.33 Does this mean that exposure to EMR can also contribute to osteoporosis by lowering melatonin levels? While there are no answers at present, the possibility alone is yet another inducement to avoid unnecessary exposure.

Polarisation and melatonin Given that so many studies have found evidence of a link between EMR and melatonin, how can we explain those studies that have not? Researchers from the United States and Japan think they have the answer. Dr James Burch from Colorado State University has conducted a number of experiments on electrical utility workers in different work environments. He found that men who worked in a substation for more than two hours per day or were exposed to three-phase powerlines had quite low levels of melatonin at night. However, those who worked on single-phase powerlines did not show such an obvious reduction in melatonin. The fields from the substation and three-phase power lines were oriented, or polarised, in a circular direction, whereas the field from single-phase lines were polarised in a linear direction. Burch suggested that the direction of polarisation could be the critical factors in how the body responded to the exposure.34

Electromagnetic Radiation and the Body   —  161

His view is shared by Japanese researchers Kato and Shigemitsu. Their team exposed rats to magnetic fields that were either linear polarised or circular polarised. They found that rats exposed to circular polarised field of 14 mG for six weeks had reduced levels of melatonin in their pineal glands and blood plasma. However, rats exposed to a linear polarised field of 10 mG showed no such effects. Even at exposure to a linear polarised field of 50 mG, the rats showed no reduction in melatonin in their pineal glands, though levels in blood plasma were reduced.35

The immune system ‘Both human and animal studies report large immunohistological changes in mast cells, and other measures of immune disfunction and disregulation due to exposures to ELF and RF at environmental levels associated with new electrical and wireless technologies.’ — Dr Olle Johansson

You can think of your body as a high-security compound constructed around the command centre (the brain) with various lines of defence. The outer perimeter features a high defensive wall (the skin) to protect the compound, and the gateways to and from the outer world (mouth, nose, and gastrointestinal tract) are carefully guarded by the mucous membranes. Behind these defences are stationed back-up units (mast and Langerhans cells, phagocytes, neutrophils, interferons), all ready to handle any breach. Within the compound there is a secondary line of defence ready to back up the back-up teams if a breach becomes unmanageable. Its troops (leukocytes) patrol between guard posts located throughout the compound (the thymus, spleen, bone marrow, and lymphatic nodes) on the lookout for any incursions. In the event of unauthorised entry, the B lymphocyte unit produces weaponry (antibodies) to immobilise the invader and activates the T lymphocyte killer unit to destroy them. The effectiveness of this defence network depends, of course, on its ability to recognise invaders. The human immune system has acquired this ability through hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, and your body’s immune system has refined it based on your past experience. But does the immune system recognise electromagnetic radiation as an ‘invader’ and respond appropriately? Perhaps not. In fact, there’s considerable evidence that the immune system does not respond appropriately to EMR, at least in certain cases.

162  —  The Force

The body’s front line of defence, the skin, may be the first to fall. Perhaps you know someone who feels warmth on their scalp after using a mobile phone, or whose skin becomes red after sitting in front of a computer monitor or television screen, or who develops dermatitis when working on a computer? These are commonly reported reactions to EMR-emitting equipment. Others include itching, pain, smarting, and blistering. They occur because the skin’s innate immune response has failed. Dr Olle Johansson, an associate professor at Sweden’s prestigious Karolinska Institute, has been researching the impacts of EMR on the immune system for several decades. He states: The body’s known enemies do not include modern electromagnetic fields, such as power-frequency electric and magnetic fields, radio waves, television signals, mobile phone or wi-fi microwaves, radar signals, X-rays or radioactivity. They have been introduced during the last 100 years, in many cases during the very last decades. They are an entirely new form of exposure and could pose to be a biological ‘terrorist army’ against which there are no working defence walls.36 Dr Johansson found that exposure to EMR causes detectable changes in skin chemistry. In one experiment, Johansson asked two quite sensitive patients to sit in front of a television set for a short time, comparing skin samples taken from their necks before and after doing so. He found that even before the exposure, the patients had a high number of mast cells containing histamine (which can cause allergic reactions). In addition, after the exposure, a type of immune cell that had formerly been present had all but disappeared.37 In another experiment, Johansson compared skin samples of ‘sensitive’ and ‘normal’ volunteers and found that there were at least nine differences in skin chemistry.38 Changes such as these have often been dismissed as psychosomatic, and patients have been referred to cognitive therapists. But changes in the skin and in thyroid levels have also been found in rats exposed to electromagnetic fields from the power system — and they cannot be psychosomatic because rats do not believe that EMR will trigger chemical reactions.39 Dr Johansson and his colleague Dr Shabnam Gangi have developed a model to explain how EMR may affect the skin of sensitive individuals.

Electromagnetic Radiation and the Body   —  163

It begins with the mast cell, which is part of the skin’s defence against invaders. The mast cell carries within it sacks of chemicals designed to protect against an assault. When an intruder enters its territory, the mast cell dumps the contents of its sacks so that they can begin the mop-up operation. One of these chemicals is histamine, which helps the blood vessels to become more permeable so that white blood cells can reach the site of injury. In doing so, it causes secondary effects such as redness, swelling, itching, and sometimes pain. The mast cell is known to be affected by EMR: you’ll remember that Dr French found that a mobile phone signal changed the size, shape, and secretion of these cells. Johansson and Gangi suggest that EMR can activate the mast cell, causing it to dump its load of histamine. This leads to the skin problems that have been associated with computer or mobile phone use by people who are sensitive to EMR. It also explains why a different distribution of mast cells is found in people with these symptoms. Histamine does more than create swelling. It interacts with the surface of other cells, causing a range of effects, such as the contraction of muscles and airways and the secretion of gastric acid. And histaminecarrying mast cells are found not just on the surface of the body, but are also present in the mouth, nose, lungs, digestive tract, heart, endocrine system, central nervous system, blood, lymphatic vessels, connective tissue and respiratory tract.40 EMR can impact on mast cells in a localised area, or in many parts of the body. Therefore, it may be responsible for a range of health problems that have been associated with EMR — problems we will see more about in Chapters 8 to 10. Beyond the skin, the body’s secondary defense system — the thyroid, spleen, monocytes, neutrophils, antibodies, and lymphocytes — is also affected by EMR. Lymphocytes comprise the B- and T- cells that seek out and destroy antigens. Research has shown that microwave radiation at 27 MHz and 2450 MHz either increased or decreased the proliferation of lymphocytes, depending on the amount of power used and the stage of mitosis of the cell.41 Rats exposed to radiation at a frequency of 2450 MHz had a decrease in lymphocytes and people exposed to 2.45 and 7.7 GHz showed signs of lymphocyte damage.42 Similarly, people working near transformers and high-tension cables had a reduced number of lymphocytes.43 Damage to lymphocytes can lead to lymphatic cancer — that is, cancer of the immune system. In 1997, Australian researcher Dr Michael Repacholi, former head of the World Health Organization’s EMF

164  —  The Force

research project, published the results of a mouse study conducted at Adelaide Hospital. Repacholi’s team exposed groups of transgenic mice (mice bred to be susceptible to environmental changes) to the radiation from a GSM mobile phone operating at 900 MHz for one hour per day for a nine- to 18-month period. They found that the exposed mice had nearly two and a half times as many lymphomas as unexposed control mice.44 What makes this study particularly important is the connection it has shown between EMR and B-cell lymphomas. Repacholi found that the radiation exposure caused the mice to develop B-cell lymphomas, which are involved in around 85 per cent of cancers — not the T-cell lymphomas that were expected in this strain of mouse. B cells play an important role in the body’s immune system by producing antibodies and detecting cancer cells. EMR can also affect those persistent organisms that invade our immune systems — viruses and bacteria. Some of these single-celled organisms are powered by anaerobic metabolism — that is, they produce energy without relying on oxygen. Anaerobic organisms are more electrically conductive than aerobic organisms, meaning that they can both conduct EMR and be vulnerable to EMR exposure. Of course, not all studies have found that EMR adversely affects the immune system, and so the long-term consequences of exposure are far from clear. At best, it may have no effects, or effects from which the body can easily recover. At worst, it could represent a continued assault on the body’s immune system and a possible cause of serious disease such as cancer. Only time will tell.

The brain ‘Chronic production of the changes in brain activity might be pertinent to the reports of health hazards among mobile phone users.’ — Dr Simona Carrubba

The brain is a highly complex dynamo, a human computer in touch with every cell of the body, constantly receiving and transmitting messages. It contains around 100 billion neurons, each with numerous tentacles reaching out to other cells, forming a network of around 100 trillion connections. Each neuron fires an electrical impulse about once every five seconds, and these signals can be measured and recorded by an electroencephalogram (EEG), which is routinely used by the medical profession to diagnose neurological conditions.

Electromagnetic Radiation and the Body   —  165

The brain is influenced by extremely small levels of EMR. A single photon of light can trigger photoreceptors in the retina to send an electrical signal via the optic nerves to the brain. Similarly, just turning on a domestic light can change brainwave patterns. A mobile phone also puts out billions of photons per second, although admittedly these are less powerful than photons from light. Not surprisingly, many studies have found that EMR affects the electrical activity of the brain. Brainwave patterns recorded by EEGs show changes to different bands of brain activity when subjects are either awake or asleep. Even using a mobile phone in the evening can alter brainwave patterns later at night. Some studies have found that using a mobile phone caused changes to brain activity when subjects were performing a complex mental task, but not when the task was trivial. What that means for our greater health and wellbeing is still uncertain. However, that’s not the only way that EMR appears to be affecting the brain.

The brain’s communicators A group of chemicals vital to the functioning of the brain is neurotransmitters. These chemical messengers are produced in neurons and, like hormones, deliver information from one cell to another. Interruptions to the function of these molecules can create effects ranging from changes in mood and behaviour to health. Acetylcholine is involved in cognitive functions, such as memory, and in the parasympathetic nervous system that controls the automatic functions of our body, such as breathing and heartbeat. A deficiency of acetylcholine might contribute to Alzheimer’s disease. Another common neurotransmitter is serotonin, which is involved in perceiving the outside world through the senses, and in sleep, mood, and appetite. Imbalances in serotonin can contribute to depression. Dopamine affects parts of the brain that are involved in movement, emotion, pleasure, and pain; it is a precursor of adrenaline, which is involved in the fight-or-flight response. Low levels of dopamine can contribute to Parkinson’s disease, and high levels to schizophrenia and psychosis. Norepinephrine plays a role in dreaming, in arousal (such as from sleep), and in mood. Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) produces calmness, relaxation, and sleep, counteracting anxiety and stress. Microwave radiation has been found to change levels and functions of all these and other neurotransmitters. Moreover, it’s been shown to change the concentration of neurotransmitter receptors — the receiving docks for these messenger molecules — in the brain.45

166  —  The Force

According to Dr Henry Lai, whether or not a neurotransmitter or receptor responds to microwave radiation will depend on different variables; for example, whether the exposure was acute or prolonged, or whether the signal was pulsed. Different parts of the brain also appear to react differently. This makes identifying the effects of electromagnetic radiation on neurotransmitters all the more difficult.46

Learning and performance Hundreds of rats in dozens of laboratories have scampered through mazes and floundered through tanks of water to help answer researchers’ questions about whether EMR affects learning and performance. For many of these rats, it has. Dr Henry Lai tested the memory and performance of rats in a series of water-maze trials. Before each training session, some rats were exposed to a 60-Hz magnetic field, others were given a mock exposure, and a third group was not exposed at all. During the trials, the rats were deposited into a tank of water containing a submerged platform, which they soon learned to locate. Lai noticed that the rats that had been exposed to the magnetic field were just as successful as the other groups in learning to locate the platform, but their swimming speed was much slower. In the final trial, Lai deposited each group into the water tank, this time with the platform removed, and noted whether the rats looked for the platform in the appropriate location or whether they appeared to be ‘lost’. This time, the rats that had been exposed to magnetic fields spent less time in the area where the platform had been, and showed quite different swimming patterns to their comrades in the other groups. From this, he concluded that the magnetic-field exposure had affected the spatial memory of the rats.47 Two years later, Lai conducted a similar experiment with a colleague, exposing rats to pulsed EMR of the sort then used in microwave ovens and now also used for mobile phones. This time he found the rats that had been exposed to microwaves were just as quick at swimming as their mates, but took longer to learn to locate the submerged platform. In the trial without the platform, the exposed rats again spent more time looking for the platform in the wrong places and showed different swimming patterns. This suggested that the microwaves had also affected the spatial memory of the rats.48 These and similar studies support the view that EMR can, at least in some situations, affect the learning and performance of laboratory animals. But what about humans?

Electromagnetic Radiation and the Body   —  167

Once again the evidence appears to suggest both yes and no. Certainly there’s evidence that EMR does affect people’s mental activities, and people living or working in long-term exposure situations appear to have paid the highest price. A study of children living near a radar transmitter in the town of Skrunda, Latvia, is of interest in this regard. The researchers found that exposed children had reduced motor function, memory, attention, and reaction times.49 Similarly, a Chinese study found that employees exposed to radiofrequency radiation at work performed worse on neurobehavioural tests than non-exposed people.50 Most of the studies on human brain function have been conducted in laboratories where volunteers were asked to complete mental tasks after being either exposed or non-exposed to mobile phone signals. Only a few have found that mobile phone radiation caused a deterioration in performance, while others found that exposure actually improved performance! A considerable number found no effect on performance — although many of these were financed by the mobile phone industry.51

Blood-brain barrier Around the brain and central nervous system is a fine, semi-permeable barrier made of densely packed endothelial cells known as the blood-brain barrier. Its job is to maintain an optimum environment for the brain and protect it from potentially harmful substances in the body. A breach could cause interference in brain functioning and expose it to harmful chemicals; it can also lead to neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s, which, as we’ll see in Chapter 8, has been closely linked to EMR. There’s considerable evidence that mobile phone radiation can cause the blood-brain barrier to leak. The team behind much of this research is Leif Salford, Arne Brun, and Bertil Persson from Lund University in Sweden. In 1997, they exposed rats to two hours of mobile phone radiation at levels that complied with international standards. They found that the exposure caused leakage of the protein albumin through the blood-brain barrier and that greater effects occurred at the lower exposures.52 According to the researchers: ‘Radiation from the base stations of the mobile phone systems should therefore be enough to affect the brain. Even someone who is in the vicinity of a person making a call may be influenced by the radiation from the phone.’53 The Swedish team is not alone in its conclusions. While not all studies have found similar effects, there is a significant number that have.54 Finland’s Dariusz Leszczynski has found that mobile phone

168  —  The Force

radiation activates heat-shock proteins in the endothelial cells of the blood-brain barrier. He suggests that repeated stress may cause damage to these cells, which could lead to breaches and, if damage accumulated over time, health problems.55 Breaches of the blood-brain barrier can cause headaches, which are one of the most common symptoms reported by mobile phone users.56 If these headaches are symptoms of a breach then they may indicate that the brain is vulnerable to intrusion from chemicals. This could be a particular problem for people routinely exposed to chemical emissions or who are taking medications, most of which contain chemicals. The brain is not the only organ to have a protective barrier such as this. The testicles have a barrier, and so does the thymus (which generates T-cells) to protect stem cells from being devoured by the body’s immune system. The gastrointestinal tract also has a barrier that protects the body from harmful toxins and microorganisms. Breaching this barrier leads to ‘leaky-gut’ symptoms such as insomnia, bloating, flatulence — and also to chemical sensitivity, migraine, muscle pain, low immunity, and depression, which many people who are sensitive to EMR report experiencing.

Sleep ‘It is necessary to increase the awareness among youngsters of the negative effects of excessive mobile phone use on their sleep–wake patterns, with serious health risks as well as attention and cognitive problems.’ — Dr Gaby Badre

One of the important, if often underrated, functions of our body is sleep, which research tells us is necessary for growth and development, performance, memory, and mood. During sleep the body produces hormones necessary for cell repair and growth, which makes it particularly important for children and people who are ill. Some of these hormones are associated with the metabolism of food for energy, so poor sleep can lead to weight gain. When we’re asleep, we process the information we’ve acquired during the day, and so sleep is also important for the consolidation of memory. Needless to say, poor sleep has unfortunate consequences. It reduces our ability to think clearly and concentrate, as well as our hand-eye coordination, and it contributes to accidents and injuries. It lowers mood, increasing the risk of anxiety and depression. It reduces white blood cell counts and, therefore, immunity. So, not surprisingly, chronic sleep

Electromagnetic Radiation and the Body   —  169

problems have been linked with health issues such as diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, and even shortened life expectancy. They’ve also been linked to psychiatric disorders, stress, and ADHD. After more than a decade of research, there’s strong evidence that EMR changes the quantity and quality of people’s sleep. People who were exposed to magnetic fields from electrical sources reported sleeping more poorly and for shorter periods of time, and they were found to exhibit changes in brainwave patterns. Dr Torbjorn Akerstedt compared the sleep of 18 volunteers before and after exposure to a magnetic field of 10 mG. He found that this exposure reduced the total amount of sleep time and the efficiency of this sleep, as well as slowing wave activity in the brain.57 Similar symptoms have also been found by people who used a mobile phone before going to sleep. Dr Robert Huber exposed male volunteers to 30 minutes of radiation from a mobile phone just before they went to sleep. This had the effect of changing the electrical signals of their brains in some frequencies during sleep.58 In other words, use of a mobile phone affects brainwaves and sleep even beyond the period of exposure. Sleep issues are among the most common problems reported by mobile phone users and people living near mobile-phone base stations.59 Researchers Graham and Cook showed that high magnetic fields from the power system adversely affected the sleep of volunteers. They spent more time in Stage II sleep and less in REM (rapid eye movement) sleep. They also reported sleeping more poorly and feeling less rested.60 A study by doctors Mann and Roschke exposed volunteers to the radiation from a mobile phone and found that the subjects went to sleep more quickly, had changed brain wave patterns and had less REM sleep.61 As REM sleep is associated with memory and learning, disturbance of this phase of sleep may affect people’s performance. It would be interesting to know the effects of regular mobile phone use on people’s sleep patterns and performance. For some young people, it’s not just the effects of the radiation these phones emit that is interfering with sleep. A Belgian study found that teenagers who used mobile phones after lights out were more likely to be tired during the day than those who did not. Teenagers who did so less than once a week were twice as likely to report being very tired, those who did so once a week were three times as likely to report being very tired, and those who did so more than once a week were over five times more likely to report being very tired. Study author Jan Van den Bulck

170  —  The Force

said, ‘There is no safe dose and no safe time for using the mobile phone for text messaging or for calling after lights out.’62

Tips for an EMR-free sleep 1. Make sure the head of your bed is located away from electrical equipment such as meter boxes or fridges, even if the bed on the other side of the wall from these appliances. 2. Keep all electrical and electronic equipment in the bedroom away from the bed. This includes: • mobile phones (do not use them as an alarm clock) • mobile phone chargers • digital alarm clocks • electrical cables and power transformers. 3. If you use an electric blanket to warm the bed, turn it off and remove the plug from the power point before going to bed. 4. Do not use compact fluorescent globes in the bedroom. 5. Avoid synthetic fibres in your nightwear and linen as they generally hold more charge than natural fibres, contributing to static electricity. You can also remove static electricity from your body before getting into bed by walking barefoot on grass or taking a bath with salt or bicarb soda. 6. Avoid any artificial light in the bedroom while sleeping as it can reduce the production of melatonin. 7. Reduce your exposure to mobile phone radiation during the day (see information on how to do this in Chapter 11).

Water The substance that accounts for the greatest part of your body is water. It’s found inside your cells, in the space between your cells, in your blood, your lymph, and the fluid between your joints — in fact, in all your muscles, tissues, and organs. Depending on your size and age, about 75 per cent of your body is composed of water (approximately the same percentage that makes up Earth). If we are made primarily of water, then can EMR affect water? One researcher who has been investigating this is Dr Bo Sernelius, a professor in Linköping University’s department of physics, chemistry, and biology in Sweden. He has been studying the effects of microwaves on the forces that exist between objects, such as van der Waals, which are the forces of attraction or repulsion between molecules. ‘It’s a well-known fact,’ states

Electromagnetic Radiation and the Body   —  171

Dr Sernelius, ‘that these forces may be manipulated by electromagnetic fields of the right wavelength. Which wavelength is the right one depends on the material of the object.’63 Water molecules contain positive and negative poles and these create weak van der Waals forces. They are also particularly sensitive to microwave radiation — when water molecules are in a microwave field, they adjust their position so that the positive and negative poles align to the positive and negative characteristics of the radiation. As the microwave field changes alternatively from positive to negative, so the water molecules rotate. In fact, a microwave oven works by using microwaves to heat the water molecules in food. Because mobile phones use microwave radiation, Dr Sernelius was interested in how a GSM signal of 850 MHz would impact on the water content of the body. ‘I was surprised to find a ten order of magnitude increase in the van der Waals force between the cells,’ he wrote. ‘Since the results depend on the water and ion content in the blood and blood cells and since these vary between individuals and also depend on the person’s health status, the effects can vary from person to person.’64 According to Dr Sernelius, this finding does not prove that mobile phones are dangerous. What is does, however, is open up a promising area of research into how mobile phone radiation may be impacting the body. International standards that protect only against the heating effects of radiation do not take into account its effects on the forces that exist between cells. So where does all this leave us — after hundreds of studies and millions of dollars of research funding, what can we conclude? We know that the body is an exquisitely sensitive electromagnetic instrument that responds to signals in the environment. We know that electromagnetic pollution sets up artificial currents in the body. We know that the fundamental aspects of our bodies — our cells, our genes, our hormones, and our brains — can be affected by fields from electrical equipment, electrical appliances, and mobile phones in ways that are potentially harmful. We also know that not all studies have found such results. Advocates of technology — and that includes many governments — have used this evidence to suggest that EMR is safe and to cast doubt on studies that have found evidence of risk. But the evidence cannot be doubted: what these apparently contradictory results do show is that EMR is likely to be harmful, at least under some conditions. Under other conditions it could be innocuous, or even therapeutic, as some researchers have found.

172  —  The Force

Decide for yourself: is it possible that EMR could affect, at least under some conditions, the functions of your cells and your hormones, your DNA and your brain; that EMR could act as a stressor to the body, impact on sleep quality, and reduce immunity — and still be considered safe?

Chapter 8

Electromagnetic Radiation and Health

‘Even a small risk of a prevalent exposure could have major public health implications.’ — Dr Leeka Kheifets

EMR is a global phenomenon affecting every man, woman, and child on this planet, including unborn children. In developed and undeveloped economies alike, mobile phones are on the increase and satellites beam down constant streams of radiation. You are potentially being exposed wherever you can connect to the internet or telecommunications system, wherever you can see television, or wherever you can use electricity. Given this, our highest priority should be understanding the impacts of EMR. There are now over three decades of research on EMR and health, and still no definitive consensus about its effects has been reached. Indeed, how can it be when the technology marches faster than the research — and when there are strong political and economic interests that drive the technology and research? In its truest sense, health is far more than the absence of disease. It is ‘wholeness’ (from the Old English ‘haelth’, which means ‘hal’ or ‘whole’). The World Health Organization describes it as ‘the state of complete physical, mental, and social wellbeing, and not merely the 173

174  —  The Force

absence of disease or infirmity’. Health, in this sense, impacts on our emotional state and the quality and length of our lives. It plays a large role in determining our happiness, which, the science of positive psychology tells us, is linked to positive relationships, success, and even income. The absence of health includes more than just being unhealthy; it includes being rundown, under par, at anything less than your full potential. Does exposure to appliances, powerlines, mobile phones and their towers, and computers adversely affect your wellbeing, and does it contribute to disease? Not all studies have found evidence of health problems — in fact, there are many that have not, and these are often cited as evidence that EMR is ‘safe’. However, they do not prove safety any more than having blue eyes proves that your mother was blonde. What they show is simply that no harmful effects were observed under the specific conditions tested. Alone, none of the studies that link EMR with leukaemia, cancer, brain tumours, Alzheimer’s disease, reduced fertility, and a range of other problems ‘proves’ that EMR is a health risk; but each one adds another piece to the now-gigantic jigsaw puzzle about EMR and health that is gradually taking shape before our eyes. Studies that have not found effects on health are not included in this book, so in that sense the evidence you read here can be seen as one-sided. But then again, this book does not detail the full range of studies that have found adverse health effects because it is too voluminous. We do know that EMR affects our bodies in ways that are suggestive of harm. It’s been found to adversely affect our cells, hormones, genes, brains, and neurotransmitters. It’s been shown to lower immunity, reduce sleep quality, and create stress. It’s been implicated with disease time and again. And children are thought to be more vulnerable to it because of their size, thinner skulls, and rapidly dividing cells. We do not yet have the whole picture, but from the evidence presented you can see an important part of the pattern already — you can see that there is clear evidence of the possibility of harm from radiation-emitting technologies, and you can see some emerging trends and areas of potential interest for future research. In being more informed about the risks of EMR, you’ll be better able to make decisions about you, your family’s, and your employees’ exposure. The more evidence we have, the better we can understand the impacts of EMR, and the more we can do to protect our health.

Electromagnetic Radiation and Health   —  175

Childhood leukaemia ‘The balance of evidence suggests that childhood leukaemia is associated with exposure to power frequency EMFs either during early life or pregnancy.’ — Dr Michael Kundi

Of the many diseases that have been linked with EMR, the strongest evidence is for the link to childhood leukaemia. Since that historic moment in 1979 when Nancy Wertheimer published the results of her groundbreaking study showing a connection between childhood leukaemia and living in homes with high magnetic fields, the challenge has been to prove, disprove, accommodate, or discredit the results. A huge amount of time, energy, and money has gone into further studies, reviews, and discussions about the implications of this work. As we saw in Chapter 3, there are now a large number of residential studies — over 20, in fact — that support Wertheimer’s findings. Overall they show an increased risk of childhood leukaemia at everyday levels of exposure — levels that would easily be experienced living near a highvoltage powerline or sleeping near electrical equipment. Exposed children had leukaemia rates that were double and in some cases four, five, or even six times higher than expected. These are not findings that can easily be ignored, particularly given the consistency of the results, and were the basis for the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifying magnetic fields of 4 mG and above as possibly carcinogenic in 2002. But 4 mG is a drop in the ocean compared to the massive 2000 mG that are allowed by international guidelines and the 3000 mG likely in the new Australian standard. These are troublesome findings. They suggest not just that the everyday use of electricity may be harmful, but that international standards for protection are entirely inadequate! An inconvenient truth indeed! Select studies (1993–2001) showing the relative risk of developing leukaemia Study

Relative risk of developing leukaemia

Feychting and Ahlbom (1993)

Increased risk at 1 mG and above

Green (1999)

Increased risk at 1.4 mG and above

Greenland (2000)

Increased risk at 2 mG and above

Feychting (1997)

Increased risk at 2 mG and above

Michaelis (1997)

Increased risk at 2 mG and above

176  —  The Force Study

Relative risk of developing leukaemia

Linet (1997)

Increased risk at 3 mG or above

Ahlbom (2000)

Doubled risk at 4 mG

Doll (2001)

Doubled risk at 4 mG

Schüz (2001)

Increased risk at 2 mG

Full citation details for these studies are given in the notes at the end of this book.

Adult leukaemia It’s not just childhood leukaemia that’s been associated with electromagnetic fields. Adults are affected, too. In early 1997, Gilles Theriault of McGill University in Canada published the results of a study in which he’d found that people who lived within 50 to 100 metres of a high-voltage powerline in Taiwan had double the expected rate of leukaemia. It was twenty years after Wertheimer and Leeper’s historic childhood leukaemia study and the story was looking remarkably similar. When Theriault examined other similar studies he found that the risk of adult leukaemia increased among people living within 50 metres of a high-voltage powerline (of 49 kV or more) even if they were exposed to just 2 mG or more. The higher their exposure, the greater their risks appeared to be.1 If, in fact, high electromagnetic fields increased the risk of leukaemia, then people exposed at work might be expected to have higher rates of this disease. US epidemiologist Dr Samuel Milham was one of the first researchers to look at this connection. In 1985, he examined the cause of death on the death certificates of people who had been engaged in occupations that were likely to have high exposure. These included electronics technicians, electricians, radio and telegraph operators, radio and television repairers, telephone and powerlinespeople, power station operators, welders, aluminium reduction workers, and motion-picture projectionists. Not surprisingly, he found that workers in these industries had an elevated risk of leukaemia and other lymphomas.2 A few years later, a similar link emerged on the other side of the Atlantic. Dr Birgitta Floderus, a professor in the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at Sweden’s Karolinska Institute, studied the occupations of 250 adult leukaemia patients who were diagnosed in the mid-1980s. She wondered if working in a high-exposure occupation had increased the likelihood of them developing the disease. Indeed it did; she found that people who had worked in jobs with high levels of exposure for the longest periods of time had the greatest risk of leukaemia. And, not

Electromagnetic Radiation and Health   —  177

surprisingly, the leukaemia risk rose with increasing exposures. The following year she found that train drivers and conductors who are exposed to high fields at work had almost double the normal rate of leukaemia.3 Workers in jobs with high levels of exposure, often referred to as ‘electrical’ workers, include telephone line and electronics workers, welders, and sewing machine operators. They have been found to have much higher rates of leukaemia than the population in general. For example, the leukaemia rate was three times higher for electric welders and flame cutters, nearly six times higher for telephone line workers and a massive seven times higher for workers at a New York telephone company with the greatest levels of exposure.4 Risk was double for railway line engineers exposed to around 260 mG and five times higher for Swiss railway workers.5 In the search for suitably exposed workers, researchers soon turned their attention to the generators of electromagnetic fields — the power companies themselves. They found quite convincing connections, at least in some studies. For example, researchers found that workers in France subjected to the highest levels of exposure had three times the average risk of myeloid leukaemia and exposed workers in Canada had nearly five times the average rate of leukaemia.6 In 1997, Dr Maria Feychting, who is now a professor of epidemiology at the Karolinska Institute, investigated the exposure patterns of 548 people with leukaemia or tumours of the central nervous system. She found that people in residences with average exposures of over 2 mG had 30 per cent more chance of developing leukaemia than those with low exposures in the home. She also found that people exposed to high fields at work had 7 per cent more chance of developing leukaemia than those exposed to low fields while working.7 Working in a job with high exposure levels may even be a risk factor for the next generation. Canadian women working in high-exposure occupations were found to have two and a half times the estimated risk of having a child with leukaemia.8 Similarly, men in the United Kingdom whose jobs were likely to involve exposure to electromagnetic fields had a slightly higher risk of having children who developed leukaemia.9 Yet leukaemia is not the only cancer related to electromagnetic fields.

178  —  The Force

Cancer ‘A multitude of studies found the type of damage from high-frequency electromagnetic fields which is important for cancer initiation and cancer promotion.’ — ECOLOG Institute

Cancer, the scourge of modern civilisation, is the one of the leading causes of death worldwide; the World Health Organization anticipates it will kill 84 million people between 2005 and 2015. With the incidence of cancer on the rise, it makes sense to ask whether or not EMR may be contributing to this epidemic. We’ve already seen that EMR causes changes in the body that are consistent with cancer. It’s been found to increase the rate of cell division and proliferation, cause DNA breaks, affect hormones and enzymes involved in cancer production, change the behaviour of calcium ions, reduce the production of melatonin, increase the production of heatshock proteins and to cause oxidative stress. Given that it takes only one mutated cell to cause cancer, any negative contribution by EMR could have serious consequences for health. Yet, once again, there is no consensus on the link between EMR and cancer. While international authorities robustly maintain that this radiation does not increase the risk of cancer, there are studies that show just the opposite — perhaps too many for comfort. Leaving aside the cellular research that we saw in Chapter 7, there are many studies on exposed groups of people that have found higher rates of cancer. In late 1999, Dr Birgitta Floderus published the results of a study of nearly two and a half million men and women with cancer — a large enough sample to produce some convincing results. She classified these people according to their exposure to electromagnetic fields at work and found that those who were subject to greater amounts of exposure had more risk of developing cancer. Among the men, there was an increased risk of cancer of the colon, biliary passages, liver, larynx, lungs, testes, kidneys, urinary organs, and an increase in melanomas and brain cancers. The most obvious association was with testicular cancer in young men. Women had an increased risk of cancer of the lungs, breasts, uterus, and ovaries, as well as an increased risk of developing melanomas and chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. The most obvious association was with cancer of the uterus in women of all ages. Floderus observed that these two cancers which correlated most highly with exposure involved hormones of the

Electromagnetic Radiation and Health   —  179

reproductive system. Similarly, cancers of the breast and liver and melanomas are hormone-related. As a result of her observations, she suggested that electromagnetic fields may be interacting with the endocrine system, at least in some cases.10 The observation that these fields might contribute to cancers of the endocrine system was reinforced by a study from Sweden just a few years later. Niclas Håkansson from the Karolinska Institute looked at the incidence of cancer among resistance welders, whose work exposes them to very high magnetic fields. He found that men with highest levels of exposure had an increased risk of developing tumours in the kidneys, pituitary glands, biliary passages, and liver. Women with the highest exposures had increased risks of brain tumours, uterus cancer, and multiple myeloma.11 Three years later, he found that arc welders had a higher risk of developing tumours in the endocrine glands. Yet another study from Sweden found that men exposed at work had higher rates of testicular cancer.12 Other studies have found that people in high-exposure jobs had above average rates of cancer. Electricians in a Norwegian aluminium smelter had a higher rate of lymphatic and hematopoietoc cancer; electricians in Shanghai, China, had more than seven times the normal rate of pancreatic cancer; and electrical utility workers in Ontario, Canada and United States had higher rates of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.13 In a 1995 review of malignancy and electromagnetic fields at work, the authors observed that EMF was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer, malignant melanoma, nervous system tumours, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and several types of leukaemia.14 Electromagnetic fields might be contributing to cancer by reducing immunity. Italian researcher Fabriziomaria Gobba tested 52 workers for activity of natural killer (NK) cells, white blood cells that play an important part in immunity by eliminating tumour cells and cells infected by virus. Gobba found that workers in Italy with the highest levels of magnetic field exposure had reduced activity of NK cells, suggesting that EMR was compromising immunity and undermining the body’s protection against cancer.15

According to the World Health Organization, cancer is responsible for nearly 8,000,000 deaths worldwide per year.

180  —  The Force

Brain tumours ‘Using a cell phone for more than or equal to ten years approximately doubles the risk of being diagnosed with a brain tumour on the same side of the head as that preferred for cell phone use.’ — Dr Vini Khurana

When, as we saw in Chapter 4, Susie Reynard spoke publicly about her brain tumour, the world listened in awe. A brain tumour in the precise position of her mobile phone aerial seemed much more than just a coincidence and raised the ugly prospect that the two were connected. As similarly affected people in different countries spoke up, the possibility that mobile phone radiation might cause brain tumours created headlines and the debate about mobile phone safety truly came alive. In over a decade of research that has followed, that debate has not yet been fully resolved. As we saw in Chapter 4, studies have either found that mobile phone use does not increase the risk of brain tumours or that it does, but there’s increasing awareness that the groups with highest risks are heavy users and long-term users. The real problem in clarifying the connection is that mobile phones are such a new form of technology that there has simply not been time for us to see the full impacts of its use. This means that users, whether they know it or not, are unwilling participants in a biological experiment on mobile phone safety. It also means that if risks are confirmed, the knowledge will be too late to save many of them. While the debate on mobile phones and brain tumours continues, there’s another type of tumour that’s been associated with mobile phone use — tumours of the parotid gland. This is the largest of the salivary glands and is situated at the back of the mouth, close to the ear — in other words, right next to the mobile phone while it is being used. Dr Siegal Sadetzki and colleagues from Chaim Sheba Medical Centre in Israel studied a group of volunteers and found that people exposed for the longest time and to the highest levels of radiation had 50 per cent more chance of developing parotid gland tumours.16 If mobile phones are really a risk for brain tumours, we would expect to see similar effects on people exposed to microwave radiation at work. And indeed there is. For example, US air force personnel exposed to microwave radiation had a higher than average risk of brain tumours and men exposed while working in the Polish military forces had almost double the expected rate of brain tumours.17

Electromagnetic Radiation and Health   —  181

However, mobile phones are not the only type of technology to be linked with brain tumours — there is evidence that the electromagnetic fields from powerlines and electrical equipment may also contribute. One very compelling study from Japan looked at the link between childhood brain tumours and exposure in the home. From a sample of over half of the Japanese population under 15 years of age, the researchers identified 55 children with brain tumours and compared them with 99 healthy controls. Then they measured the magnetic fields in the children’s homes over a period of a week, longer than most studies to date. They found that children who were exposed to an average of 4 mG had nearly 11 times the average risk of developing brain tumours.18 Similarly, studies of people working in occupations with high levels of exposure have sometimes shown higher than normal levels of brain tumours. Researchers have found increased risks of glioblastoma multiforme (a particularly aggressive type of tumour with a poor survival rate) at exposures above 6 mG, double the risk of brain tumours in electricial occupations, and up to two and a half times the normal risk of brain tumours in power companies in the United States.19 Working in a high-exposure job may even increase the risk of brain tumours in the next generation. Canadian women working in jobs that subjected them to high levels of exposure had considerably more risk of having a child with a brain tumour, and the risk was higher again for sewing machine operators, who may be subjected to very high levels of exposure.20 Similarly, women who slept on an electric blanket while pregnant had more than double the risk of having a child with brain tumour.21 Women who were exposed to microwave radiation at work and men who used battery-powered forklifts both had much higher risks of having children with neuroblastoma brain tumours.22 With such a strong association between EMR, leukaemia, and brain tumours, it’s natural to look for a connection with other types of cancer, and researchers have been investigating this possibility for several decades. One type that has received much attention is breast cancer.

Breast cancer ‘Numerous epidemiological studies over the last two decades have reported increased risk of male and female breast cancer with exposures to residential and occupational levels of ELF.’ — Cindy Sage

182  —  The Force

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women. With 1.3 million new cases diagnosed worldwide each year, the disease now affects around one in every eight women. The incidence of breast cancer has risen 30 per cent in the last 25 years, at the same time as radiation-emitting technologies have been proliferating. Is there a link? There is certainly some evidence that this may be the case, but the connection is far from certain. A few studies have found higher risks of breast cancer among women living close to high-voltage powerlines in Sweden and Norway.23 Some have found higher rates of breast cancer among women who slept on electric blankets.24 However, not all studies have found similar results. In the workplace, the situation is similar. Female workers who were exposed to high magnetic fields in the United States had a slightly greater risk of breast cancer, and this risk was greatest for pre-menopausal women subjected to high levels of exposure.25 Women working in electrical occupations had a higher death rate from breast cancer than expected; the risk was highest for electrical engineers and telephone installers, repairers, and line workers.26 Female engineers in Poland had twice the expected rate of breast cancer and women working in other electrical and electronic industries had an increased risk of developing the disease.27 Higher rates of breast cancer in women subjected to high levels of exposure at work were also found in Canada and Sweden.28 And it is not just women who can develop breast cancer. Dr Milham identified a small cluster of male breast cancer in a group of workers whose office was located in the basement of a multi-storey building. The workers were exposed to high magnetic fields from an electrical switchgear room on the other side of the wall from their office. According to Milham, the rate of breast cancer in these men was 100 times more than would normally be expected. Other studies have found a similar connection.29 In 1993, a cell biologist from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California observed an effect that might help explain the connection between electromagnetic fields and breast cancer. Dr Robert Liburdy treated breast cancer cells with the hormone melatonin — which is a potent free-radical scavenger — and found it reduced proliferation of the cells. In other words, melatonin protected against the growth of cancer. When he exposed the cells to melatonin and a magnetic field of 12 mG, he found that there was no such reduction in breast cancer cells; the magnetic field had counteracted the effects of melatonin. In Liburdy’s words, these important results ‘provide the first evidence that ELF

Electromagnetic Radiation and Health   —  183

frequency magnetic fields can act at the cellular levels to enhance breast cancer cell proliferation by blocking melatonin’s natural oncostatic action’.30 He later showed that these fields could also block the effectiveness of the anti-cancer drug Tamoxifen.31 But the real test was whether magnetic fields would reduce melatonin levels outside the test tube, that is, in people exposed at home and work. In a review for the BioInitiative Report, doctors Zoreh Davanipour and Eugene Sobel reported that 11 of the 13 population studies that had been conducted on the topic had found this to be the case. Lower levels of melatonin were found in workers in a Finnish clothing factory, women exposed while sleeping, workers in the electrical industry, people living near high-voltage powerlines, railway workers in Switzerland, and workers using computer monitors. ‘There is sufficient evidence to conclude that longterm relatively high ELF MF [extra low frequency magnetic field] exposure can result in a decrease in melatonin production,’ they concluded.32

Melanoma Could this, the most rapidly increasing cancer in the world and one of the most common diseases, also be linked to electromagnetic pollution? This possibility has been explored in just a few studies. Dame Valerie Beral, now a professor in the Cancer Epidemiological Unit at Oxford University, discovered an interesting connection in the early 1980s. In a study in New South Wales, Australia, she found that women who were exposed to fluorescent lighting at work had double the expected rate of malignant melanoma. The longer the women had been exposed, the higher their risk. She also found a greater risk of the disease in men who had been exposed to fluorescent lighting for ten years or more.33 There are also indications that exposure to the electromagnetic fields of the power system may contribute to melanoma. A Norwegian study found an elevated rate of melanomas among the most highly exposed men in electricity-generating companies and the same authors, in a later study, found a small connection between melanoma and living near a high-voltage powerline.34 Two Swedish researchers who have made particular study for almost a decade of the link between EMR and melanoma are Örjan Hallberg and Dr Olle Johansson. Hallberg’s interest in the topic was kindled when he read a newspaper article in 1998 about the rapid increase in melanoma that had taken place in previous decades and was continuing. The article attributed this to UV radiation from the sun.

184  —  The Force

This explanation was not adequate to explain the increases, according to Hallberg and Johansson. If it were, then how could we explain the fact that melanomas were developing on unexposed parts of the body, that rates were increasing at different times in different areas, or that rates remained low in countries such as Japan? Hallberg and Johansson believe there was another agent at work — and that agent, they suggested, is radiation from FM radio and television transmitters. Before the introduction of FM and television broadcasts, melanoma rates were relatively steady. However, this changed after the transmitters were installed during the 1950s. In several different countries, increases in new malignancies and melanoma death trailed slightly behind the establishment of these transmitters. Yet in locations where the broadcast network was delayed and in countries using different frequencies for transmissions, such as Japan, melanoma death rates remained stable. Areas that had the highest coverage from multiple transmitters also had the highest incidence of melanomas.35 Hallberg and Johansson suggested that an adult is particularly vulnerable to the radiation from television and FM transmitters because the body is roughly half a wavelength (1.7 metres) and will therefore resonate with the radiation easily. In other words, the radiation generates electromagnetic currents that can interfere with normal functioning of cells and tissues. ‘These currents may interfere with cell repair mechanisms that normally are supposed to clean up the body and repair damaged cells,’ they write.36 They also suggest that sleeping in a bed with metal springs could exacerbate the effects of radiation from these transmitters by reflecting it a short distance above the mattress. This means that the side of the body facing away from the mattress will be more exposed. As people tend to sleep for longer periods of time on the right side of their body, the left side is more exposed, which would explain the higher incidence of melanomas and breast cancers on that side of the body. Hallberg conducted a preliminary study on the use of metal spring beds and cancer incidence in different parts of the world, which lent support to this idea.37 At this stage, the link between electromagnetic pollution and melanoma is far from established but is an interesting line for further research.

How EMR may contribute to cancer If electromagnetic pollution is contributing to cancer, then the question that researchers most want answered is: how? Despite the importance of

Electromagnetic Radiation and Health   —  185

the question, the amounts of research into it, and the number of people with this disease, there’s still no convincing answer. However, there are several attractive theories that may help explain the cancer connection, some of which have been mentioned elsewhere. EMR causes cells to produce stress mediators called heat-shock proteins. Continued production of these proteins on a long-term or chronic basis can lead to cancer. Not only do heat-shock proteins increase the potential for developing tumours, but they can help to spread cancer and reduce the effectiveness of anti-cancer drugs. We’ve seen that EMR can lead to reductions in the free-radicalscavenging hormone melatonin, which helps to protect the body against cancer. It’s been shown to inhibit melatonin from preventing the proliferation of cancer cells. Without this important defence, the body is more vulnerable to other carcinogens. Similarly, EMR inhibits the effectiveness of cancer-controlling drugs such as Tamoxifen. Furthermore, there’s the possibility that electromagnetic fields act on the iron in cells in a chemical reaction that produces the potent hydroxyl free radical. Free radicals cause DNA breaks and cell damage, and produce the stress response that, in turn, contributes to cancer. Professor Denis Henshaw, a researcher from England’s Bristol University, has proposed another theory on how electromagnetic fields could contribute to cancer. Henshaw’s theory, while controversial, is supported by a good deal of evidence. In 1999, Henshaw found that the fields from high-tension powerlines could be interacting with radioactive pollutants to cause health problems. Placing phantom models of heads at various locations near powerlines, he was able to measure the amount of radioactive pollutants they accumulated. He found that heads near the lines had higher levels than controls located away from the lines, irrespective of weather conditions. From this, he concluded that people living under high-voltage powerlines had a 1.2 to 2-fold increased dose of radiation to the skin from aerosol pollutants and that this may increase the risk of skin cancer. In a second study, Henshaw found that powerlines ionise the air, creating corona ions, and that these ions become attached to aerosol pollutants. The result is electrically charged pollutants which can be carried an average of 200 metres downwind of powerlines, although Henshaw detected effects at 500 metres from one 275-kV line.38 Inhaling these charged particles, he suggested, could contribute to health problems, including leukaemia, which has often been found among people living near powerlines.

186  —  The Force

Yet another way that EMR could contribute to cancer is by promoting the effects of known carcinogens. Countless studies have shown that EMR has a synergistic effect with chemicals. In other words, exposure to EMR and a chemical has a more profound effect than exposure to just one or the other. These effects have been found to exist for test-tube and animal studies and in studies of human populations exposed to a cocktail of emissions from a range of sources. Over a decade ago, Doctor Meike Mevissen and colleagues at the School of Veterinary Medicine in Hanover, Germany, began a series of studies on the effects of EMR and chemicals on animals. In one study, they exposed rats to a magnetic field with or without the carcinogen DMBA. Approximately 50 per cent of the rats given DMBA alone developed mammary tumours, whereas over 64 per cent of the rats given DMBA and exposed to magnetic fields did so. The magnetic field exposure appeared to be contributing to the carcinogenic effects of the drug.39 When considering how EMR affects cancer, it’s important to bear in mind the oft-neglected fact that cancer cells are conductive. In other words, they conduct the very signals that are likely to contribute to the cancers in the first place. If cancer cells are more conductive than normal tissue, then cancer patients are more vulnerable to exposure — a fact that has not been taken into account by the international bodies who set the exposure limits for EMR.

The cancer verdict ‘Many years of scientific study has produced substantial evidence the EMF may be considered to be both carcinogenic and neurotoxic.’ — Dr David Carpenter and Cindy Sage

Given the large amount of evidence presented so far, can we safely conclude that EMR causes cancer? Not according to the World Health Organization. The WHO recognises that electromagnetic fields are ‘possibly carcinogenic’, as classified by the International Agency for Cancer, but has downplayed the significance of this classification. It maintains that the only credible way in which high-frequency radiation can cause harm is through heating, and therefore ‘the levels of RF exposure from base stations and wireless networks are so low that the temperature increases are insignificant and do not affect human health’.40 Despite this, some authorities already believe there is sufficient evidence to classify this radiation

Electromagnetic Radiation and Health   —  187

as carcinogenic, although official efforts to do so have not always been successful. As early as 1994, the US Environment Protection Agency (EPA) produced a draft report on electromagnetic fields that concluded that fields from power sources were a risk factor for childhood cancer. ‘The childhood cancer epidemiology studies,’ it stated, ‘show repeated findings of a small excess relative risk of leukaemia and brain cancer in children who live in homes near the electrical power distribution network.’ Furthermore, ‘A large number of occupational studies have shown excess risk of leukaemia and central nervous system cancers in people occupationally exposed to electromagnetic fields.’ Did the report lead to legislative changes, to the allocation of more research funding, to increased public awareness? No; it was suppressed by the EPA and only became public some years later, when it was leaked to the press by an EPA staff member.41 Four years later, a committee of the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) voted that extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields should be classified as Group 2B, ‘possible human carcinogens’. (Other agents classified in this group include carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, DDT, lead, PBBs, and saccharin.)42 This recommendation was, however, ignored in the final report of the NIEHS. It was not until 2002 that magnetic fields above 4 mG were officially classified as possibly carcinogenic, then by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Independent reviews have been bolder. In a US$7,000,000 report commissioned by the California Department of Health Services (DHS), three scientists reviewed the evidence of electromagnetic fields from the power system. In 2002, they released their report, which concluded: ‘To one degree or another, all three of the DHS scientists are inclined to believe that EMFs can cause some degree of increased risk of childhood leukaemia, adult brain cancer, Lou Gehrig’s disease, and miscarriage.’43 The independently conducted BioInitiative Report found strong evidence linking EMR and cancer. It said that: ‘In total, the scientific evidence for adult disease associated with EMF exposure is sufficiently strong for adult cancers that preventive steps are appropriate, even if not all reports have shown exactly the same positive relationship.’44 New Zealand physicist Dr Neil Cherry believed that EMR is most certainly carcinogenic:

188  —  The Force

There are standard techniques for assessing the carcinogenicity of chemical substances, involving cell line studies, laboratory animals and human epidemiology. If EMR was treated in the same way it would have been declared a human carcinogen many years ago. EMR neoplastically transforms cells, causes cancer in mice, is found to increase cancer in exposed electrical workers and military personnel and in residential populations. Whereas, Cherry pointed out, the chemical carcinogen benzene may only be used at levels that are one thousand times lower than the level at which it has been found to cause effects, EMR is permitted at levels that are thousands of times greater than those at which effects have been observed.45 The cancer evidence is already suggestive enough for scientists and public health authorities to be calling for precautions to protect the public. Yet it is only a part of the great body of research linking EMR with health problems.

Alzheimer’s disease Beyond leukaemia, the illness most closely linked with electromagnetic fields is Alzheimer’s disease, a fatal and incurable disease of the brain that leads to changes in memory, thought, and personality. Its symptoms, which make living with Alzheimer’s patients so difficult, include confusion, vagueness, memory loss, and emotional swings; these effects can be worse at some times than at others. Alzheimer’s is the most common neurodegenerative disease — in 2006, it affected about 26 million people worldwide, and according to the John Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, the number is predicted to rise to 106 million by 2050. The US team that pioneered the connection between Alzheimer’s disease and magnetic fields is Dr Eugene Sobel and Dr Zoreh Davanipour. In 1994 and 1995 they opened a new chapter in the EMR–health debate with a study that looked at the electromagnetic field exposure of Alzheimer sufferers in two countries, the United States and Finland. The most commonly exposed workers, they found, were those in the clothing industry — seamstresses, dressmakers, and tailors. The industrial machines they operated not only emitted high magnetic fields but exposed many different parts of the body, often from the head to the feet. Sobel and Davanipour took measurements of the magnetic fields generated by many different industrial and home sewing machines and found that

Electromagnetic Radiation and Health   —  189

exposures were all high, and they varied not just between brands but also between models from the same company. The highest measurements they found were from older-style alternating current machines. One model produced a field of 102 mG at the right foot, another 251 mG at the lower right arm, another 588 mG at the thigh, and another, 753 mG at the right arm. Fields from the newer direct current home sewing machines tended to be only slightly lower.46 When Sobel and Davanipour looked at the Alzheimer’s rates in workers subjected to the greatest levels of exposure in the United States and Finland, they found that these workers had three times the risk of developing Alzheimer’s compared to non-exposed workers.47 In a study conducted in following year, the researchers found that highly exposed workers had had an even greater risk of developing Alzheimer’s — this time they saw an almost fourfold increase. At this point, they began to develop an idea of why this might be happening. As we age, most of us develop proteins called amyloid beta in our brains, which interfere with its communication system and slow down mental functioning. However, people with Alzheimer’s disease have more amyloid beta than most and this is thought to be the cause of their symptoms. Sobel and Davanipour believe that electromagnetic fields may increase the production of these proteins and therefore contribute to the disease. The fields, they suggest, change the balance of calcium in cells, thereby increasing the production of amyloid-beta proteins. If these proteins are outside the brain, they may travel through the blood-brain barrier and cause the damage that leads to Alzheimer’s. There’s also also another way that electromagntic fields may be contributing to Alzheimer’s. Melatonin appears to protect against this disease.48 Electromagnetic fields, as we’ve seen, seem to reduce melatonin levels, thus removing the body’s natural defence against Alzheimer’s disease. Nearly a decade after their initial studies, Sobel, Davanipour, and their team published another study on the link between occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields and Alzheimer’s disease. This time, they looked at the jobs in which patients at a number of Alzheimer’s treatment centres had been employed. Once again they found that people working in jobs with the highest levels of exposure had nearly three times the risk of Alzheimer’s.49 In the intervening years between these studies, other researchers had entered the arena and most had found broadly similar results. Studies have found between double and four times the risk of developing

190  —  The Force

Alzheimer’s in Sweden.50 Threefold risks of developing Alzheimer’s were found in Switzerland and four times the risk was found in Turkey.51 Alarmingly, many of these risks were occurring at exposures of 2 mG or higher. This is an extraordinarily low field, compared to the 5000 mG limit for workers that is allowed by guidelines of International Committee for Non-ionizing Radiation Protection. And it’s a mere 50 per cent of the level classified as possibly carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. In a review of the Alzheimer’s research for the BioInitiative Report, Sobel and Davanipour concluded that ‘there is strong epidemiologic evidence that high occupational MF [magnetic field] exposure is a risk factor for AD [Alzheimer’s disease]’. Sobel and Davanipour suggest that action should be taken to protect against the disease — they believe that because the effects of radiofrequency radiation are similar to those of electromagnetic fields, precautions should be applied to both. This could include the redesign of equipment to reduce fields and ensuring that equipment is located away from workers.52 These suggestions make a great deal of sense. Living near a high-voltage powerline may also be a risk factor for developing Alzheimer’s, according to a 2009 study from Switzerland. Anke Huss from the University of Bern found that people living within 50 metres of 220 to 380 kV lines had an increased risk of dying from the disease compared to those who lived 600 metres or more from the lines. People who had lived near the lines for five years had one and a half times the risk; those who had lived near the line for ten years had 1.8 times the risk, and those who had lived near the line for ten years had twice the risk of death from Alzheimer’s.53

Other neurodegenerative diseases If electromagnetic fields contribute to Alzheimer’s disease, might they not also play a part in other neurodegenerative diseases? Davanipour and Sobel were the first to investigate the link between electromagnetic fields at work and Lou Gehrig’s disease, also known as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. In 1991, Davanipour reported on a 61-year-old man who had worked in an office in a clothing manufacturing company. On the floor under his desk was a transformer that exposed his foot, in certain positions, to fields of up to 75 mG. After six years of working in this location he developed problems with his foot, including loss of control of his toes, which were the first symptoms of

Electromagnetic Radiation and Health   —  191

what was diagnosed as Lou Gehrig’s disease.54 Did the fields from the transformer cause his health problems? Of course, we can’t say for sure, but the association is certainly suggestive. Some years later, Davanipour and team conducted a retrospective study on a group of patients with Lou Gehrig’s disease and a group of controls. They found that those who had been working for 20 years or more in jobs with the highest levels of exposure had between five and seven times the chance of developing Lou Gehrig’s disease, compared to those in jobs with low levels of exposure.55 In addition to Lou Gehrig’s, there is certainly research that indicates people subject to high exposures have greater risks of dementia and Parkinson’s disease. But not all studies support this connection, and much more research is needed to clarify the situation. As with cancer, these diseases have multiple causes and damage accumulates over a lifetime, so establishing a causal association may not be straightforward. However, given the prevalence of neurodegenerative diseases worldwide — and the fact that these are likely to increase in number as our population ages — the importance of this work cannot be overstated.

Fertility and reproduction While cancers and neurodegenerative diseases have occupied centre stage in the EMR–health debate, there’s another arena of life over which EMR has cast its shadow, one that potentially affects every family — fertility and reproduction. Even though there’s no ‘conclusive proof’ that EMR is causing inappropriate reproductive outcomes, there’s already enough evidence of harm to suggest that taking precautions to reduce exposure is a very good idea indeed, particulary for new and intending parents. With the incidence of infertility increasing worldwide, it’s interesting to speculate whether EMR may play a role. A team from Aristotle University in Greece conducted one study that indicated this possibility. The researchers were interested in the consequences of long-term exposure to high-frequency radiation over a number of generations. Naturally they couldn’t do this with human subjects, so mice were chosen as surrogates. Twelve mice ‘couples’ were placed in two locations close to microwave transmitters and were allowed to mate for five generations. With each mating, the number of offspring declined until, by the end of the experiment, all mice were irreversibly infertile.56 Is this the scenario that awaits humans? Only time will tell. However, if we wait too long to decide, we may not be able to change the outcome.

192  —  The Force

Could EMR be affecting male fertility, women’s ability to conceive, and other aspects of reproduction? At this stage there is no clear answer, but let me share with you some of the suggestions that have been put forward.

Male fertility ‘Use of cell phones decreases semen quality in men.’ — Dr Ashok Agarwal

For decades, it has been known that electromagnetic radiation has the potential to interfere with fertility. During World War II, sailors were known to willingly expose themselves to their ships’ radar in order to enjoy its contraceptive advantages during shore leave.57 But now there’s a new way in which men are irradiating themselves — by carrying a mobile phone in their trouser pockets. While the phone is turned on it is emitting microwaves, and that radiation is being absorbed by the sensitive reproductive organs located close by. There are literally dozens of studies that have found that mobile phone radiation can reduce sperm count and affect sperm quality. Most of these have found that it affects several aspects of sperm viability, including its motility (movement), morphology (shape and size), and vitality (potency). If any of these qualities are compromised, the sperm is less likely to successfully negotiate its way to the egg and achieve fertilisation. This could have serious implications for reproduction. Researchers in this field say that it may be ‘potentially affecting both their fertility and the health and wellbeing of their offspring’; that ‘keeping the cell phone in a trouser pocket in talk mode may negatively affect spermatozoa and impair male fertility’; that ‘RF-EMR from mobile phones negatively affects semen quality and may impair male fertility’.58 Dr John Aitken is Laureate Professor in Biological Sciences at Australia’s University of Newcastle and the Director of the Centre for Reproductive Science. He has published a number of studies during the past decade in which he has shown that mobile phone radiation reduced the viability of sperm. In 2009, he produced a groundbreaking study that showed, for the first time, just how this effect could occur. Professor Aitken and his team exposed sperm to a mobile phone signal of 1.8 GHz (the typical frequency of a 3G mobile phone signal), and found that the

Electromagnetic Radiation and Health   —  193

sperm had reduced motility and vitality. In fact, mobile phone radiation caused the sperm’s mitochondria to leak electrons, which resulted in oxidation. Oxidation is associated with DNA damage and infertility. The more radiation absorbed by the sperm, the greater the effects. On the basis of their results, Aitken’s team recommended that ‘men of reproductive age who engage in high levels of mobile phone use do not keep their phones in receiving mode below waist level’.59 Are these phones becoming the contraceptive of the modern time — the radar of the twenty-first century? In case they are, men may be well advised to keep their mobile phones out of their trouser pockets. Other forms of microwave exposure have also been found to affect fertility. Doctor Weyandt from Pennsylvania State University found that artillerymen in the US army whose work was likely to expose them to microwaves had lower sperm counts and ejaculated lower levels of sperm than unexposed men. Several studies have also found testicular changes in mice exposed to EMR from microwaves.60

Miscarriage Dr Stephen Genuis tells the story of a 33-year-old woman attempting to expand her family. After two normal births, she suffered six miscarriages in a row, all within the first three months of pregnancy. In her search for answers, the woman measured the electromagnetic fields in her home. She found particularly high fields in the basement, where she worked for six hours a day as a seamstress. At head level, fields were over 140 mG, mainly from fluorescent lights on the low ceiling above. At her sewing machine she measured fields of 180 mG. After the woman reduced her exposure, she quickly conceived and produced a healthy baby.61 Nancy Wertheimer and Ed Leeper, the US collaborators who first identified the link between the power system and leukaemia, conducted two studies to investigate whether the power system might also be responsible for miscarriages. In 1986, they found that families who used electric blankets or heated waterbeds had a higher risk of miscarriage in colder months, when the heating was most likely to have been turned on. The fact that they didn’t find a similar pattern in families that did not use heated beds suggested that the miscarriages were likely to be linked with high electromagnetic fields, and not just with the weather.62 Two years later, they published results of a similar study. This time they found that families had a higher rate of miscarriage in colder months, at a time when they were more likely to be exposed to electromagnetic fields from a variety of sources of heating, than in the warmer months.63

194  —  The Force

Other researchers have found similar problems. For example, a Finnish study found that women who had miscarried were more likely to have lived in homes where there were high fields, and a US study found that women who used electric blankets at the time of conception had an increased risk of miscarriage.64 A rather unexpected and alarming finding came from a 2002 study conducted by Dr De-Kun Li of the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute in California. Li asked a group of 969 San Francisco women who had been pregnant for less than ten weeks to wear a magnetic field meter for 24 hours and to keep a diary of their activities for that period. He compared this information with the pregnancy outcome some months later. When Li looked at the average fields to which the women were exposed, he did not see an increased risk of miscarriage. However, when he looked at the maximum fields to which the women had been exposed, there was a different story. Women who had been exposed to peak fields of 16 mG or more at some stage during the 24 hours had roughly twice the expected rate of miscarriage, and the risk was stronger the earlier in the pregnancy that they’d been exposed.65 What about the risks of microwave radiation? Among the workers with the highest levels of exposure are physical therapists, who use microwave and short-wave diathermy on a regular basis. To see whether they were at a greater risk of miscarriage, Rita Ouellet-Hellstrom mailed questionnaires to over 40,000 US physical therapists. She found that women who had used microwave diathermy during the six months prior to conception or for the first three months of pregnancy had a higher risk of miscarrying. The greater their exposure, the higher the risk of miscarriage.66

Birth defects During the 1990s, the Royal Norwegian Navy received reports from servicemen of birth defects among their children; eventually, there were enough of these to trigger an investigation. The Navy approached the University of Bergen and Dr Nils Mageroy, a researcher in Occupational and Environmental Medicine, began to conduct a study. Mageroy posted a questionnaire to over 350,000 servicemen and received over 2000 responses. From this, he was able to establish that men who had been in service on a missile torpedo boat that had high frequency, very high frequency, and ultra-high frequency radar transmitters had four times the risk of having children with birth defects and four times the risk of miscarriage or having a stillborn child. One of Mageroy’s colleagues found

Electromagnetic Radiation and Health   —  195

an increased risk of infertility among naval men who worked in telecommunications occupations.67

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) There are few situations as heart-rendingly tragic as the sudden and unexplained loss of an apparently healthy baby. Yet SIDS affects up to two in every 1000 newborns worldwide. The causes of SIDS are not yet well understood, but there is some speculation that electromagnetic fields may play a role. SIDS tends to occur more often in colder weather and in colder climates — in other words, when more electric heating is being used and higher electromagnetic fields are being generated.68 According to Roger Coghill of Coghill Research Laboratories in the United Kingdom, it is the electric field that causes the problem. In London, Roger measured electromagnetic fields in the sleeping places of 56 children who had died from SIDS and 56 controls. He found that the SIDS babies had been far more likely to sleep in a high electric field. His data indicated that the higher the field, the greater the risk of SIDS — babies sleeping in fields above 20 volts per metre (V/m) appeared to have four and a half times the risk of SIDS.69 This could explain why one 1988 study found that a high percentage of SIDS babies (6 out of 34) had slept on electric blankets or heated waterbeds.70 Rhode Island medical examiner Dr William Sturner found that SIDS victims had much lower levels of melatonin than babies who had died of other causes. Pioneer EMR researcher Dr Robert Becker suggested that EMR may be lowering melatonin levels and thereby contributing to this condition. It’s also been suggested that EMR may upset serotonin levels in newborns, which it has been found to do in laboratory animals. Babies with SIDS have been found to have lower than normal levels of serotonin and a key enzyme (tryptophan hydroxylase), which aids the production of serotonin.71 Though the link between SIDS and electropollution is far from definite, it makes good sense to keep your baby’s sleeping place as EMR-free as you can. (For tips on how to do this, see Chapter 11). It also suggests a fruitful direction for future SIDS research.

Heart problems When it comes to heart disease, heart attacks, and changes in blood pressure, the connection with EMR is less than strong. However, many people who are sensitive to EMR report experiencing heart problems

196  —  The Force

after exposure, so this is an important connection to investigate. And given that heart problems are one of the main causes of death in developed countries — according to the World Health Organization, they are responsible for over 17 million deaths a year — even a small impact from EMR could have major consequences for society. The most important pump in your life is the one that sends blood flowing through your body. Every minute, your heart discharges from its recycling chambers at least 10 litres of blood to begin their 100,000-kilometre journey through your blood vessels. This is over 5,000,000 litres of blood per year. Your heart beats on average 100,000 times per day, or 36,500,000 times a year. The smooth operation of this hard-working clearing house is fundamental to your health and energy — as well as, of course, your survival. Each time it beats, your heart generates an electrical current with a peculiar wave shape. This signal can be measured with an electrocardiogram (ECG) and has been detected using a SQUID (super-conducting quantum interference device) at the amazing distance of 5 metres from the body. If your heart is an exquisitely tuned electromagnetic transmitter, then can it be influenced by external electromagnetic signals? Without doubt. Measurements of heart signals clearly show that electromagnetic fields and mobile phones are changing the natural rhythms of the heart, and these changed rhythms have been measured with ECGs. Both electromagnetic fields and mobile phones have been shown to increase variability in heart rate. The heart pumps blood at approximately 75 beats per minute — depending on health, age, and activity — and this rate is important for maintaining healthy blood pressure. Changes to the rate, known as heart rate variability, can be detected by measuring the gaps between certain types of heart waves. Such changes can indicate a likelihood of further problems following heart attack, and have also been linked with Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and the death of premature babies. Apparently even foetuses and newborn babies can be affected. In an interesting study from Cairo, researchers exposed unborn and newborn babies to mobile phone radiation. When pregnant women used a mobile phone dialling for ten minutes, an increase in heart rate could be detected in the foetus. The same effect was found for newborn babies.72 Exposure to EMR has also been shown to change blood pressure. Lowering of blood pressure reduces oxygen flow to the brain and results in symptoms of weakness, dizziness, lightheadedness, and fainting. Elevated blood pressure can put an individual at risk of stroke, heart

Electromagnetic Radiation and Health   —  197

attacks, heart failure, and kidney disease, and can reduce life expectancy. In a 1998 study, a group of men exposed to radiofrequency radiation at work and an unexposed group were monitored for blood pressure. The exposed workers had changes to blood pressure, whereas the unexposed workers did not. The more exposed the workers, the greater the changes to blood pressure.73 Studies such as these show evidence of effects that could potentially contribute to disease. But what of the incidence of heart disease itself? There is no more than suggestive evidence of a link between EMR and heart disease. David Savitz was interested in whether heart rate variability from electromagnetic field exposure would lead to increases in coronary disease. He chose as his subjects men exposed to high fields working in five electrical utilities in the United States. He found that men who had worked in the highest fields for the longest periods of time had a greater risk of death from arrhythmia-related conditions and of acute myocardial infarction.74 Lucia Fazzo found that living near a powerline may also be a risk factor for heart disease. In her study, Fazzo found that people living in the highest exposure areas near high-voltage lines had double the risk of heart disease.75 A Russian study examined the link between heart disease and exposure to radiofrequency radiation, targeting communications workers at the country’s Civil Aviation Department. It found that these workers had a higher risk of arterial hypertension and coronary heart disease than workers in unexposed occupations.76 If, as this study suggests, there’s even a chance that high-frequency radiation might cause heart problems, it makes good sense to take the sensible precaution of keeping your mobile phone away from your heart. Don’t carry it, for example, in your breast pocket while it is turned on. Remember that it is emitting radiation, even when no call is being made.

Pacemakers and defibrillators One of the concerns for people with heart conditions is whether EMR can interfere with pacemakers and implantable cardiac defibrillators — the tiny computerised lifesavers that can detect irregular operation of the heart and transmit signals to correct it. During the 1990s, a plethora of studies emerged to suggest that mobile phones could interfere with these devices. However, as design has improved, the risks appear to have decreased and now it’s usually the older devices that are subject to interference.

198  —  The Force

A 2006 review looked at 22 studies on pacemakers and defibrillators and found that mobile phones were only likely to interfere with the devices if they were held very close. The authors advised holding the phone as far away from the devices as possible while dialling.77 The GSM Association advises people that they can reduce their exposure by keeping a 15-centimetre gap between the phone and the pacemaker, and not carrying it in a breast pocket.78 Many governments worldwide issue similar advice.

Diabetes A plague of modern society, diabetes now affects over two million people worldwide. According to the World Health Organization, more than 1,000,000 people die from diabetes or related conditions each year, and the death rate is expected to double by 2030. Diabetes is a blood-sugar disorder that originates in the pancreas. In a healthy body, blood glucose stimulates the pancreas to produce the hormone insulin, which helps to metabolise food and produce energy. If the body is unable to produce or process insulin, as in diabetes, there is a build-up of glucose in the blood. This can cause problems such as heart disease, stroke, kidney damage, blindness, nerve damage, loss of function in the feet and hands, and even death. As the incidence of diabetes reaches epic proportions, it is interesting to speculate if and how EMR may be contributing to this disease. Both electric and magnetic fields from the power system have been found to affect the production of insulin in cells. Even a tiny electric field of less than 1 V/m (compared to levels of 5000 V/m in international guidelines) caused changes to the insulin molecule and reduced the ability of insulin to bind to receptors on target cells.79 But what about the incidence of diabetes in people exposed to EMR? There are just a handful of studies on this topic. In New Zealand, Dr Ivan Beale from Auckland University conducted research on the subject of people living near high-voltage powerlines and found, among other effects, an increase in Type 2 diabetes.80 In Poland, two researchers tested the blood-sugar levels of 50 workers exposed to radio waves. Their levels were normal before breakfast, but when the workers were given a dose of glucose the levels shot up and didn’t return to normal for some hours. Ten of the workers with glucose disturbance also had abnormal brainwave patterns.81 Dr Magda Havas, Associate Professor of Environmental and Resource Studies at Trent University in Canada, believes that ‘dirty’

Electromagnetic Radiation and Health   —  199

electricity may be contributing to diabetes. She has investigated a number of cases of sick building syndrome, in which people suffered from a range of health and behaviour problems associated with their home or workplace. She found symptoms improved when the high-frequency ‘noise’ on the power supply was filtered out. ‘Type 1 diabetics require less insulin and Type 2 diabetics have lower blood sugar levels in an electromagnetically clean environment,’ she concluded.82 In 2008, a study from the United States shed interesting light on the possible causes of diabetes. At the University of Chicago Medical Center, researchers monitored the sleep of nine healthy volunteers — five men and four women — aged 20 to 31. In the first phase of the experiment, subjects were monitored for eight and a half hours of undisturbed sleep. In the second phase, subjects were deprived of slow-wave sleep (the most restorative phase of the sleep cycle) over three consecutive nights. Every time a volunteer’s brainwave pattern indicated that he or she was entering this stage of sleep, a sound was played through a speaker by the bed, just loud enough to disturb the sleeper without waking them. ‘This decrease in slow-wave sleep resembles the changes in sleep patterns caused by 40 years of aging,’ said Dr Esra Tasali, assistant professor at the Centre. ‘Young adults spend 80 to 100 minutes per night in slow-wave sleep, while people over age 60 generally have less than 20 minutes.’ The researchers found that depression of slow-wave sleep over three nights caused the volunteers to become about 25 per cent less sensitive to insulin — a change comparable to gaining 20 to 30 pounds. As insulin sensitivity declined, subjects needed more insulin to deal with the same amount of glucose in their bloodstreams. However, because their insulin production did not increase, subjects had a 23 per cent increase in blood-glucose levels, which is comparable to levels in older adults with impaired glucose tolerance and increased diabetes risk. Tasali and his team suggested that the reduction in slow wave sleep may be contributing to Type 2 diabetes. ‘These findings demonstrate a clear role for slow-wave sleep in maintaining normal glucose control,’ said Dr Tasali. ‘A profound decrease in slow-wave sleep had an immediate and significant adverse effect on insulin sensitivity and glucose tolerance.’83 Since then other research has shown that poor sleep can play a role in diabetes. EMR, as we saw in the previous chapter, decreases slowwave sleep. So is it possible that by doing so, it could be reducing the effectiveness of insulin in the body and contributing to diabetes? It’s certainly food for thought.

200  —  The Force

Dr John Holt, founder of the Australian Radiowave Therapy Research Institute and cancer specialist, has proposed the theory that EMR may be contributing to diabetes by interfering with metabolism. He says that in order to produce energy, the body converts carbohydrates into glucose with the help of oxygen. However, not all this glucose may be needed immediately and some is tucked away in your liver and muscles for later use in the form of glycogen. When you’re ready for it, your body will draw on the glycogen and add a dash of insulin to convert it into glucose once more. The process of converting glycogen to glucose is an anaerobic activity; it takes place without the presence of oxygen. It’s rather like fermentation: if you place yeast, sugar, and water in a corked jar they will ferment, producing alcohol. If you remove the cork and allow oxygen to enter the bottle, fermentation is spoiled and the contents turn to vinegar instead.

Figure 21. This diagram shows the two different pathways for metabolising energy from carbohydrates. The anaerobic process of glucose conversion using insulin is more likely to be affected by EMR.

As it turns out, this is vitally important for diabetes. The process of retrieving and converting stored energy using insulin is anaerobic and therefore particularly vulnerable to EMR. It is, says Holt, one of the key targets for EMR: ‘Cells that are anaerobic are electrically conductive. This means that they absorb signals from the environment such as those

Electromagnetic Radiation and Health   —  201

from radio, television, or mobile phones. The amount they absorb will be related to the power of the transmitter and their distance from it.’ In other words, Dr Holt believes that EMR is interfering with the body’s insulin-related system for metabolising food and producing energy — the process related to diabetes. If this is the case, we would expect to see an increase in this disease. According to Dr Holt, ‘a world of incurable diabetics is an horrific future’.84

Asthma and allergy ‘Everyone has the right to live and work in a clean environment. Exposure to an unhealthy environment can cause severe and debilitating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer. Complete elimination of risk factors is the only way to remove the risk.’ — Dr Ruby Pawankar

With allergies affecting around one in every five people, there’s a good chance that someone in your family is a sufferer. Often referred to as ‘the disease of the twenty-first century’, allergies are now at epidemic proportions, affecting hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Allergies have a debilitating effect on sufferers’ lifestyles and are a heavy financial burden for economies in most nations. International efforts are being made to address this global problem; for example, 2010 was declared ‘the year of the lung’. Among the most common allergies is asthma, thought to affect 300 million people worldwide. In the last 25 years, the incidence of asthma has trebled in the United States and Japan and is on the rise worldwide.85 It’s responsible for around a quarter of a million deaths each year and is the most chronic disease among children.86 Allergies are usually triggered by environmental stresses such as pollen, mould, or artificial chemicals. But there’s another environmental stressor that’s become more prevalent in recent decades, and that, of course, is EMR. At this stage, it is unclear to what extent, if any, EMR is implicated with allergies, but the connection is an important one for future research in light of what’s been found so far. As we saw in the last chapter, EMR interferes with immune function. Dr Peter French found that mobile phone exposure appeared to be ‘switching on’ mast cells, activating them to dump their chemical load and produce allergic responses. Mobile phone radiation has also been shown to interfere with the

202  —  The Force

behaviour of IgE, the antibody that’s responsible for mounting attacks against intruders. Thirty Japanese men and women took part in a study to see whether mobile phone radiation would affect their levels of IgE. They spent 30 minutes watching a video while holding to their ear a mobile phone that was either turned on or off. The test was repeated two weeks later and blood samples were collected at the end of each test. The results showed that holding the phone against the ear while it was turned off had no effect on IgE levels, but doing so while it was turned on increased the levels of this antibody.87 When Dr Ivan Beale conducted his study of New Zealanders living near high-voltage powerlines he found that as well as having a higher rate of diabetes, these people also had more immune problems. People living within 20 kilometres of high-voltage lines were three times as likely to have asthma, twice as likely to suffer from major depression, and twice as likely to suffer from immune problems such as allergies and dermatitis.88 There’s another way in which electromagnetic fields might be contributing to the growing rate of allergies, says Dr Keith Jamieson from Britain’s Imperial College. He has found that electric fields create a charge in tiny airborne toxic particles such as allergens, bacteria, and viruses. These particles are about 80 times smaller than a human hair. The charge causes them to adhere more firmly to the skin and the lungs — and the higher the electric field, the more firmly the particles stick. The sticking factor is also increased by static electromagnetic fields, such as those you can sometimes feel when you walk across a synthetic carpet or wear synthetic clothing. ‘Many of the factors that can cause high electric fields and increased deposition and contamination are often found in hospital ward environments and in buildings where incidents of sick building syndrome are noted,’ wrote Jamieson.89 Jamieson’s findings came as no surprise to Professor Henshaw, who, as we saw earlier, found an increased number of charged particles near high-voltage powerlines. ‘We expect increased deposition in the lung from inhaled aerosols that are electrically charged by corona ions,’ he said. Jamieson suggests that the risk of contamination from these airborne pollutants can be reduced by minimising exposure to electric fields: In the case of electrical equipment, particularly laptops, ensuring they are earthed can often greatly reduce fields. In terms of the electrostatic charge generated by people themselves, care-

Electromagnetic Radiation and Health   —  203

ful selection of materials and humidity levels can significantly reduce problems, as can balanced bipolar air ionisation. Trying to avoid spending time in areas where high fields are created, and unplugging electrical equipment when not in use, are also good options — so there are a number of easy actions which can already be implemented in the workplace and the home to help reduce the toxic load our bodies have to deal with and the risk of illness and infection being transmitted in this way.90

Allergy facts • 20% of the population suffer from allergies. • In North America, there are 50 million suffers. • Allergies cost the United States more than $10 billion each year. • Allergy is a risk factor for asthma in many children. • A link has been observed between allergies that are not food-related and

major depression. • 400 million people worldwide, including 45 per cent of people in Asia, are estimated to have allergic rhinitis.91

Health trends If EMR is responsible for health problems, then wouldn’t we be seeing an increase in health problems in the community? Well, perhaps we are. Dr Milham is a recipient of the prestigious Ramazzini Award for his important work in epidemiology. In 2010, Milham showed that the introduction of electricity in the United States was accompanied by a rise in the so-called ‘diseases of civilization’. He found urban areas that received electricity earlier than rural areas had higher rates of cardiovascular diseases, malignancies, diabetes, and suicides. He also found that deaths in rural areas correlated with the amount of electrification. ‘I hypothesise that the 20th-century epidemic of the so-called diseases of civilisation, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and suicide, was caused by electrification, not by lifestyle,’ he wrote.92 Swedish researchers Johansson and Hallberg have also produced some fascinating, if alarming, evidence on this link. They analysed health records from different counties in Sweden and observed a sharp increase in health problems and accidents in autumn 1997. The number of people with long-term illness had been dropping steadily between 1992 and 1996, but from 1997 onwards the number rose abruptly, increasing from

204  —  The Force

just over 100,000 to nearly 350,000 in 2003. They found a similar pattern in other health problems in Sweden. There was a dramatic increase in prostate cancer, depression, suicide, and deaths from Alzheimer’s disease. The number of people severely injured in traffic accidents rose from 400 in 1996 to approximately 1200 in 2004. There was an increase in workplace injuries, deaths from causes unrelated to disease, and the recovery time for heart and breast surgery.93 What could possibly have happened in 1997 in Sweden to account for this alarming trend? In August of that year, digital television was introduced to Sweden, the GSM 1800 MHz phone network was constructed, and companies began installing wireless phone systems. According to Hallberg and Johansson, the connection between this highfrequency radiation and health problems is not a coincidence. They have found that the incidence of disease can be matched quite closely with the power of the transmissions. For example, people living in rural areas had more health problems because their mobile phones operated at higher power in order to connect to base stations that were usually further away.94 The extent to which EMR will ultimately be found responsible for many health problems is the critical but as yet unanswerable question. What we do know is that it’s likely doing our bodies harm; that it’s convincingly linked with serious diseases such as cancer, leukaemia, and brain tumours; and that it may well be involved in other health problems. If EMR is causing or contributing to health problems such as these, then what we’ve experienced so far is just the very tip of the iceberg. With many forms of wireless and digital technology still being developed, with technology being enthusiastically embraced in third-world countries, with global satellite coverage expanding, EMR exposure is increasing and evolving. What is most alarming is that these problems are showing up now, while many forms of wireless and digital technology are still in their infancy; digital technologies are just over a decade old and wireless networks, even newer. We can’t possibly know the true health effects simply because the technologies haven’t been in place long enough for the effects to be properly observed, particularly in diseases such as cancer, which can take decades to develop. However, the fact that we’re already observing an increase in diseases among people who have been regularly exposed to EMR at home or work is enough to prompt conscientious researchers to be calling for more appropriate health protection

Electromagnetic Radiation and Health   —  205

standards and international authorities to be recommending precautions to reduce people’s exposure. But aside from the apparent link with disease, there’s another worrying trend for people to experience uncomfortable symptoms from radiation-emitting technologies. These symptoms range from headaches and fatigue to memory problems and depression, as we are about to see.

Chapter 9

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

‘We should be thankful to those with allergies, because they warn the rest of us of things that may be harmful.’ — Björn Gillberg, Swedish Environmental scientist

In the late 1970s, something strange began happening in offices around the world. Workers — both young and old, both short- and long-term employees — began to develop skin problems: redness, swelling, blisters, itches, pain, and burning that felt like the effects of spending too much time in the sun. Skin specialists in different countries began to record the new phenomenon. Thirty women working for a company in Norway developed symptoms of red and itchy skin that mysteriously vanished on weekends, dermatologist Arvid Nilsen observed in the early 1980s. In 1985, a 33-year-old male computer operator developed redness, burning, and itching on his hands and lower arms, which two US doctors called ‘terminal illness’ as it was developed by people who used computer terminals.1 A New York skin specialist reported in 1988 that a female computer operator had developed dermatitis-like symptoms. A bank clerk developed swelling, blisters, itches, burning, and expanded blood vessels, as described by Swedish specialist Dr Bjorn Lagerholm in 1986. The common denominator for all of these problems was regular 207

208  —  The Force

computer use at work. Soon others began to suffer from more serious symptoms related to their use of technology.

History and controversy In 1989, an office worker in Sweden — let’s call her ‘Anna’ — first developed symptoms such as itching, burning sensations in the skin, headaches, and fatigue, which she believed to be linked to computer use. The symptoms increased in severity, and by 1990 she was so badly affected that she could no longer use electrical appliances, including conventional phones, and was therefore unable to work. She was effectively handicapped. On one occasion in 1994, Anna sat for half an hour with her back to a window through which the sun was shining. After that short exposure, she felt a burning sensation — not just on her skin, but deep within her body. From that point on, she was unable to tolerate any light, natural or artificial. As a result, she was obliged to protect her body with heavy, dark clothing and remain indoors in almost complete darkness, only leaving her home in the evenings to take short walks in the forest. During this, the worst phase of her illness, Anna consulted Associate Professor Olle Johansson, a neurologist from the dermatology department at Karolinska Institute. Johansson took skin samples from Anna’s thigh and found, to his surprise, a dramatic decrease in a type of immune cells, known as dendritic cells, in her skin. Dendritic cells contain the neuropeptide somatostatin. When released, somatostatin creates symptoms of inflammation and light sensitivity.2 He also found that Anna’s skin was missing cells called melanocytes, which produce the melanin that protects against light. This explained her extreme sensitivity. Yet it was the sort of damage that he would have expected to see in someone who had been exposed to large amounts of radiation from X-rays or ultraviolet light — not in someone who had been using a computer. Johansson recommended that Anna take large doses of vitamin A and other therapies. After six months her condition improved and she was able to tolerate small amounts of light. However, she still could not bear to be in an electromagnetic field from household appliances, to stand near the oven, or talk on the phone.3 By the mid-1990s, there were thousands of people like Anna, afflicted with serious problems they believed resulted from computer use. While skin problems were one of the main symptoms, sufferers also reported eye problems, sinusitis, pain or a metallic taste in the mouth, dry mucous membranes, increased thirst, pain in the teeth and jaw, headaches, tiredness, dizziness, joint pains, numbness, and breathing

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity  —  209

difficulties. And what began as unpleasant reactions to computers often developed into a more general sensitivity to electrical equipment and mobile phones. People who were severely affected were no longer able to work, live in homes near powerlines or base stations, or use electrical equipment. They were no longer able to shop in supermarkets with fluorescent lighting, travel on public transport where there were mobile phones, or use common household appliances. In some cases, their sensitivity was such that they were even unable to talk on conventional phones, which contain magnets. Their opportunities for working were severely restricted and day-to-day living became a financial as well as physical and emotional struggle. Some opted to live in shielded apartments and others moved to remote areas, away from electrical and mobile equipment. Just as people with severe chemical sensitivity are said to be intolerant of modern society’s chemical environment, these people were thought to be intolerant of artificial radiation. The condition of electromagnetic hypersensitivity was born — named by sufferers, validated by some researchers, and hotly denied by most radiation authorities. At first, some sufferers were lucky enough to find medical practitioners — such as Dr Johansson — who recognised that the condition was genuine and found physiological evidence of changes in these sufferers’ bodies after exposure. However, in the early 1980s a counter-movement began. Several prominent Swedish scientists claimed that computer monitors were safe and suggested that sufferers were only responding to media hype. One professor visited departments of occupational medicine, advising doctors that symptoms were merely an innocent type of skin reddening called acne rosacea, which then became the dominant diagnosis.4 At the same time as these scientists were working to downplay the condition of electromagnetic hypersensitivity, forces were at work to restrict objective scientific study. Dr Olle Johansson, who had found evidence that the damage to Anna’s skin resembled that of exposure to UV light, or ionising radiation, found that his research funds at first withered and later entirely dried up. His research on electromagnetic hypersensitivity continued, funded by the Swedish Cancer and Allergy Foundation, but over time he found that pressure was being applied on him (in the form of criticism from the World Health Organization and continued restrictions on funding) to curtail his work. He was asked to move his laboratory into an area containing garbage, radioactive waste, and animal carcasses. He was harassed and even received death threats.5 Yet, with little funding and in the face of resounding lack of support, this courageous researcher has battled for decades to find and speak the

210  —  The Force

truth. He is unquestionably the leading champion of electromagnetic hypersensitivity in the world. To this day, the debate about the existence and causes of electromagnetic hypersensitivity continues. Sufferers believe that exposure to EMR triggers their symptoms, industry and most world authorities deny that everyday levels of exposure are a problem, and scientists are divided between the two camps depending on their allegiance and, often, the source of their funding. Despite the prevalence of the condition and scientific evidence that EMR can trigger it, there is huge resistance from international bodies and governments to accepting EMR as the culprit. One of the reasons for this is that a certain type of research known as a provocation study has almost consistently failed to find supporting evidence of the condition. In a typical provocation study, hypersensitive subjects and healthy controls are exposed to an electromagnetic signal, often to a mobile phone signal. Subjects are asked to identify when the mobile phone is turned on and when it is not. If the subjects are truly sensitive to EMR, the reasoning goes, they should be able to detect the signal. However, they often don’t; many studies have found that sensitive subjects are no more able to tell when a phone was turned on than controls. This sort of evidence is often used to discredit people who claim to be hypersensitive. Yet should all those who are sensitive to EMR be able to detect its presence? Not necessarily. And there are several reasons for this. First, electromagnetic hypersensitivity does not affect everyone in the same way. Just as some people have allergic reactions to one chemical and not others, studies have found that individuals are usually sensitive to specific frequencies — some people react more to low-frequency electromagnetic fields from power sources; others react to higher frequency signals from mobile phone technology. This means that if a person is exposed to a frequency to which they are not sensitive, they will not necessarily react to it. In a group of sensitive individuals, one may react to a GSM mobile phone, another to a 3G phone, another to a WiFi signal, and so on. Second, not all reactions are immediate. Sometimes people find that it is not until the day after the exposure that they feel ‘wiped out’ or that their skin develops red blotches. This does not mean that these people are not sensitive to electromagnetic radiation, as the provocation studies suggest. Instead, it indicates that provocation studies are not particularly good indicators of sensitivity. Despite this, there have been a number of provocation studies that have demonstrated positive results.

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity  —  211

A far better way of testing sensitivity is to conduct clinical studies of affected people, identifying what sorts of changes have taken place in their bodies after exposure. Yet these sorts of studies are not being funded.

Prevalence Electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a growing phenomenon, with hundreds of thousands of known sufferers worldwide. Surveys suggest that between 1 and 3 per cent of the population is affected, but this is likely to underestimate the real extent of the condition.6 As its symptoms can be similar to those of relatively recently identified syndromes such as chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, and Gulf War syndrome, it’s possible that the conditions are related and that the actual number of people affected is far greater than usually thought. Alarmingly, the number of people affected by electromagnetic hypersensitivity seems to be on the rise — as is the number and use of new radiating technologies. Örjan Hallberg, an independent researcher, and Dr Gerd Oberfeld, a medical doctor from the Austrian department of public health, believe that the number of sufferers will be much higher in the near future. Hallberg and Oberfeld analysed reports on the incidence of electromagnetic hypersensitivity in different countries in the period from 1985 to 2004. They found that the number of cases reported was ‘steadily increasing’ and observed that if the increase continued at the documented rate, the condition would affect, amazingly, one in every two people within the next decade. They wrote: [T]he group of electrosensitive people around the world, including Sweden, is not just a small fraction that deviates from the rest of the healthy population. Instead, it points at the possibility that electromagnetic hypersensitivity will be more widespread in the near future. The extrapolated trend indicates that 50 per cent of the population can be expected to become electrosensitive by the year 2017.7 If Hallberg and Oberfeld are correct, it is likely that someone you know will have electromagnetic hypersensitivity within the next few years. Perhaps someone in your family. Perhaps you or me.

Symptoms The symptoms of electromagnetic hypersensitivity vary in nature and intensity from one suffer to another. For some people they are no more

212  —  The Force

than an inconvenience; for others, they are a debilitating handicap that limits their quality of life. Some sufferers have committed or tried to commit suicide, unable to tolerate the level of suffering the condition imposed.8 Here are some of the more commonly reported symptoms. • Skin problems. One of the most common symptoms, this includes itching, redness, blotchiness, stinging, dryness, and sensations of heat or burning. A 39-year-old woman described the following reaction when she is close to a mobile phone, computer, or electrical appliance: ‘I started developing a skin reaction. I had a burning sensation down my face, on my forehead and elbows. I looked like I had been severely burnt on my forehead.’9 • Memory and concentration problems. These are among the most commonly reported symptoms and include experiences of ‘mental fog’ and feeling ‘out of it’. A man who had been using a cordless phone for approximately six months told me, ‘Every time I used it, my head near my ear started feeling funny and I lost my ability to concentrate.’10 • Dizziness. A woman told me that when she was exposed to EMR, her balance was affected: ‘if standing, I sway and need to sit to prevent falling.’ She also described nausea and pain. • Fatigue. Tiredness, exhaustion, lack of energy, weakness, and chronic fatigue are also commonly reported. A woman living near a radio transmitter said, ‘I began to experience extreme tiredness … often falling asleep in the afternoon on the floor, and sometimes nearly falling asleep while driving.’11 • Breathing problems. Many sufferers describe difficulties in breathing and other respiratory problems. One very sensitive sufferer wrote, ‘at times I had apnoea attacks after spending time in front of a computer and had to will myself to breathe.’12 • Cardiac problems. These include cardiac arrhythmia, heart irregularities, palpitations, chest pain, a sensation of pressure in the chest, and changes in blood pressure. After a radio transmitter was installed 2 kilometres from her home, a woman said, ‘I began experiencing an irregular heartbeat, palpitations, tiredness, and had difficulty concentrating.’ • Depression. This can range from a low mood to severe depression. There’s even evidence linking high exposure with suicide. A man told me that after six years of heavy mobile phone use he had developed several debilitating problems and ‘a major depressive disorder manifested itself’.

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity  —  213

•

•

•

•

•

•

Digestive problems. These include nausea and irritable bowel– like symptoms. After a smart meter was installed in their home, a woman said, ‘I have been experiencing difficulties in digesting food … My husband has … experienced difficulty with digestion, irritability, anxiety, nausea, and headaches.’ Ear problems. These include hearing noises that are not obvious to other people (known as microwave hearing), tinnitus, pain, and deafness. After long mobile phone conversations, a man told me he experienced ‘annoying, numbing pain inside the ear’. A woman told me that after 15 minutes of mobile phone use she felt her ear was ‘hot’ and ‘painful’. Eye problems. These include vision difficulties, pain, smarting, and a sensation of having grit in the eye. A woman told me that when she used a mobile phone she felt a ‘short, sharp pain after having the phone to my ear for some length of time, blurry vision, and on one occasion, my right pupil was smaller than the left one.’ Headaches. These are often described as abnormally strong and include the feeling of a tight band of pressure around the head. A teenage mobile phone user told me, ‘After using it for more than 20 minutes, I start having headaches; and after using it for about an hour I feel faint and lightheaded.’ Light sensitivity. Some people develop an intolerance to sunlight or artificial light, as Anna did. ‘It [sunlight] induced a deep burning sensation around certain moles and where skin cancers had been removed,’ said a woman confined to living in darkness at home because of her sensitivity. Sleep problems. People exposed to EMR often experience interrupted and poor-quality sleep. A man living near a mobile phone antenna said, ‘I haven’t slept since the … mast was switched on. I can sleep for two hours but wake up as if it is the start of the day. I never get any value sleep from the REM phase. I am so very, very tired.’13

Evidence for electromagnetic hypersensitivity ‘Electrohypersensitivity is a kind of irradiation damage, since the observed cellular changes are very much the same as the ones documented in tissue subjected to UV-light or ionising radiation.’ — Dr Olle Johansson

214  —  The Force

As with individuals who experience these symptoms, there are some researchers who believe that EMR is indeed triggering reactions. Dr Olle Johansson, who worked with Anna, has for nearly two decades studied the effects of radiation on people with electromagnetic hypersensitivity. He found that watching television caused changes in the skin of sensitive patients — he observed a large number of dendritic cells in the skin of such patients. Johansson also observed an increased number of mast cells, larger mast cells, and changes in the location of these cells. He found that in sensitive people exposed to EMR, mast cells migrated into the upper layers of the skin. Mast cells, as you may recall from Chapter 7, are the troops of the immune system, equipped for chemical warfare with the protein histamine. When the mast cell ‘degranulates’, or dumps its chemical load, histamine creates allergic reactions such as itching, inflammation, redness, and pain. He also found changes in the skin and thyroid of rats exposed to an electromagnetic field.14 One of the interesting things about mast cells is their connection to other parts of the body. They communicate with neurons and other cells in the nervous system, forming what’s known as the ‘neuroimmune axis’. This axis is involved in autoimmune diseases and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s. Mast cells are also found in the brain, the heart, and the respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts. If EMR triggers the skin’s mast cells to dump their chemical load, causing allergic reactions, could it not be triggering mast cells in other parts of the body to do the same? Johansson and his colleague Dr Shabnam Gangi say this would explain many of the symptoms experienced by people with electromagnetic hypersensitivity.15

What to do if you experience symptoms ‘As a clinician I can state that electrical sensitivity is a real medical disease. My more than 20 electrically sensitive patients and all other electrically sensitive patients are in urgent need of relief. Exposure to any radiofrequency radiation should be avoided by these patients.’ — Dr Gunnar Heuser

In some cases people have been known to plunge suddenly and unexpectedly into electromagnetic hypersensitivity, usually after illness or intense exposure to EMR or chemicals. They are often obliged to make dramatic changes to their lifestyles in order to cope. Other people experience only minor symptoms — perhaps a slight headache when using a mobile

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity  —  215

phone, or redness while using a computer — that they can easily dismiss. It’s tolerable, manageable and not serious. At least, not yet. Evidence shows that the effects of EMR are cumulative, and experience shows that people who are sensitive to EMR tend to become more sensitive after extended periods of exposure. In some cases, people who were sensitive to mobile phone radiation later became intolerant to radiation in a wide range of frequencies, to the point where they found electrical equipment caused them great discomfort. The take-home message is that if you find yourself reacting at all, take action immediately. Don’t wait till symptoms worsen, by which time they will be harder to manage or treat. The best way to manage symptoms is to reduce exposure, and you’ll find suggestions on how to do this in Chapters 11 and 12.

The link to chemicals People with electromagnetic hypersensitivity often have a duel burden to carry. Not only do they have the handicap of intolerance to artificial radiation, but they are often unable to tolerate artificial chemicals either. Even common chemicals such as those found in perfume, household cleaning products, pesticides, or petrol can trigger allergic-type reactions. EHS seems to somehow initiate chemical sensitivity. On the flip side, people with chemical sensitivities usually become intolerant to EMR to some extent. For people with these conditions, modern society can be a toxic, uncomfortable, and threatening environment. The synergy between EMR and chemicals has been demonstrated in the laboratory. In a small pilot study, researcher Lennart Hardell tested a group of 24 volunteers for the presence of persistent organic pollutants (POPs). He found that sensitive volunteers tended to have more than 11 times the controls’ levels of polybrominated diphenyl ether #47 and chlordane metabolite MC6.16 Animals exposed to EMR and a toxic chemical developed more tumours than animals exposed to each of these separately.17 Like the laboratory rats, the first people to develop electromagnetic hypersensitivity — many of whom were also among the earliest users of computers and monitors — may have been reacting to this toxic cocktail. Swedish journalist Gunni Nordström has investigated the symptoms and causes of electromagnetic hypersensitivity. In her research, she found that computers and other electronic equipment can contain a virtual arsenal of harmful chemicals. These include Bisphenol-A, which can

216  —  The Force

cause redness, enlarged blood vessels, and light sensitivity; Tetrabromobisphenol-A, which can cause endocrine and immune problems; phenols, which can cause allergies and light sensitivity; and isocyanates, which can cause headaches and respiratory and skin problems. Some of these are used as flame retardants in electronic circuitry. When, for example, a new computer is turned on, these chemicals are released into the air. They can be absorbed by the body and stored in fatty tissue.18 Even worse, these chemicals may alter their structure in the presence of electromagnetic fields. In other words, they may become photoallergic. ‘What happens in photoallergies is that a substance, which in itself doesn’t cause an allergy, absorbs energy from light and this energy causes molecules to alter their structures so that the substance becomes allergenic,’ Nordström explains. Like light, electromagnetic radiation may be activating these substances and causing the reactions that we have already observed. In addition to the chemicals they emit, computers may attract harmful chemicals from the air around them. Professor Denis Henshaw has found that electric fields attract particles of pollution. These may collect on computers and other electronic equipment and be picked up on the skin of operators.19 The Swedish Confederation of Professional Employees (TCO), a union representing well over 1,000,000 workers, has long been concerned about the harmful chemicals in computers. In 1995, the TCO introduced a code for computer manufacturers requiring low electromagnetic fields emissions and the elimination of certain harmful chemicals. Though the code was voluntary, many manufacturers chose to comply, and it has been adopted as an unofficial standard by computer manufacturers almost worldwide. However, the code has not managed to completely eliminate harmful chemicals from computers and it is not always easy to ascertain just what chemicals they contain.

What’s being done about the risks As odd as it may sound, international authorities have not yet accepted the link between electromagnetic hypersensitivity and electromagnetic radiation. Even if the condition exists, the World Health Organization argues, it may be caused by another environmental factor, or could be a psychiatric problem. However, for the thousands of sufferers who react to the presence of particular equipment or the researchers who’ve observed this, there is no question of the cause being psychiatric. EMR is triggering measurable reactions in the bodies of sensitive individuals. Yet so far very few

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity  —  217

countries around the world have policies to address this. Sweden and North America are leading the pack in this regard.

Action around the world To help address the condition of electromagnetic hypersensitivity, a number of countries and organisations around the world have adopted precautions to reduce exposure to electrical equipment. Some have also launched initiatives to raise awareness of the condition. Sweden Due to thousands of EHS-affected individuals lobbying for over 20 years, the condition of electromagnetic hypersensitivity is taken seriously in Sweden. It is regarded as a disability and the national group representing sufferers, the Elöverkänsligas Riksförbund (known as the FEB), is a member of the Swedish Federation of the Handicapped. Swedish law requires support for handicapped people to allow them to function as equal and effective members of society. Therefore, people with electromagnetic hypersensitivity are able to obtain valuable aid. The city of Stockholm provides assistance to reduce EMR levels in sufferers’ homes. This includes, for example, replacing unshielded electrical cables with shielded cables, replacing electrical stoves with gas cookers, and shielding walls, ceilings, floors, and windows. In the event that these measures are insufficient, the city also makes country cottages available for rent. Some Swedish employers also provide low-radiation working environments for sensitive staff members. People with electromagnetic hypersensitivity can experience severe reactions in hospital, and as a result there has been a strong demand for suitable medical accommodation. At least eight Swedish hospitals now provide accommodation for people with this condition, providing lowradiation environments such as wiring-free rooms; shielding for electrical sources; and bed canopies or non-conductive wooden-framed beds.20 Swedish telecommunications company Ellemtel had a large number of employees with electromagnetic hypersensitivity, and it took action to reduce its workers’ exposure. In 1990, the company had 39 employees with electrical allergies related to long hours of computer use. In order to retain this valuable bank of expertise, Ellemtel spent significant amounts of money to reduce electromagnetic fields in their offices. This included changing and shielding computer monitors, grounding desk lamps, adjusting wiring, rearranging office furniture, turning off equipment when not in use, reducing potential chemical exposures, and shielding a

218  —  The Force

transformer and introducing a buffer zone around it. Shielded rooms with a field of less than 0.2 mG were provided for EHS employees. Following these measures, the company reported a decrease in the number and severity of new cases of electrical allergy after 1990. However, existing measures are far from adequate to meet the needs of all the people with this disability in Sweden — particularly when their interests are in sharp contrast to the wider population’s desire for ever more EMR-emitting technologies.

United States and Canada In March 2009, Stacy Ritter, mayor of Broward County in Florida, made a landmark announcement by declaring that the county would recognise May as Electromagnetic Sensitivity Awareness Month. This was the first time a US administration had made such an announcement, and it was soon followed by similar declarations from others. EHS awareness months were proclaimed in Florida, Colorado, Connecticut, and Washington in 2009. (Connecticut also proclaimed an awareness month in 2010.) The announcements recognise that the condition exists, inform the public about it, and recommend precautions to reduce exposure to EMR. In June 2007, the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) adopted a policy on environmental sensitivity, which stated that such sensitivities are disabilities that must be accommodated by law. The Commission declares on its website: The CHRC encourages employers and service providers to proactively address issues of accommodation by ensuring that their workplaces and facilities are accessible for persons with a wide range of disabilities. Successful accommodation for persons with environmental sensitivities requires innovative strategies to minimise or eliminate exposure to triggers in the environment.21 Several Canadian municipalities — the City of Colwood, St John’s in Newfoundland, Norris Arms in Newfoundland, and Harbour Grace in Newfoundland — have also declared Electromagnetic Awareness Months in 2009 and 2010.

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity  —  219

Connecticut Environmental Awareness Month The statement by Governor Rell read as follows: Whereas, people of all ages in Connecticut and throughout the world have developed the illness of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EMH) as a result of the global electromagnetic pollution; and Whereas, electromagnetic sensitivity (EMS) is a painful chronic illness of hypersensitive reactions to electromagnetic radiation for which there is no known cure; and Whereas, the symptoms of EMS include dermal changes; acute numbness and tingling; dermatitis; flushing; headaches, arrhythmia; muscular weakness; tinnitus; malaise; gastric problems; nausea; visual disturbances; severe neurological, respiratory, and speech problems; and numerous other physical symptoms; and Whereas, Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS) is recognised by the Americans with the Disabilities Act, the US Access Board, and numerous other commissions; and Whereas, the health of the general population is at risk from electromagnetic exposure that can lead to illness induced by electromagnetic radiation; and Whereas, the illness may be preventable by the reduction or avoidance of electromagnetic radiations in both indoor and outdoor environments and by conducting further scientific research; and Whereas, people with EMS need the support of medical establishments and the understanding of family, friends, co-workers, and society as they struggle with their illness and have to adapt to new lifestyles; now Therefore, I, M. Jodi Rell, Governor of the State of Connecticut, do hereby proclaim the month of May 2010 as Electromagnetic Sensitivity Awareness Month.

Other concerned bodies European Parliament The European Parliament is the first multinational agency to recognise the condition of electromagnetic hypersensitivity. In a resolution on 2 April 2009, it called on ‘Member States to follow the example of Sweden and to recognise persons that suffer from electrohypersensitivity as being disabled so as to grant them adequate protection as well as equal opportunities.’22 Unfortunately, this has not resulted in significant changes in most countries or for most affected individuals worldwide.

220  —  The Force

World Health Organization In 2002, the director general of the World Health Organization, Gro Harlem Brundtland, created something of an international stir when she announced to the media that she suffered from EHS. The 62-year-old medical doctor and former prime minister of Norway told reporters she couldn’t bear to use a mobile phone or even be near one when it was turned on. ‘In the beginning I felt a local warmth around my ear,’ she said, ‘but the agony got worse, and turned into a strong discomfort and headaches every time I used a mobile phone.’23 Ms Brundtland was even able to tell whether people entering her office had their mobile phones turned on. And it was not just radiation from mobile phones that affected her; she could also not tolerate a cordless home phone or a laptop computer. ‘If I hold a laptop to read what’s on the screen, it feels like I get an electric shock through my arms,’ she said. Ms Brundtland told reporters that she believed that the condition of electromagnetic hypersensitivity should be taken seriously: Some people develop sensitivity to electricity and radiation from equipment such as mobile phones or PCs. If this sensitivity can lead to adverse health-effects [such] as cancer or other diseases, we do not know yet. But I think we should follow the precautionary principle, especially with regard to our children. Ms Brundtland’s admission of sensitivity was, no doubt, something of an embarrassment for the WHO, which until that point had steadfastly avoided recognising the condition. Interestingly, Ms Brundtland announced her resignation from her role a few months later. In December 2005, the WHO had a change of policy with the release of a fact sheet that recognised the condition of electromagnetic hypersensitivity. For the first time, the WHO recognised the symptoms and the severity of their impact on sufferers: EHS is characterized by a variety of non-specific symptoms, which afflicted individuals attribute to exposure to EMF. The symptoms most commonly experienced include dermatological symptoms (redness, tingling, and burning sensations) as well as neurasthenic and vegetative symptoms (fatigue, tiredness, concentration difficulties, dizziness, nausea, heart palpitation, and digestive disturbances).24

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity  —  221

However, the WHO statement included a number of convenient escape clauses. It used the negative findings of certain provocation studies to suggest that sufferers are not necessarily reacting to EMR — that their symptoms could have some other environmental cause. It suggested the term ‘electromagnetic hypersensitivity’ be replaced with ‘idiopathic environmental intolerance’, removing reference to electromagnetic radiation altogether. It also recommended that treatment include psychological and psychiatric assessments of patients, which suggests that the patients, rather than their environment, may be at fault. People with electromagnetic hypersensitivity are trapped in a hell of society’s making. They have the misfortune to suffer from a syndrome that is highly inconvenient in a world addicted to technological novelty and seduced by its economic benefits. The existence of the syndrome challenges the views of many international radiation authorities who state that health problems do not occur at everyday levels of exposure — at limits below international guidelines and exposures too low to cause heating. This illness is an embarrassment to leading radiation experts and a threat to the telecommunications industry. It raises the ugly spectre that international guidelines might be wrong — that modern technology might be harmful and society potentially vulnerable to its effects. And because medical authorities do not believe that the condition exists, sufferers often face at best ignorance from medical practitioners, and at worst derision. Patients are often referred for psychiatric assessment. More often than not they are denied medical recognition, legal compensation, and even social support. People with electromagnetic hypersensitivity are often considered to be the canaries in the coalmine — the sensitive individuals whose reactions warned others that what they were being exposed to was harmful. But there is one significant difference: when a canary died in a coalmine, the miners left quickly. However, when people with electromagnetic hypersensitivity react to EMR, the rest of society calmly looks the other way.

Chapter 10

The Controversy

‘Science commits suicide when it adopts a creed.’ — Thomas Henry Huxley

Why is it that, after decades of research on nearly every continent and millions of dollars in research funding, after the use of electromagnetic technologies has exploded across the planet, there is still no certainty about the health effects of EMR? Why do advocates of the technology praise it with as much vehemence as others declare it unsafe? Why do communities rage against the construction of mobile phone base stations in their neighbourhoods while telecommunications companies and governments disparage the risks? Why do studies fail to prove that mobile phone radiation causes tumours when people are dying from tumours located in the parts of their heads against which they held their phones? Why do millions of people suffer from a range of unpleasant symptoms from exposure to everyday levels of EMR, yet the WHO refuses to believe this is a verifiable medical condition? The truth is that demonstrating the connection between EMR and health is extraordinarily hard to do. Even if there were political will to do so (which there isn’t), even if there were adequate funding for research (which there isn’t), even if research were independent of industry influence (which it isn’t), it would still be a task to challenge the legendary 223

224  —  The Force

Sisyphus. One of the reasons for this is that there are just so many variables that need to be taken into account.

Variables in the science Finding the precise set of circumstances that cause the body to react to EMR is a bit like trying to find the proverbial needle in a haystack — there are so many factors that could influence results. For the sake of simplicity, we can compare the process to the search for a new home. Let’s assume that you’re currently inspecting a property that is for sale. Even though it does have some positive features, you’re not immediately drawn to it. Perhaps it’s the fact that the bedrooms are a bit small or there’s not enough storage. Perhaps it’s the layout or the fact that it doesn’t have a double garage. You’re aware that you might feel differently about the house if some of its features were changed: you could repaint the walls, pull up the carpet, landscape the yard, and put in new curtains, and that would likely affect the way you would feel about the house. Or perhaps it’s not the house that’s making you feel this way — it’s something about you. It might that you’re not seeing things clearly because you had a late night, you’re stressed at work, or you’re still recovering from a bout of flu. If you were in a better frame of mind you may react differently. Perhaps you need time to consider — you might decide to go home and see how you feel about the house later. After time to weigh the options, you could decide that it’s really not the house for you at all. An EMR signal is like the house in our analogy — and there are many features of the signal that affect an individual. As with changing the carpet or the colour of the walls in a house, changing any of the features of an EMR signal can change its impact. Similarly, each individual has attributes that influence how they will be affected by a signal — in the case of the house, it is their practical needs, tastes, and aspirations that come into play, whereas with an EMR signal it may be their age, health, genetic background, or even the thickness of their skulls that determine the effects. And sometimes reactions are delayed. All of these variables influence the way in which EMR affects cells, animals, and people in the laboratory, and they all have the potential to influence the outcome of any study. Unfortunately, not all these factors are considered by all researchers. Dr Igor Belyaev is a scientist with an impressive array of credentials — he is the head research scientist at the Cancer Research Institute, the

The Controversy  —  225

Slovak Academy of Science, the General Physics Institute, and the Russian Academy of Science, and Associate Professor at the Department of Genetics, Microbiology, and Toxicology at Stockholm University. He has been studying the effects of microwave radiation for over 20 years, and believes that it affects the body at levels of exposure that are far below international standards. According to Dr Belyaev, any one of a range of factors can affect the way in which microwaves impact on the body. He says that finding evidence of these effects depends on taking into account many variables, and that by not taking these variables into account scientists risk overlooking evidence of damage, coming to the misleading conclusion that there are no adverse health effects. This, he says: is similar to a situation where one would use a television set with the wrong broadcasting system … and based on seeing nothing would conclude that one’s inability to receive favourite channels is good evidence for the absence of stable television broadcasting in the United States/Europe.1

Frequency and modulation We are exposed to literally hundreds of frequencies and combinations of frequencies from EMR-emitting technologies and, as Dr Belyaev points out, different frequencies affect us differently. Scientists have found that effects can occur at certain frequencies or within frequency ‘windows’, but not within others. Two of the early pioneers in this field were Susan Bawin and Ross Adey, who found that the frequency of 16 Hertz (H) was significant because it caused the greatest outflow of calcium from animal brains.2 Dr Belyaev has found that the frequencies of 51.7 and 41.32 gigahertz (GHz) are particularly potent for interfering with the repair of DNA breaks in cells.3 Sometimes, as we saw in Chapter 2, a signal is superimposed upon another wave to help it reach its destination. This is called modulation and is used by most mobile phone, radio, and television networks. Therefore, in modulated signals there are potentially two types of waves that can affect an organism. Unsurprisingly, modulated signals seem to create more effects on the cells and animals exposed to them than unmodulated signals. Even the way in which a signal is modulated can change its impact. For example, microwaves of 450 megahertz (MHz) modulated at 16 Hz increased the activity of ODC, but not those modulated at 60 or 100 Hz.

226  —  The Force

Resonance When you meet someone with whom you feel a connection you might say that he or she resonates with you, or that you are on the same wavelength. To resonate is literally to match. An example of resonance is when an opera singer reaches a note that shatters a wine glass. This occurs because the wavelength of the note matches the size of the glass. In the same way, a wave of EMR can impact on an organ if both are the same size. This principle also applies to the body as a whole. This means that slightly different frequencies will affect people differently. This type of resonance may help explain why individuals can be vulnerable to ‘windows’ of frequencies. Dr Gerard Hyland believes that resonance can account for the non-heating effects of radiation on the body. ‘The human body is an electrochemical instrument of exquisite sensitivity,’ he says. Hyland believes that the body’s functions are controlled by ‘electrical processes of various kinds, each characterised by a specific frequency, some of which happen to be close to those used in GSM’. This means that incoming radiation can disturb these processes in much the same way as it can cause interference to radio reception.4

Power The power of a microwave signal, like the power of a well-aimed punch, is an indication of the energy that is behind it. The amount of power received from the punch is its power density. High-power signals can cause heating in the body, which, as we saw in Chapter 3, is considered dangerous. Therefore, there is an assumption that low-power signals, because they don’t cause heating, must be safe. On this basis, telecommunications companies around the world have implied that the radiation from their base stations is not a concern to the hundreds of nearby residents because it is of such low power. However, this is not necessarily the case; signals at low power can pack a punch as well. According to Dr Belyaev, effects have been found at even very low power levels, comparable to those that would be found near base stations and other microwave transmitters. For example, Swedish scientist Bertil Persson found increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier in rats exposed to just 0.0004 to 0.008 watts per kilogram (W/kg).5 This is concerning given that under international guidelines 2 W/kg is the maximum allowable exposure for the head.

The Controversy  —  227

Moreover, low-power signals can sometimes be more potent than high-power signals. In Chapter 7 we saw that Australian Dr Peter French exposed astrocytoma cells to 835 MHz of EMR. He found that there were changes to the proliferation of cells, but he also found that at powers five times higher than this no such changes to cell proliferation could be seen.6 One of French’s colleagues, Jocelyn Laurence, suggested this might be the case because low-power microwaves can act upon the protein molecules in cells in such a way that they can affect growth, genes, and cellular communication. Microwaves operating at higher powers can activate a cell’s stress response, prompting it to release ‘heat-shock’ proteins to protect itself. (Heat-shock proteins, as we saw in Chapter 7, are produced not just by heat, but also by other forms of stress.) This means that lower power signals might slip through the body’s natural defence system and cause problems, whereas higher power signals are recognised as intruders and activate the body’s defences.7 Just as there are ‘windows’ of frequency, there seem to be ‘windows’ of power that are particularly effective at damaging cells. For example, Carl Blackman found that calcium ions in animal brains were affected at power densities of 1.75, 3.85, 5.57, 6.82, 7.65, 7.77, and 8.82 milliwatts per square centimetre (W/cm2), but not at a range of other power density levels he tested.8

Length of exposure It makes sense that the longer we’re exposed to radiation the greater the effects are likely to be. In fact, the length of exposure may be an even more important factor than the power of the signal when it comes to producing damaging effects. Dr Belyaev has shown that extending the length of time an organism spends in an electromagnetic field can counteract the benefits of reducing the power of that field. For example, doctors Lai and Carino have found evidence that exposures of lower intensity and longer duration are just as potent as exposures of higher intensity but shorter duration. According to Lai, ‘A field of a certain intensity, that exerts no effect after 45 minutes of exposure, can elicit an effect when the exposure is prolonged to 90 minutes.’9 This means that we need to think twice before accepting the usual reassurances from telecommunications companies and governments that the radiation from base stations is ‘only low power’. Low power it may be, but being exposed all day every day can still potentially cause damage. There is also evidence that the cumulative length of exposure is significant. Lai’s studies show that the effects of exposure are not ‘forgotten’

228  —  The Force

after each exposure; there is a cumulative effect. He said at a symposium on mobile phones and health, ‘Definitely, DNA damage in cells is cumulative.’ According to Lai, the central nervous system’s response to EMR is likely to be a stress response. Stress responses are known to be cumulative — they involve an initial adaptation and, if repeated often enough, eventually a breakdown of homeostasis. Dr Samuel Milham conducted a study that found that the length of exposure was related to the effects people experienced. Milham, who, as we saw in Chapter 3, investigated cancer in workers whose office was located above three 12-kV transformers, found that the risk of cancer increased with the duration of employment: while only one cancer was found among the 254 people who had worked in the office for less than two years, seven cases were found among the 156 people who had worked there for two or more years. Milham believes that this indicates that the body has a repair mechanism that allows it to cope with stress for a period before ultimately succumbing to illness.10 If this is the case, long-term continuous exposure may be necessary for cancer to develop — although, as Milham points out, childhood leukaemia is obviously an exception. Whether a scientist will observe effects on an exposed cell or animal will also depend on how long after the exposure finishes that he or she examines it. For example, researchers found changes in chromatin conformation when cells were examined 30 to 60 minutes after exposure, but virtually no changes when they were examined 80 minutes after exposure. To complicate matters further, there’s another timing factor that needs to be taken into account — whether the signals are continuous or intermittent (for example, five minutes on and then five minutes off). It’s the intermittent exposure, Belyaev has observed, that seems to have the greater effect on the body. Yet apparently not all sorts of intermittent exposures — US researcher Ted Litovitz has shown that cells need at least ten seconds of exposure before they will react to a signal. If a signal is flashed on and off every few seconds, they will fail to respond, whether the signal comes from a powerline or a mobile phone. ‘This is biologically enormously sensible because the cell has to be an efficient producer,’ he said. ‘It does not want to be turned on by every little hormone molecule that comes wandering by. It wants to respond to the average properties of its environment.’11

The Controversy  —  229

Polarisation Electromagnetic signals can be polarised in either a linear or circular direction. You can compare this to the patterns of water from a hose. Shake the hose up and down and you send a vertical line of waves cascading from it; shake the hose from side to side and you send out a horizontal line of waves. This is a little like linear polarisation. Turn the hose to a gentle spray and constant streams of circles flow from it. This is a little like circular polarisation. In the everyday environment, fields tend to be polarised somewhere between these two extremes — often in a pattern resembling an ellipsis. Belyaev and other researchers have found that signals with circular polarisation tend to produce more effects than those with linear polarisation. You might recall from Chapter 7 that researchers James Burch and Masamichi Kato found that people and rats had lower levels of melatonin when they were exposed to electromagnetic fields that were polarised in a circular direction. On top of this, it also seems to matter whether the signal is circularly polarised in a left or right direction. For example, Belyaev exposed cells to a high-frequency signal of 51.76 GHz. When the signal was polarised in a right-hand direction it interfered with the repair of the cell’s DNA. However, when it was polarised in a left-hand direction, there was virtually no effect at all.12 Signal type Signals can also vary according to whether they are continuous or pulsed. As we saw in Chapter 2, an example of a continuous signal is the smooth, gently undulating, uninterrupted signal that leaves the power station. A pulsed signal, such as those now used in most mobile-phone systems, is divided into short bursts, or pulses, of energy, with intervals between each pulse. These two types of signals are the hare and the tortoise of the communications network. Whereas the tortoise plods steadily and consistently forward, the hare progresses with rapid bursts of energy followed by short rests. Both achieve the same outcome (reaching the finishing line or, in the case of signals, conveying information), but in quite different ways. There is evidence to suggest that the short, sharp bursts of the digital system are more likely to affect the body than continuous signals. For example, researchers Postow and Swicord reviewed approximately 40 studies that compared the effects of pulsed and continuous waves.

230  —  The Force

Approximately 50 per cent of these found that pulsed fields caused more effects and just under 50 per cent found similar effects from pulsed and continuous waves, while only a small number found that continuous waves caused more effects.13

Background environment Belyaev believes that even the background electromagnetic environment can influence the way in which an organism responds to microwaves. If an animal that is being tested for microwave exposure is also being exposed to a high magnetic field from wiring in its cage, the results of the experiment may not be what they seem. The reliability of researchers’ results will depend on their success in screening out all other fields. Individual differences Each of us responds differently to the world — to its sights, sounds, and smells — so it should be no surprise that each of us can respond differently to electromagnetic radiation. Belyaev says that genetic background is one of the factors behind this variation. For example, genetically modified mice exposed to a GSM mobile phone signal had a higher rate of lymphomas than wild mice exposed to the same signal.14 In the search for clarification about whether EMR causes cancer, one laboratory discovered that rats who had been treated with a chemical carcinogen developed more mammary gland tumours when they were also exposed to a magnetic field. These alarming findings suggested that magnetic fields, in combination with certain chemicals, could contribute to breast cancer. Another laboratory conducted a similar experiment but was unable to duplicate the result and for a time there was controversy about whether EMR was really guilty of the effects that were claimed for it. The difference in the experiments of the two laboratories, it was discovered, was the genetic substrain of animals used. When the two strains of rats were exposed to magnetic fields it was found that one was more sensitive than the other. ‘These data indicate that the genetic background plays a pivotal role in the effects of MF [magnetic field] exposure,’ stated the authors.15 Even sex may be a factor in how a person responds to microwave radiation. For example, some EEG readings have shown that men and women react differently to a mobile phone signal, and so have memory tests on both sexes.16

Relates to: Relates to: Relates to: • power intensity • whether • type of exposure is polarisation continuous or (linear or intermittent circular) • time between • direction of exposure and polarisation demonstrated (left or right) effects • time between exposure and examination for effects

Polarisation

Relates to: • frequency of both the primary and carrier waves • degree of modulation in the primary signal

Length of exposure

Power

Frequency and modulation

Characteristics of signal

Experimental variables that can influence the results of EMR studies

Relates to: • form of signal (continuous or pulsed)

Signal type Relates to: • numerous factors in the laboratory environment, such as the presence of other types of EMR.

Background environment

Characteristics of study

Relates to: • age • sex • genetic differences • current state of health • individual predispositions to sensitivity • numerous changing factors such as diet, levels of antioxidants, and the rate of cell growth

Individual differences

Characteristics of subject

The Controversy  —  231

232  —  The Force

State of the body To complicate matters further, even an individual can respond to an exposure differently at different times. This is because the state of the body will vary according to health, diet, and exposure to other elements. For example, the presence of melatonin and other antioxidants can counteract the effects of radiation; similarly, the concentration of oxygen can also affect results.17 Even the stage of a cell’s growth at the time of exposure makes a difference to how it reacts. This means that microwaves are likely to have a different effect on foetuses and children, whose cells are actively growing and dividing; on adults, whose cells are relatively stable; and on people with cancer, whose cancer cells are proliferating. Frequency, power, length of exposure, polarisation, signal type, degree of modulation, background environment, the individual characteristics of the subject, including the state of their body — this is a large number of factors that needs to be taken into account in any study on the effects on EMR. And it yields an even larger number of possible combinations. If we confine ourselves just to the variables mentioned by Belyaev and don’t consider any others, there are many millions of different combinations that could potentially cause effects, as the table on the previous page indicates. This is tremendously important. It means that science is not looking for a simple relationship of cause and effect, as is often the case with a disease. Nor is it looking for a conveniently linear dose–response relationship, as might be the case with a chemical (where it is found that, for example, a little arsenic is not a problem but a lot is extremely bad news). The very fact that scientists need to take into consideration particular combinations of so many variables makes EMR enormously difficult to study. It also helps to explain why scientists have so often found apparently contradictory results, with one laboratory reporting a particular effect but another, using the same experimental design, finding none. Given that so many variables affect the way in which an organism responds to EMR, it’s important that studies take all of the obvious variables into account. However, most studies do not. Very often laboratory animals and cells are exposed to artificial signals, generated by a transmitter in order to simulate a signal from a mobile phone or powerline. Yet these don’t necessarily replicate all of the features of a real-life signal. Similarly, as we saw in Chapter 3, studies on magnetic fields have generally exposed subjects to pure sine waves, whereas in real life, people are exposed to harmonics, transients, and the other characteristics.

The Controversy  —  233

So what does it really mean when studies such as these fail to find effects? Firstly, it doesn’t mean that electromagnetic radiation is ‘safe’ — whatever the media and phone companies may say about it. All it means is that no effects were found under the conditions tested. In other words, the study showed that no effect was found for T (frequency) and U (power) over V (time) and W (polarisation) and X (background exposures) and Y (characteristics of subjects, including the state of the organism). Keep in mind, of course, that there are several million other possible combinations that could provide quite different results. Dr Belyaev’s work also shows how hard it is to replicate an initial experiment. If a second study fails to replicate every condition of the original study, then it may well produce different results. In modern science, where replicating a study is considered necessary to prove its results, the importance of replicating the exact conditions cannot be overstated. But, according to Belyaev, only a handful of studies into this topic have done so properly. He argues that many so-called replications are not replications at all because they fail to adequately reproduce the conditions of the original study.18 As Professor Franz Adlkofer notes, ‘Negative outcomes of replication studies do not constitute proof that the findings of the original studies are wrong.’19 With a number of variables and millions of possible combinations of variables, the task of identifying the health effects of EMR is difficult. To examine them all is, of course, impossible; even to examine even a small percentage would be a labour of epic proportions. This means we may never know the full extent to which radiation impacts on our bodies. And we need to accept precisely this fact: that we don’t know the full effects of EMR, and therefore should not draw false comfort from studies with null results. As Socrates said: ‘Wisdom is to know that you do not know.’

Money talks: the economics of politics ‘Quite justifiably, the public remains sceptical of attempts at reassurance by government and industry, particularly given the unethical way in which they often operate symbiotically so as to promote vested interests, often under the brokerage of the regulatory bodies whose function it supposedly is to ensure that the safety of the public is not compromised by electromagnetic exposure.’ — Dr Gerard Hyland

The communications industry is one of the most profitable in the global economy. In 2010, the revenue from the worldwide telecommunications

234  —  The Force

industry was just under US$1.9 trillion and it is expected to reach US$3.7 trillion by 2015.20 One of the key beneficiaries of the industry are governments, who profit from the sale of spectrum and annual licence fees. The political reality is that governments in many countries have put into place legislation that gives telecommunications companies immunity from state and local government planning legislation. All carriers have to do is comply with an irrelevant standard and they can roll out their technology to their hearts’ content. Such governments have made it illegal or legally impossible to challenge technology on health grounds, so that people who have health concerns or want to protect their families from base station radiation have no legal recourse whatsoever. Such governments have allowed industry and industry-paid representatives to participate in standards-setting committees and those that distribute research funding. In addition, the international committees that review the science and develop the standards — the ones that write the figurative book on EMR — comprising scientists paid by governments who do not want to curtail their very profitable source of revenue. Can we really expect such committees to find evidence that modern technology is unsafe? Can we really expect governments to take public health concerns seriously? Can we really expect them to back research that might find evidence that this lucrative technology is harmful? In fact, wherever you look behind the scenes on this issue, you’ll see the far-reaching tentacles of industry influence. In Australia as in many other countries, industry plays a formative role in the development of every key initiative. Until recently, telecommunications company Motorola was represented on the national committee that allocated funds for EMR research. There was strong industry representation on the committees for the development of the code of practice regarding the siting of mobile phone base stations and the standards governing powerlines and telecommunications. Industry giant Telstra has been a partner in the national EMR research consortium, where virtually all of Australia’s research funding has been poured, and this may continue into the future. On the world stage, the situation is little different. The organisation that is held to be the ultimate authority on EMR and health — whose publications are the Bible of every government and industry, whose guidelines are the basis of international standards — is the World Health Organization (WHO). It is the WHO which has established the paradigms that influence the way scientists view this issue. This prestigious international authority has seduced a generation of administrators and effectively swayed public

The Controversy  —  235

opinion on EMR. ‘According to the World Health Organization…’, we read in publications and on websites around the world, as if the views of this organisation are irrefutable fact. The founder and, until recently, director of the EMF Project at WHO was Australian physicist Dr Michael Repacholi. Repacholi established the project in the mid-1990s to review the science, identify areas for new research, publish information, and make recommendations to national authorities. However, behind the project’s credible façade lies the significant fact that a large proportion of its funding has come from the telecommunications industry. According to the editor of Microwave News, Louis Slesin, who has reported on the EMR issue for many years, the Mobile Manufacturers Forum backed the project to the significant tune of US$150,000 per year. However, rather than pay this amount directly to the WHO, it was paid to the Royal Adelaide Hospital in Australia, where Repacholi had previously worked, which then transferred it to the WHO.21 Decide for yourself whether you think this is an open and transparent process independent of industry influence. Research is not a clean game when vested interests are involved. Esteemed epidemiologist Dr John Goldsmith wrote in 1995: There are strong political and economic reasons for wanting there to be no health effect of RF/MW exposure, just as there are strong public health reasons for more accurately portraying the risks. Those of us who intend to speak for public health must be ready for opposition that is nominally, but not truly, scientific.22 Until governments insist that genuinely independent scientists conduct the research — funded by telecommunications companies, but with funds allocated by independent panels that have representation from a variety of bodies — science will continue to be a political game, played for economic profit rather than the pursuit of knowledge and the benefit of humanity.

Money talks: the economics of science ‘Open declaration of any potential conflict of interest should be mandatory when any so-called expert source provides its opinion.’ — Dr Vini Khurana

Much of the research on microwave radiation and health has been funded by the telecommunications industry itself. In some cases, companies have

236  —  The Force

commissioned research themselves. Until recently, one of the key players into research on EMR was corporate giant Motorola, which, from the early 1990s, initiated studies and sponsored selected scientists to conduct them in America, Australia, Asia, and Europe. A list of the research it has sponsored appears on its website.23 As the industry has matured, the role of sponsoring research has been assumed by industry organisations. For example, during the 1990s the CTIA Wireless Association, an international association of the wireless industry, sponsored US$27 million worth of research on mobile phones. The Mobile Manufacturers Forum, an international association of manufacturers of wireless equipment, has sponsored major research projects, including those by the WHO and the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection.24 There is little doubt that industry funding of science can influence the outcome of that research; this has already been demonstrated in relation to other industries. Richard Smith, editor of the British Medical Journal, conducted a review of nearly 200 medical articles. He showed that the vast majority which failed to find harmful effects from a particular drug or tobacco were funded by the industries who produced them. ‘Almost all funding comes with strings attached,’ said US Professor Hurst Hannom. ‘At a minimum the recipient must be accountable for how grants are spent. At a maximum, the recipient must deliver a particular product that is acceptable to the donor.’25 Similarly, an April 2001 editorial in The Lancet contained a damning indictment of drug companies and the way in which they have manipulated scientific research: Efforts by drug companies to suppress, spin, and obfuscate findings that do not suit their commercial purposes were first revealed to their full, lethal extent during the thalidomide tragedy … The issue at stake … is the relation between a company that is sponsoring a study in some way and the investigators … In addition, the sponsor’s role in interpreting data, writing the report, or publishing the paper is far from clear, leaving a damaging ambiguity over the entire research process.26 These criticisms might equally be applied to the telecommunications industry. In 2006, a Swiss team conducted one of the first surveys to look at the link between sponsorship and research outcomes in relation to studies on mobile phone radiation. The authors found that studies funded

The Controversy  —  237

entirely by the mobile phone industry were less likely to report statistically significant effects than studies funded from mixed sources. Unfortunately, not all of the studies they examined disclosed the source of their funding. The authors of the Swiss survey concluded that it is important to take sponsorship into account when interpreting the results of mobile phone studies.27 Some months later, a Swedish research team commented publicly on the ‘secret’ relationship between industry and cancer research. ‘Some consulting firms employ university researchers for industry work, thereby disguising industry links in the income of large departments,’ they said. ‘Furthermore, there is reason to suspect that editors and journal staff may suppress publication of scientific results that are adverse to industry owing to internal conflict of interest between editorial integrity and business needs.’28 Dr Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News, and Dr Henry Lai, from the University of Washington, conducted their own review on the relationship between industry funding and scientific outcomes. They found that approximately 50 per cent of studies about the effects of microwaves on DNA published since 1990 had found statistically significant effects and approximately 50 per cent had not. Approximately 76 per cent of the studies that did not find any effects were sponsored by the mobile phone industry and/or the US Air Force. When they looked at the independently funded studies only, the picture was vastly different: the majority of these found statistically significant effects on DNA. In their research, Slesin and Lai observed another interesting phenomenon. Since 1990, the journal Radiation Research had primarily published studies that found no effects on DNA, most of which were sponsored by either the industry or the US Air Force. By interesting coincidence, industry consultant Dr John Moulder became an editor of the journal in 1991.29 Slesin and Lai are not the only ones to have observed bias in industry-funded research. Steward Fist, a former science and technology writer in Australia, maintained a list of mobile phone research on his website during the 1990s. ‘I have no reservations whatsoever,’ he said in 1999, ‘in claiming the cell phone industry has manipulated scientific evidence in the same blatant way the tobacco industry did for many years.’30 So how has the telecommunications industry influenced the science on health? There have been studies constructed to find no effects. Studies that

238  —  The Force

have found effects have been challenged by poor-quality, industry-funded studies that have found no effects. Studies that have found effects have had publication delayed, and then been released to a chorus of media song that downplayed the results. Former industry insider Dr George Carlo has spoken publicly about industry’s manipulation of mobile phone research. Carlo, who was the chairman of the industry-funded Wireless Technology Research (WTR) program, said in 1999: Alarmingly, indications are that some segments of the industry have ignored the scientific findings suggesting potential health effects, have repeatedly and falsely claimed that wireless phones are safe for all consumers including children, and have created an illusion of responsible follow-up by calling for and supporting more research. The most important measures of consumer protection are missing: complete and honest factual information to allow informed judgement by consumers about assumption of risk; the direct tracking and monitoring of what happens to consumers who use wireless phones; and the monitoring of changes in the technology that could impact health.31 It’s not just the mobile phone industry that has downplayed the health risks of EMR. In the 1970s and early 1980s, during the first phase of Western research on the effects of EMR from power sources, this manipulation was rife — particularly in the United States — and this set the tone for countries around the world from then on. In his book Currents of Death, US journalist Paul Brodeur examined a report about EMR in the naval defence system, which was suppressed by naval administrators. It alleged committee-stacking, the writing of unbalanced official reports, and attempts to discredit researchers who had found adverse health effects from EMR or spoken publicly about risks; and that military agencies had employed dubious tactics in establishing electromagnetic defence systems.32

The cost of telling the truth ‘For the future I would like to propose to governments and likewise to ensure that scientists dealing with new, provocative research, even with a great impact on the general economy, should be given a “safety net”, i.e. their personal situation, their career possibilities, et cetera, must be protected and

The Controversy  —  239 not in any way hampered by the fact that they deal with the “wrong” kind of scientific field. How, otherwise, would you find future young scientists wanting to throw away all their personal possibilities?’ — Dr Olle Johansson

On 5 March 1997, senator Richard Alston, then Australian federal minister of communications, used parliamentary privilege to launch a scathing and slanderous attack on world-renowned scientist Dr Neil Cherry, who was currently visiting the country. ‘This bloke is a charlatan,’ Alston said. ‘His biographical details start off with mindless and irrelevant gobbledygook … This man is a rabid populist and totally uninterested in any considered scientific debate. His remarks are highly inflammatory … a snake-oil merchant … ‘We want sensible discussion on a scientific basis, not emotionally nonsense that will simply mislead people…’33 What provoked the minister’s defamatory assault? On 4 March, Cherry had addressed a local government conference in Sydney about the scientific evidence of risk from low levels of radiation emanating from communications technology. During his talk, he said that there was enough evidence to show that exposures as low as 0.01 to 2 µW/cm2, which could be found in residential areas near mobile phone base stations, were associated with ‘leukaemia, especially in children, miscarriage, sleep disruption, chronic fatigue syndrome, blood pressure change, impaired immune system and allergy symptoms, brain function change, scholastic impairment of children, aches and pains.’34 Slightly higher occupational exposures of 1 to 10 µW/cm2, he said, were associated with ‘increased incidence of leukaemia, brain cancer, skin cancer, eye cancer, lung cancer, testicular cancer, breast cancer, digestive system cancer, CNS tumours, cancer in offspring, miscarriage, birth defects … changes in blood factors … headache, fatigue.’ Moreover, there was already enough evidence for EMR to be considered carcinogenic, Cherry told the audience, referring to studies that had found higher cancer rates among those living around television and radio antennas, among irradiated embassy workers and radio operators, and in studies which had found DNA breaks in the brains of rats that had been exposed to EMR. ‘Three good studies with confirming animal experiments and/or a plausible biological mechanism is sufficient for classification as a highly probably carcinogen, Class B1, according to the US EPA,’ he said.35

240  —  The Force

Cherry was, in fact, well qualified to make these remarks. The biographical gobbledygook to which Alston referred was impressive academic credentials. Cherry was a physicist, trained in electricity and magnetism, radiation physics, the effects of microwaves on the physical properties of crystals, and the use of pulsed microwaves. He was a senior lecturer at Lincoln University, and his knowledge and experience had been called upon by the World Bank and the governments of the Netherlands, Sri Lanka, and the United States. He received no remuneration for his research into EMR and could not, therefore, be bought or easily influenced. Dr Neil Cherry is just one of the whistleblowers who have found, to their immense cost, that telling the truth about the effects of EMR does not necessarily make one popular with the powers that be. There are many other scientists who have found evidence that EMR could be harmful and have also come under attack in some way or other for these findings. Beginning in the late 1990s, Dr Gerard Hyland, a professor of physics at the University of Warwick in the United Kingdom, published a series of papers that challenged official thinking about the safety of telecommunications networks and pointed out some of its risks. In March 2001, Dr Hyland presented a paper to the European Parliament in which he described artificial electromagnetic radiation as ‘a major contemporary threat to the health of society’ and warned that ‘Existing safety guidelines … afford no protection against the frequency-specific effects’ that science has identified. The human being is an electrical organism, Hyland believes, and operates using electrical signals, ‘some of which happen to be close to those used in GSM!’36 The frequencies he found to be particularly ‘bio-active’ were 900 and 1800 MHz, and 8.34 Hz and 2 Hz of Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) transmissions. (TDMA is a type of digital transmission in which many people can connect to the one frequency, each using a particular time-slot.) Pointing to a large body of research, Hyland drew the conclusion that even low-power signals from mobile phone base stations were a health risk, and that children were more vulnerable to the effects of EMR. Hyland certainly made an impact on the official bureaucracy, but perhaps not the sort that he might have envisaged. In November 2001, the European committee COST Action 218 issued a ten-page statement in which they accused Dr Hyland’s work of being arbitrary, misleading, inconsistent, unbalanced, unfactual, unscientific, and reflecting a misunderstanding scientific papers.37 These are rather serious accusations to level at a respected doctor of physics, a university professor, and an executive member of the International Institute of Biophysics.

The Controversy  —  241

Was it justified? Not according to Dr Hyland. In a response to the report, he wrote: The COST paper is an ill-considered, deliberate attempt to misrepresent and distort the sense of my text by means of many untruths and inaccuracies — often attributing to me erroneous statements that appear nowhere in my text — their intention clearly being to undermine the integrity of my work and minimise its impact, in the hope that it will either be dismissed out of hand or left unread. The whole tenor of their response betrays the hallmark of a panic, rear-guard action to attempt to maintain the (industry-beneficial) status quo.38 Doctors Henry Lai and Narendra Singh, as we saw in Chapter 7, made the important discovery that microwave radiation causes breaks in single and double strands of DNA — a discovery which suggests that it could potentially contribute to both cancer and neurodegenerative disease. Motorola responded with an elaborate strategy to ‘wargame’ their research before it was even published, and financed research which produced contradictory results to cast a mantle of confusion over the discovery. In 2001, an Australian scientist working at Flinders University in South Australia conducted a small pilot study funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), a national funding body with a Motorola representative. Dr Pam Sykes exposed mice to a mobile phone signal for 25 days and then examined the effects on their spleens. Sykes had expected to find that exposure would increase the number of DNA breaks in the exposed mice. The study did not support this finding, but it did find an effect on DNA, albeit a slightly protective one.39 The fact that mobile phones were affecting DNA at all was extremely important and might have merited more investigation. However, the NHMRC did not give Sykes the funding she applied for to conduct a follow-up study. Among the many casualties who have lost their all-important research funding are Dr Robert Becker, who brought the risks of magnetic fields from powerlines to public attention; Dr Jerry Phillips, who found that genetic damage can be linked to mobile phone radiation; Dr Olle Johansson, who found that extremely small levels of radiation can affect the skin; Dr Om Ghandi, who showed that children’s heads absorb more radiation than adults’; and Dr Ross Adey, who found tumours in

242  —  The Force

rodents exposed to EMR. It’s the brave researcher who is willing to risk funding, career, and reputation on telling the truth. In 1997, the results of an Australian study into mobile phone radiation were announced. The study found an increased rate of lymphomas among mice exposed to a mobile phone signal. Richard Alston, minister for communications, responded to the findings in Parliament by remarking, ‘I think about the most one can say at this stage is that if there are mice in the community who are genetically predisposed to developing lymphoma they would be well advised not to use mobile phones.’40

Public relations paradigms Science may not have proven the safety of mobile phone and other EMRemitting technologies, but that hasn’t stopped five billion people worldwide from holding radiating devices next to their brains day after day. The penetration of this technology — literally and figuratively — is nothing short of amazing, and we have to wonder how something so potentially dangerous could be so widely and unquestioningly embraced. The answer lies, to a large extent, in the paradigms and carefully crafted wording that is used by international authorities to imply safety.

The heating paradigm ‘The safety standard assumes that EMF causes biological damage only by heating, but cell damage occurs in the absence of heating and well below the safety limits.’ — Dr Martin Blank

We are often told that the only health effect from telecommunications radiation that we have to worry about is from increase in body temperature of 1 degree Celsius or more. This well-worn assurance is the ‘flat Earth paradigm’ of modern science — outdated, outmoded, and demonstrably untrue. There are multiple ways in which EMR can cause serious problems without heating the body. As we’ve seen, it causes changes to cells and hormones that are consistent with cancer, and it has been linked to genetic damage. It can lower melatonin, thereby reducing the body’s protection against cancer; react with iron to create hydroxy free radicals; and activate the release of heat-shock proteins which, over time, can cause cancer. It can lower immunity and trigger allergic responses.

The Controversy  —  243

From every quarter of the globe scientists, communities, and some public authorities are calling for new standards to protect against worrying biological effects such as these. Setting standards to protect only against heating, or thermal, effects of EMR ensures that the standards are utterly irrelevant for individuals who are continuously exposed to low levels of radiation.

‘No consistent scientific evidence of harm’ Statements such as that there is ‘no evidence of risk’ at levels of radiation below international standards are misleading and, of course, untrue. There is abundant evidence from hundreds of studies of risks from exposure levels below international standards. To reiterate: it’s been shown to cause changes in cells and hormones consistent with cancer, reduce the protective effects of melatonin, create potent free radicals, trigger the release of heat shock proteins that can cause cancer, reduce immunity, and trigger allergic reactions, and it has been linked to genetic damage. In order to undermine these discoveries, the phrase ‘no consistent scientific evidence’ is often used. This gives the user a convenient escape clause with which to cast doubt on the studies that have found effects, and to imply that a null-effect finding means that radiation-emitting technologies must be safe. However, when a study finds ‘no evidence’ of risk it does not mean that the technology is safe and we can use it with impunity — rather, it means that, in using a particular study design and a particular set of conditions, scientists did not observe any effects. As we discussed earlier in this chapter, changing any of the parameters of the study may have changed the outcome. There is also the question of when is a negative study should really be counted a negative study. Among the research that has reported no statistically significant effects from EMR are studies that have found no increased risk of brain tumour among people who have used mobile phones for less than ten years. However, it is known that tumours can take ten to 40 years to show up, so attempts to look for malignant tumours before that time could be said to be doomed to failure. (By contrast, many studies that have examined brain tumours in mobile phone users of ten years or more have found an increased risk.) It’s a bit like testing a group of teenagers for characteristics of old age. The fact that no effects are observed at present does not mean that will be the case further down the track. It does not mean that people can use mobile phones with impunity any more than it means that teenagers are immortal.

244  —  The Force

‘The weight of international evidence’ The phrase ‘the weight of international evidence’ suggests that there are no demonstrated adverse impacts of radiation-emitting technologies. This is a variation of the ‘no consistent evidence’ theme and implies that there is less evidence that EMR is harmful than there is that it is not. This technique cleverly manipulates the concepts of numerical supremacy, statistics, and probability to give the impression of safety. But it does not mean that EMR is safe, for two reasons. Firstly, even if it were true that the balance is tipped in favour of the studies showing no effects, we have already seen that such a finding does not mean that EMR is safe. It leaves wide open the possibility that other combinations of variables could be harmful. Secondly, we need to consider the fact that all studies don’t have equal credibility: if we take off the scales the industry-funded studies, then suddenly the balance starts to shift. When it comes to the independently funded studies, the ‘weight of international evidence’ is firmly on the side of risk.

Burden of proof According to various international authorities, there is ‘no conclusive proof’ that EMR ‘causes’ any health problems. Nor are there ‘substantiated’ effects from exposure. This is not because we lack evidence that the radiation is harmful, but because the burden of establishing proof relies on fulfilling some onerous requirements.

Replication The first such requirement is that studies must be replicated in order to validate their findings. In other words, studies which have found effects but have not been replicated are often not considered reliable. However, this very common-sense approach has some practical limitations when it comes to EMR. As we’ve already seen, there are a large number of variables that scientists need to take into account in laboratory studies. Not all authors bother to mention all of the variables they used in their study, and not many studies manage to replicate the conditions of the original experiment exactly. So it is no wonder they often find different results. And needless to say, it’s not always easy to replicate some studies. ‘How do you replicate 25 years of military radar exposure on 1 million servicemen?’ Neil Cherry once commented. ‘Replicating epidemiological studies is a nonsense. We look for patterns of effects from similar studies which are backed by biological mechanisms.’41

The Controversy  —  245

If studies that aim to replicate another are conducted in a different way and therefore find different results, the replicated findings are sometimes used inappropriately to discredit the findings of the original study. When Henry Lai found genetic damage in the brains of rats exposed to microwave radiation, Motorola commissioned Dr Joseph Roti Roti to conduct a similar experiment. Roti Roti used a less-sensitive measuring technique and failed to observe an effect on DNA. This was used to cast doubt on Lai’s findings. Since that time, other researchers have found supporting evidence that EMR causes genetic damage.

Laboratory evidence ‘Ordinary citizens differ from rats chiefly in that the latter are used in shortterm experiments and the former in longer-term ones.’ — Dr Helene Irvine

In order for the political arm of science to prove that a health problem is real, it requires supportive evidence from studies on animals and cells. We are often told that there is ‘no support from laboratory studies’ and this phrase is used to undermine the reliability of effects that have been seen in the real world. In other words, if people are getting sick and rats aren’t, then there must be something wrong with our observation that people are getting sick. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the debate surrounding childhood leukaemia. Since 1979, studies have repeatedly found a higher rate of leukaemia among children exposed to magnetic fields of 4 mG or more. Even so, this was not enough to prove that magnetic fields caused leukaemia, and so in order to test the findings of the field studies scientists turned their attention to the petri dish and cages of rodents. However, not all of these unwilling subjects developing the expected symptoms, and science was left with an apparent contradiction: children were getting sick but rats were not. When the International Agency for Research on Cancer considered the carcinogenicity of magnetic fields in 2002, it decided to classify them as ‘possibly carcinogenic to humans’ based on lack of confirmation from animal experiments as to their carcinogenic properties. Had this evidence been in place, these magnetic fields would have qualified for the classification of ‘probably carcinogenic’. Ever since then, those who set the national and international standards have downplayed the effects of the childhood leukaemia studies, referring to them as ‘unconvincing’.

246  —  The Force

To resolve any apparent contradiction between the laboratory studies and real life, we need only to look at the source of exposure. Children living near powerlines are exposed to actual fields that reflect the behaviour of electricity along the line. There are spikes and transients in the signal that come from equipment being turned on or off upstream; there are high-frequency signals that are conducted along the lines, creating what’s often referred to as ‘dirty’ electricity. In contrast, many cells and laboratory animals are exposed to a clean, artificially generated field without the characteristics of a powerline that has seen hundreds of kilometres of activity. It is no wonder that the effects are different.

Finding mechanisms If EMR is really contributing to health problems, then science demands to know exactly how it is doing so. For, in the hallowed halls of higher learning, an effect is not an effect until it can be explained. Never mind that smoking was known to cause lung cancer before we knew how it did so; never mind that gravity was accepted for thousands of years before Newton gave it a name. Today’s administrators want proof, and proof must come in the form of a mechanism — in other words, a scientific explanation for how the effects occur. There are ‘no accepted biophysical mechanisms’ that could explain how EMR causes health problems, say the authorities. In other words, for an effect to be real, it must be understood. Scientists already understand how a great many effects take place. As we’ve seen, EMR has been found to create changes in cells and hormones consistent with cancer and to influence genetic damage, among a whole host of other problems. However, none of these possible mechanisms has a chance of being accepted as long as the official view is based upon that outdated belief that only the heating effects of radiation can cause us problems. Clearly, much more work remains to clarify the full story of EMR’s effects on the body, but in the meantime lack of understanding should not give us grounds for dismissing them. Does EMR cause health problems? We still don’t have a definite answer. We don’t know conclusively whether it’s a long-term carcinogen, whether it contributes to disease, or whether it just affects vulnerable people. But we do know there’s abundant evidence of risk, that international standards do not protect us from these levels of risk, and that outdated approaches to the science are hampering the search for truth. To find the

The Controversy  —  247

answers that all of us as exposed guinea pigs deserve, we need a new approach. We need an open, independent, and honest appraisal of the science — not just from a few brave individuals who have risked their careers and reputations, but from the international authorities who call the shots on this issue by setting the standards for EMR exposure and the many administrators who implement them.

Living Safely With Electromagnetic Radiation

Chapter 11

Reducing Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation

‘Resolution of the problem of global electromagnetic pollution of the environment will require a concerted international effort. However, as individuals we have some control over the electromagnetic devices that we use every day.’ — Dr Robert Becker

In less than a generation, our homes and workplaces have become host to an array of electronic equipment that earlier generations might have considered wizardry. There are electronic gadgets to help you wake up in the morning, change the television channel, brush your teeth, cook your food, wash your dishes, open the garage door, and navigate your car. There is technology to help us read the daily news, locate information, acquire educational skills, connect to other people, and perform most work-related functions. In fact, there are few areas of life in which technology has not carved a niche. No matter where you live or what you do, it’s likely that you’re in close contact with EMR-emitting technology for much of your day. If you have a cordless phone, sleep on an electric blanket, or use a mobile phone as an alarm clock, you’re exposed as you sleep. If you use a 251

252  —  The Force

computer, a mobile phone, or electronic equipment in your job, you’re exposed as you work. If you catch a bus or train or drive to work, or occasionally catch a plane, then you’re exposed as you travel. There is no doubt that this technology has brought great benefits. It allows us to accomplish huge volumes of work easily or automatically, and in greater comfort. But it has also changed the nature of our living and working environments. The technology in our homes and workplaces all emits invisible electromagnetic waves that spread, like ripples in a pond, into areas where we spend time. For the first time in history, we are living in an artificial web of biologically active radiation. We know that it affects our bodies and our minds, even if the impact of these effects is still under dispute. We know that children are more vulnerable because their cells are rapidly growing and dividing and their brains are still developing. We know that the effects are cumulative and will not be fully understood for decades, if not generations, to come. In the meantime, we face the challenge of balancing the benefits of technology with the risks — of navigating our way through the currents of life without being either becalmed or swamped by them. International authorities almost universally recommend the ‘precautionary approach’ of avoiding unnecessary exposure where possible. Yet exactly what constitutes sensible precautions is largely left for us to decide. Each of us therefore faces a decision about how much exposure to accept and how to create the safest possible environment. It’s a choice for individuals, parents, and administrators. It requires us to know just what we’re exposed to and what we can do about it.

Identifying your exposure The first step in creating a safer living or working environment is to identify your existing exposure. Measuring is the most reliable way to do this and, to make the process easy, I have put together a Total Safety Kit, with a gauss meter, a high-frequency meter, and detailed support material; it is available from my website, www.emraustralia.com.au. You can also book an EMR assessment of your property. Either way, there are some things you should make sure you know first. 1. Use the right equipment For powerlines and electrical equipment you will need a meter or meters that measure both electric and magnetic fields. (A magnetic field meter is often referred to as a gauss meter because it measures fields in

Reducing Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation   —  253

milligauss.) Most meters and many EMF assessors measure only the magnetic field. While this is the field that has been most heavily researched, there is evidence that the electric field is also affecting people’s health. For wireless equipment, such as cordless phones, mobile phones, wi-fi computer networks, and mobile phone base stations, you will need a high-frequency meter. 2. Find out what ‘safe’ and ‘dangerous’ really mean. Sometimes a caller will tell me that an assessor has measured fields in their home and pronounced them ‘safe’ and yet the caller, not knowing the measurements, remains concerned. Others report that measured fields were classified as ‘very high’, and were told that reducing them necessitated the purchase of some very expensive product. Beware of assessors who tell who tell you that a certain reading or range of readings is ‘safe’ or ‘dangerous’. There is no consensus on what level of exposure is safe, so this judgement only represents someone’s opinion. Where an assessor has a product to sell, he or she has a vested interest in finding a problem in your home. You will need to decide for yourself what level of exposure is appropriate for you and your family. Do your homework and decide what exposure levels are acceptable to you. It might be useful to keep a diary of your exposures over a period of time, particularly if you engage in different sorts of activities in different areas of your workplace. 3. Decide the best time to conduct measurements. You will probably want to know the highest readings, so the best time to measure the electric and magnetic fields in your home or business is when there is most current flowing in the power grid. In your house, that usually means when you and your neighbours are home and using electrical appliances; for example, watching television or running an air conditioner. In your business, this usually means when your staff are at their desks and using equipment such as computers and printers. 4. Ask about an assessor’s qualifications. As anyone can purchase a meter and take readings, there are people who offer an EMR-measuring service when they are in no way qualified to do so. I’ve had contact with people calling themselves consultants who clearly did not know the first thing about electromagnetic fields, but were selling some product that allegedly helped to reduce exposure. If you book someone to measure your home, make sure it is a professional who

254  —  The Force

is qualified to give technical advice — preferably an electrical engineer. Be cautious about engaging people who have vested interests such as electrical utilities or people with products to sell. A suitably qualified professional may also be able to offer you helpful suggestions about how to solve problems caused by high fields. Having identified your exposure at home or work, the next step is to decide what to do about it. How much precaution you decide to take will depend entirely on you — your level of sensitivity and, perhaps, the other exposures in your life. Because childhood leukaemia has been connected with exposures of just 2 to 4 milligauss (mG), many parents decide to keep exposures in their home below this figure where they can. To help you with these decisions, I’ve provided a handy reference guide to reducing exposure at the end of this chapter. However, it may first be helpful to look at some typical exposures in the home and workplace.

Exposure at home You are exposed to electromagnetic fields every time you turn on an appliance, sleep near a digital alarm clock, walk beneath a powerline, or travel in a car. Realistically, many of these exposures are unlikely to be of consequence to your health and wellbeing, especially if they are brief; for example, using a hairdryer or an electric razor in the morning. The real concern is how much time people spend in high fields. A number of studies have addressed the question of how much exposure people typically receive. Of course, exposure can vary greatly according to your occupation and location. One German study, conducted between 1996 and 1997, involved nearly 2000 volunteers and measured their exposure over a 24-hour period. The researchers found that the average was 1 mG, with only a marginal difference in exposure during summer and winter, and the highest exposures occurring at work.1 In 1998, Dr Luciano Zaffanella surveyed 1000 people in the United States to ascertain their exposure in a typical day. He found that: • over 3 per cent were exposed to over 2 mG at school • over 26 per cent spent more than one hour in fields over 4 mG • over 14 percent were exposed all day to an average of over 2 mG • over 9 per cent spend more than one hour in fields over 8 mG • about 1.6 per cent were exposed to at least 1000 mG • highest exposures occurred at work, especially among electrical and service workers, including cooks, housekeepers, police, prison guards, and waiters

Reducing Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation   —  255

•

lowest exposures occurred at night while sleeping.2 Dr Kosei Moriyama measured magnetic fields at 696 locations in a Japanese apartment building. He found levels of more than 4 mG in 24 per cent of the living space, and considerably more in some areas: ‘We showed that the wiring for only two 100W ceiling-mounted lamps caused ELF-MFs up to 1.8 μT [18 mG] in large areas of adjacent living space.’ Moriyama ascertained that the electrical wiring for these ceiling-mounted lamps was running underneath the flooring of the above apartments. This had the potential to affect people living above as many people in the apartment block, according to the authors, did not sleep on beds but on the floor itself. Moreover, the fields were outside the affected occupants’ control because the wiring was connected to the apartments below.3 Most in-home measurements to date have focused on fields from electrical sources. However, with the uptake of wireless technologies homes are host to increasing amounts of high-frequency radiation. It is emitted by cordless and mobile phones, wireless internet connections, bluetooth enabled technology, remote controls, game consoles, weather stations, and countless other gadgets. Scientist Johannes Tomitsch took measurements in 226 Austrian homes to evaluate the full range of EMR in the home. He found that the highest electric fields came from bedside lamps, which measured up to 166 volts per metre (V/m), and the highest magnetic fields were from transformers, which measured up to 10.3 mG. (Although it’s not unusual for transformers to measure over 1000 mG at the surface.) RF fields above 1000 µW/m2 were found in more than 7 per cent of homes. The main contributors were DECT base stations (which measured up to a massive 28 979 µW/m2) and mobile phone base stations (which measured up to 4872 µW/m2).

Exposure at work Today as never before, the workplace is abuzz with radiating electromagnetic equipment. No matter what your occupation, you are likely to be exposed to EMR in some form or other — in virtually every business the story is the same. From the managing director with her mobile phone, PDA, and laptop, to the cleaner with his vacuum cleaner strapped to his back, all tiers of the workforce depend on electric and electronic equipment. No industry is exempt. Retail stores host barcode scanners, computerised cash registers, electronic anti-theft pedestals, security cameras, and banks of fluorescent lights. Automotive workshops have heat-sealing

256  —  The Force

equipment that emits radiofrequency radiation; libraries have degaussers that emit magnetic fields. Drivers are exposed to fields from vehicles; hairdressers to fields from dryers; electricians to fields from powerlines; welders to high magnetic fields from welding devices and other equipment. Even schools have become hot spots due to the introduction of wireless laptops. A person’s exposure is the sum of the fields in their environment. It comprises the fields they receive from their workstation; their neighbour’s workstation; underfloor cables; lighting; nearby equipment such as transformers, switchboards, or lifts; mobile or cordless phones; and perhaps even a base station on a building opposite. Don’t assume that just because you don’t work in an electrical occupation that you aren’t exposed.

Exposure in different occupations Various surveys have attempted to capture the exposures of people in different occupations and record average fields measured at a particular period in time. Some of these results are summarised below and in the table on page 255. As you read them, keep in mind that exposures at work vary dramatically, not only from one profession to another, but even among people employed in the same job — in fact, from one workstation to another. They also vary over time. As more EMR-emitting technologies enter the workplace, exposures change, and so measurements recorded in the past are likely to underestimate exposure. The only way to accurately gauge your exposure at work is to take measurements in locations where you or your workers spend time. Please keep in mind that the following information about exposures in the selected occupations is intended as a guide only and should not replace a proper assessment of your workplace. Cashier roles Cashiers, unlike retail assistants, are one of the more highly exposed groups of workers, with fields of around 4.5 mG. Whereas retail assistants do not necessarily operate any electronic equipment, cashiers are exposed to fields from electrical equipment such as computers and scanners. Female workers To find out the fields to which female workers are typically exposed, a US study asked 238 women to wear a meter that measured electromagnetic fields as they worked. The highest measurements, averaging 2.6 mG, were recorded in manufacturing and industrial jobs; the lowest, around

Reducing Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation   —  257

1 mG, were recorded by teachers, nurses, health technicians, and school administrators.4 Another study found that the occupations typically held by women with the highest levels of exposure included bakers, cashiers, cooks, kitchen workers, electronics workers, and sewing-machine operators.5

Hospital staff Scientists from the department of anaesthesiology at Yonsei University College of Medicine measured electromagnetic fields in 19 operating theatres in a Korean hospital. Average fields were 1 to 2.2 mG at the place where the anaesthesiologists stood during an operation. Even though the fields were far below international exposure levels, researchers recommended that ‘anesthesiologists should consider making an effort to improve their environment and reduce their exposure’.6 Several studies have found that nurses were exposed on average to 1 to 1.3 mG.7 While these fields appear to be quite low, they don’t take into account exposure from high-frequency sources. Night-shift workers People who work night shifts are exposed to electromagnetic fields in the form of artificial light. Continuous exposure to the blue–green wavelengths within white light have been shown to disturb the function of the pineal gland, responsible for producing melatonin. Shift work that disturbs the body’s natural rhythms has been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as ‘probably carcinogenic’.8 Police and emergency services workers In the United Kingdom, police and emergency services have been using the TETRA (Terrestrial Trunked Radio) communications system since 1999. There has been controversy about its safety since its introduction. Both users of the handsets and people living near antennas have reported symptoms, and there are claims that it has contributed to cancers.9 The system operates using 17.6 hertz (Hz), which is close to beta brainwave signals of 16 Hz. There is also some evidence that radar guns may produce dangerous levels of radiation. For further information, see also ‘Radar guns’ in the A–Z guide at the end of this chapter. Teachers and students Teachers are usually considered to have one of the lowest occupational exposures to electromagnetic fields — in one study, magnetic fields of less

258  —  The Force

than 1 mG were measured.10 However, in a recent study conducted in the United States, high rates of cancer were reported among staff in a school located close to powerlines where dirty electricity had been detected.11 In addition, the installation of wireless computer networks in schools is creating hot spots of exposure for students and teachers, and some are reporting uncomfortable reactions. In light of recommendations by various international authorities to reduce children’s exposure to mobile phone radiation, use of mobile phones at school or for homework is not recommended.

Welding Welding uses high electrical currents and produces very high magnetic fields near welding-machine cables and electrodes. Measurements carried out for the United Kingdom’s Health and Safety Executive found fields of 4000 mG (for arc welding) and 40,000 mG (for resistance welding) close to the welder’s body. Fields of 50,000 mG were measured at the welding cable. These extraordinarily high fields exceeded limits in the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. The report recommended that welders keep a distance from the cable and avoid the common practice of draping it over their shoulder as they work.12 Perhaps not surprisingly, a study of Swedish workers found that arc welders had a higher risk of tumours of the endocrine glands.13 The US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) compiled information about the exposures that workers received in a variety of occupations. These are summarised in the table on the opposite page. Most of the measurements were taken at the worker’s location, though some were taken at fixed distances from the equipment (as indicated in the third column). In some cases, the investigator took a series of measurements at different locations in the room. In the table, these are referred to as ‘walk-through’ surveys.

Reducing Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation   —  259

EMF measurements during a workday ELF magnetic fields measured in mG Industry and occupation Median for

Range for 90%

occupations* of workers** ELECTRICAL WORKERS IN VARIOUS INDUSTRIES Electrical engineers 1.7 0.5–12.0 Construction electricians 3.1 1.6–12.1 Television repairers 4.3 0.6–8.6 Welders 9.5 1.4–66.1 ELECTRIC UTILITIES Clerical workers without computers 0.5 0.2–2.0 Clerical workers with computers 1.2 0.5–4.5 Line workers 2.5 0.5–34.8 Electricians 5.4 0.8–34.0 Distribution substation operators 7.2 1.1–36.2 Workers off the job (home, travel, etc.) 0.9 0.3–3.7 TELECOMMUNICATIONS Install, maintenance, and repair technicians 1.5 0.7–3.2 Central office technicians 2.1 0.5–8.2 Cable splicers 3.2 0.7–15.0 AUTO TRANSMISSION MANUFACTURE Assemblers 0.7 0.2–4.9 Machinists 1.9 0.6–27.6 HOSPITALS Nurses 1.1 0.5–2.1 X-ray technicians 1.5 1.0–2.2 SELECTED OCCUPATIONS FROM ALL ECONOMIC SECTORS Construction machine operators 0.5 0.1–1.2 Motor vehicle drivers 1.1 0.4–2.7 School teachers 1.3 0.6–3.2 Auto mechanics 2.3 0.6–8.7 Retail sales 2.3 1.0–5.5 Sheet metal workers 3.9 0.3–48.4 Sewing machine operators 6.8 0.9–32.0 Forestry and logging jobs 7.6 0.6–95.5*** * The median is the middle measurement in a sample arranged by size. These personal exposure measurements reflect the median magnitude of the magnetic field produced by the various EMF sources and the amount of time the worker spent in the fields. ** Between the 5th and 95th percentiles of the workday averages for an occupation. *** Chain saw engines produce strong magnetic fields that are not pure 60-Hz fields.

ELF magnetic fields (mG)

Other frequencies

10–460

3,000

110

1–4

Induction heater

Hand-held grinder

Grinder

Lathe, drill press, etc.

300–3,300

Rectification room

170–1,300

0.6–3.7

2–1,100

Furnace active

Furnace inactive

Electrogalvanizing unit

Ladle refinery

STEEL FOUNDRY

3.4–30

Aluminium pot rooms

ALUMINIUM REFINING

6,000–14,000

Electric resistance heater

High VLF

High ULF from the ladle’s big magnetic stirrer

High ULF from the ladle’s big magnetic stirrer

High static field

Very high static field

—

—

—

High VLF

VLF

ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT USED IN MACHINE MANUFACTURING

Industry and sources

EMF spot measurements

Highest ELF field was at the chair of control room operator.

Highest ELF field was at the chair of control room operator.

Highly rectified DC current (with an ELF ripple) refines aluminum.

Tool exposures measured at operator’s chest

Tool exposures measured at operator’s chest

Tool exposures measured at operator’s chest

Comments

260  —  The Force

160–3,300

10–300

2–5

Video tape degaussers

Light control centres

Studio and newsrooms

0.1–24

0.5–280

Post-anesthesia care unit

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)

4–63

0.1–88

0.1–330

0.8–24.2

Electric train passenger cars

Airliner

0.1–81

Electric cars

Electric buses

0.5–146

Bus (diesel-powered)

Chargers for electric cars

0.1–125

Cars, minivans, and trucks

TRANSPORTATION

0.1–220

Intensive-care unit

HOSPITALS

7.2–24.0 VLF

Video cameras (studio and minicams)

TELEVISION BROADCASTING

400 Hz power on airliners

25 & 60 Hz power on U.S. trains

—

Some elevated static fields

Most frequencies less than 60 Hz

Most frequencies less than 60 Hz

Very high static field, VLF and RF

VLF

VLF

—

—

—

Measured at waist.

Measured at waist. Fields at ankles 2-5 times higher.

Measured at waist. Fields at ankles 2-5 times higher.

Measured 60 centimetres from charger.

Steel-belted tyres are the principal ELF source for gas/ diesel vehicles.

Measured at technician’s work locations.

Measured at nurse’s chest.

Walk-through survey.

Walk-through survey.

Measured 30.5 centimetres away.

Reducing Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation   —  261

18–50

15–170

25–1,800

3,000

1,000

Desks near power centre

Power cables in floor

Building power supplies

Can opener

Desktop cooling fan

—

—

—

—

—

—

Other office appliances 10–200 — ULF (ultra low frequency) — frequencies above 0, below 3 Hz. ELF (extremely low frequency) — frequencies 3–3,000 Hz. VLF (very low frequency) — frequencies 3000–30,000 Hz (3–30 kilohertz). Source: ‘EMF Electric and Magnetic Fields Associated With the Use of Electric Power’, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, June 2002.

0.1–7

Desk work locations

GOVERNMENT OFFICES

Appliance fields measured 6 in. away.

Appliance fields measured 6 in. away

Peaks due to laser printers.

262  —  The Force

Reducing Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation   —  263

You don’t need to be a manager or a business owner to create changes at work. The actions of a single individual can ripple through the workplace, creating positive outcomes for others. When one employee of a large company experienced symptoms at work, she reported her problems to the occupational health and safety team. On measuring exposures in her office, they located high fields — and not only at her workstation. This finding initiated plans for shielding, the introduction of policies to limit exposure, the introduction of low-emissions equipment, and new building designs to reduce workers’ exposure. If you are concerned about EMR in your workplace, you can: • ask for measurements of fields at your workstation to be monitored • request policies and training on how to minimise exposure • report symptoms that may be linked to exposure.

Exposure without being aware Many workers may be experiencing symptoms from exposure to high levels of EMR without being aware of it. In some situations, people working in professions where they are close to mobile phone antennas — such as tilers, window cleaners, and electricians — are exposed to radiation levels that exceed national standards. In 2010, US business consultant Gloria Vogel warned that compensation claims from workers exposed in this way and experiencing health symptoms could become the ‘next asbestos’ for the insurance industry. The precedent has already been set, she said, referring to an Alaskan Supreme Court judgement in which a worker suffering memory loss, sleep problems, depression, and other symptoms received a disability award. Vogel estimated that 250,000 workers a year are overexposed to this sort of radiation in the United States alone.14

Reducing exposure at work Having identified what you are being exposed to, you will need to ascertain the source of those fields. Use the meters to ‘trace’ the fields by moving in the direction of the highest reading until you reach the source. The fields may be coming from under the floor, behind the wall, a colleague’s workstation, or some nearby equipment. Once you have identified the source, you’ll be able to decide what to do about it. • If the source is electrical equipment on your desk, move this equipment to another location if you can, or move it further from

264  —  The Force

your body. As you move the equipment back, you’ll notice the fields drop dramatically. • If the source is electrical equipment nearby, relocate your desk or arrange for the equipment to be moved or shielded. One man who hired a meter from me measured 6 mG at his workstation. Simply by relocating to another position, he was able to halve his exposure. • If the source is a wireless connection, install, or ask your employer to install wired connections instead. • If the source is a high-frequency signal from outside your workplace, and therefore beyond your control, it may be possible to install shielding to block the signals. • If equipment that you use emits a high field — for example, a photocopier or a microwave oven — make sure you stand back from it while it is operating. • Consider working in a low-exposure position if you are pregnant. Sandy Doull, a health and safety consultant who has for many years been measuring and rectifying fields in workplaces, says that the knowledge and technology to solve EMR problems is readily available and that often the solutions are simple and quick. On one assignment, Sandy measured fields from a degaussing device used by library checkout operators and made an extraordinary discovery: the unit was emitting pulsed fields that reached as high as 20,000 gauss. (That’s 20,000,000 mG!) Even though the peak field was not present for long, the average fields that librarians were exposed to were still high. When Sandy presented his findings, the manufacturer redesigned the equipment to shield the electromagnet so that the fields workers were exposed to would be no more than 4 mG. On another occasion, Sandy was asked to measure fields in an electronics laboratory after staff developed brain tumours. In the lab, he found that one of the pieces of equipment often used by the technicians was a magnifying glass lit by an electric light, used at eye level. A transformer was providing the power to the unit and to the other tools; it emitted high fields and was located exactly at head height. When the problem was pinpointed, the transformer was moved and the fields to which the technicians were exposed dropped dramatically.

Protecting workers Implementing practical precautions to protect workers from unnecessary exposure to EMR is the role of employers, administrators, and unions.

Reducing Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation   —  265

In different parts of the world, some have responded to this challenge by developing guidelines and policies to reduce exposure to both electromagnetic fields and powerlines.

Public and Commercial Services Union, United Kingdom This union advised its members to limit their use of mobile phones. Using the slogan ‘Don’t gamble with your health’, it listed strategies for reducing the use of mobile phones for work.15 Refer to page 85. Royal North Shore Hospital, Australia In 2000, this Sydney hospital issued a directive encouraging staff to reduce their mobile phone use. It advised holding phones away from the head and using them in the open rather than enclosed areas where they operate at higher power.16 Refer to page 79. University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, United States In 2008, Dr Ronald Herberman, the Institute’s director, issued a memo to staff members with practical advice for reducing exposure to mobile phones. The directive encouraged staff to keep the phone away from the body and from the bed at night, avoid use in low-signal areas, and limit the length of calls. It also advised against use of mobile phones by children.17 Australian Council for Trade Unions (ACTU) In 1998, the ACTU developed a document called ‘Guidelines for Screen Based Work’ that was based on a policy of prudent avoidance. The policy recognised that ‘even if the risk is small it will increase with growing use of electronic means of communication and administration’. It suggested the following maximum emissions, measured at 50 centimetres from the monitor and 30 centimetres from the front of the screen: • an electric field of less than 10 V/m at 5Hz to 2 kilohertz (kHz) • an electric field of less than 1 V/m at 2kHz to 400 Hz • a magnetic field of less than 2 mG at 5Hz to 2 kHz • a magnetic field of less than 0.25 mG at 2 kHz to 400 kHz It also recommends that the monitor have a low electrostatic potential to ‘prevent dust particles moving from the screen to the user due to differences in potential’. And because laptop computers can produce peaks (and also high keyboard fields), the ACTU suggests that they not be operated on a worker’s lap. The policy indicates workers be exposed to less than 2 mG over an eighthour day and suggests that this can be achieved by the following measures:

266  —  The Force

• •

purchasing improved equipment or shielding equipment ensuring that computer monitors and other equipment are adequately spaced so that combined fields do not exceed the standard • rerouting or shielding cables. Where these measures are impracticable, the Council notes that other options may include: • limiting the amount of time spent in areas where the exposure standard is exceeded • locating workers outside high-exposure areas (in these circumstances, warning placards should set out the practices that should be observed in relation to the particular area or equipment) • switching off equipment that is not in use. Lastly, the ACTU guidelines take into account risks to children and foetuses. They state: Because of possible associations of EMFs with birth defects and miscarriage, consideration should be given to providing workers who are contemplating pregnancy in their families with the option of moving to duties other than screen-based work. Children may be more sensitive to EMFs than adults, so more stringent measurements and precautions should be taken if there is child care in the workplace. School computer rooms, which may use old equipment in crowded conditions, should also receive rigorous attention.’18

Swedish Trade Union Confederation In Sweden, the number of workers who have developed allergies to EMR, particularly after prolonged computer use, has robbed industry of a wealth of competent experience and put pressure on employees and unions to protect worker safety. In 1993, the Swedish Trade Union Confederation produced a booklet called ‘Cancer and Magnetic Fields at the Workplace’ that suggested the precautions they would like to see implemented to protect workers from EMF. It recommended that: • the principle of caution be applied regarding exposure to magnetic fields • all unnecessary exposure be avoided • new workplaces be designed and equipped in order to minimise exposure to magnetic fields • manufacturers of electrical equipment aim to minimise the

Reducing Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation   —  267

magnetic fields produced by the equipment manufacturers give details of the levels of magnetic fields in connection with the sale of such equipment • no employee be exposed to an average exposure exceeding 0.2 microtesla (2mG) per working day • temporary high exposures be minimised as far as possible • the employer maps out the existing levels of magnetic fields and, when necessary, draws up plans of action in accordance with the internal control regulations • the staff in question be informed and trained • practical measures to reduce exposure be taken without further delay, such as indication of areas with high exposure, reduction of magnetic fields, transfer of work sites, and changed work organisation • the distribution of responsibilities between the different authorities be clarified • Swedish laws and ordinances reflect a viewpoint corresponding to the principle of caution • stray currents be eliminated by the introduction of five-wire systems • the National Board of Occupational Safety and Health, pending the draft for a hygienic limit, issues a regulation in accordance with the views above • the research on electric and magnetic fields be continued and intensified.19 Working in a safe environment is not a luxury, it is a fundamental right. Many of today’s workers are among the first generation to use the plethora of sophisticated technological gadgetry that is basic to many occupations: the first to use computers, mobile phones, and the internet, and the first to be surrounded by a maze of powerlines and equipment. Given that so many technological developments have occurred in only the last decade, we have hardly begun to experience the health effects of this style of work. Whether or not health effects from EMR have been conclusively ‘proven’, it makes extremely good sense to reduce worker exposure as much as possible. Reducing exposure to EMR does not have to be an expensive or difficult exercise. It can be as simple as moving the digital alarm clock from the bedside table or unplugging the electric blanket before retiring for the night. Many of the suggestions outlined in this chapter require little or no expense and are easy to implement. Yet they can be enormously helpful. Reducing EMR exposure may not only help avert some of the •

268  —  The Force

more serious illnesses described in earlier chapters, but may also improve your family’s sense of energy and wellbeing. It certainly won’t hurt to try!

A–Z reference guide to reducing exposure ‘Precaution is better than cure.’ — Johann Wolfgang Goethe

In the following pages you’ll discover what sorts of emissions come from common household appliances, office equipment, and certain forms of electrical and communications equipment, and how you can reduce your exposure to them. You’ll see tips for protecting yourself, your family, and your employees, and information about low-emission products you could use in place of older, higher emission products. As you implement the suggestions, you’ll have the satisfaction of knowing that not only have you created a safer home or workplace, but that you’ve educated yourself and those around you about living more safely with EMR. The measurements that follow are intended only as guides, as fields vary between individual appliances and devices. They should not replace individual measurements of your home or workplace.

A Aeroplanes Electromagnetic fields in aeroplanes vary depending on what sort of plane in which you travel and where you are seated. One traveller measured fields of 15 to 35 mG at his seat, and fields were higher again at the floor.20 In 2000, researcher Joyce Nicholas conducted measurements at the flight deck of various aircraft to see what fields pilots and first officers were exposed to. She found that fields were in the range of 6.5 to 12.5 mG.21 In addition to the fields on aeroplanes, airports are abuzz with radiation from wireless networks and security devices. People who are particularly sensitive are usually unable to travel by plane and often choose other forms of transport.

Anti-theft systems These shoulder-height pedestals that look rather like gates are installed at the entrance to many supermarkets and retail stores to deter would-be thieves. When unscanned merchandise passes between them, the emission causes a metal or glass compound in the strip beneath the barcode

Reducing Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation   —  269

to vibrate at the same frequency as the pedestal. This vibration is detected by the pedestals, which respond by issuing an alarm. The pedestals transmit a magnetic field, and the frequency of this can vary depending on the type of system. Fields as high as 1000 mG have been measured close to them.22 The system does not just interact with inanimate merchandise from the store. Several studies have found that anti-theft systems interact with pacemakers and other implanted medical devices, and there are reports of people receiving shocks when standing close to them.23 In 1998, Dr Burlington, Director of the US Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, wrote a letter to cardiologists, neurologists, physicians, and surgeons about the potential of these systems to interfere with implanted medical devices. ‘I am writing to let you know that the operation of certain medical devices, including pacemakers, implantable cardioverter/defibrillators and spinal cord stimulators, may be affected by the electromagnetic fields produced by anti-theft systems and metal detectors,’ he said. Dr Burlington said that the FDA had received 44 reports of anti-theft devices interfering with pacemakers, defibrillators, and spinal cord stimulators; 18 reports of interference from anti-theft devices and metal detectors; 17 reports of overstimulation from implanted spinal-cord stimulators and two reports of shock. He advised wearers of implantable medical devices: Be aware that EAS [electronic article surveillance] systems may be hidden/camouflaged in entrances and exits where they are not readily visible in many commercial establishments. Do not stay near the EAS system or metal detector longer than is necessary and do not lean against the system. If scanning with a hand held metal detector is necessary, warn the security personnel that you have an electronic medical device and ask them not to hold the metal detector near the device any longer than is absolutely necessary; or you may wish to ask for an alternate form of personal search.24 Because most people pass quickly through the gates, these are usually not a problem. However, it would be wise not to stand too close to them while working or waiting at the checkout. While it’s usually assumed that this technology is safe for those without implanted medical devices, the reality is that we just don’t know

270  —  The Force

the effects. In 2009, a UK report recommended research into the effects of radiation from anti-theft devices on people working nearby because little work had been done in this area and there was a possibility that people could have been exposed to levels above those recommended by international standards. It stated: It is recommended to focus on … field exposures from e.g. antitheft devices in shops and pregnancy outcomes because of the exposed area of the body, the exposure possibly exceeding reference levels [international standards], and the number of young women working in these jobs.25 The gadget that removes the security device from clothes also contains a strong magnetic field, so if you work with these gadgets do not hold them close to your body.

Appliances Every electrical appliance emits electromagnetic fields and every wireless device emits radiofrequency radiation. • Avoid buying gimmicky appliances you do not need, such as electric toothbrushes. • Where you can, buy low-emissions appliances. Not only are they better for you, but you will be helping to create a demand for such appliances, which may help to improve their availability. • Turn off appliances when they are not in use and unplug them at the socket if you will be nearby for a period. Appliances that are turned off but not unplugged continue to generate a small electric field. • As children are particularly vulnerable to EMR, make sure they do not play with appliances unnecessarily. B Barcode scanners These devices, found in most supermarkets and libraries and many warehouses, convert encoded data to intelligible information. In supermarket scanners, a narrow laser beam passes over the barcode and its light is reflected to a sensor. The sensor detects how long the beam took to pass over each segment of the barcode and this information is translated electronically and conveyed to the computer. Handheld library scanners use visible or infra-red light, rather than laser beams.

Reducing Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation   —  271

Dr Gene Sobel conducted some measurements of these devices. He found that the hand-held ‘guns’ did not produce any EMR, whereas those embedded in supermarket benches exposed staff to fields of between 3 and 35 mG, depending on the model.26 It is likely that the fields emanate from the motors and that their position on the device accounts for the difference in fields between models. The devices are more likely to be a concern for workers than for members of the public. Workplaces should be measured to identify the locations with the highest fields. These areas should be shielded by management and, in the interim, avoided by workers.

Battery-operated equipment Battery-operated equipment causes fewer problems than equipment powered by mains electricity because it produces a direct, rather than alternating, current. However, some people are sensitive to even these fields and therefore need to avoid them. Bedrooms and beds Your bed is likely the only place where you spend approximately one-third of your life in a confined space. Add to that the fact that sleep is necessary for consolidating your memories and undertaking cell repairs, and you can understand why it is so important to reduce your exposure to EMR at night. In bed, you are exposed to fields from electrical equipment near you, whether it is on the other side of the wall or even under the floor. Metal-framed beds and metal spring mattresses are good conductors, as they appear to attract electric fields from extension cords, bedside lamps, ionisers, and other electrical equipment. Because of this, some people prefer to sleep on a bed with a wooden frame and a futon, foam, or feather mattress. The following are some tips for keeping your exposure at night as low as possible. • Do not locate the bed on the other side of the wall from a source that produces high fields, such as a meter box, refrigerator, or off-peak hot-water heater. • Try to keep all unnecessary electrical appliances, such as televisions or computers, out of the bedroom. • Make sure there are no electrical cables, powerboards, or copper pipes (which can emit fields) running under the bed. • Try to keep the bed away from dimmer switches and ceiling-fan control boxes.

272  —  The Force

•

• •

•

•

Keep transformers and appliances, including digital clock radios, as far as possible from the bed. (A battery-operated clock has the lowest fields.) Do not use a mobile phone as an alarm clock, and keep it out of the bedroom overnight while it is charging. Do not sleep on an electric blanket overnight while it is turned on. If you use an electric blanket, warm the bed then unplug it at the power point before you get into the bed. See also ‘Electric blankets’. You could consider installing a demand switch, which cuts power to a circuit when it is not being used, in order to remove all electric fields from the bedroom as you sleep. As an alternative to the demand switch, you could run a new power circuit to the bedroom with its own master switch. This, too, would allow mains power to be cut off to the bedroom at night without affecting appliances elsewhere in the house.

Bluetooth Bluetooth networks provide a way of connecting one form of technology to another, for example a computer to a printer, a headset to a mobile phone, or a mobile phone to an external car aerial. They are known as wireless personal area networks (WPAN) because the signal extends only a short distance from the person using it. Bluetooth technology transmits radiofrequency radiation at a frequency of around 2.4 GHz. Transmissions are usually of very low power (although some devices can transmit at similar power to mobile phones). Because they use low power, they are usually assumed to be safe. However, as we saw in Chapter 10, it’s not just the power of a signal that determines its effects on the body. To protect yourself from the effects of radiofrequency radiation, wired connections should always be used in preference to wireless connections. Burglar alarms Many alarm systems use infra-red sensors that detect body heat. Those that are fed by a double insulated mains transformer and are not earthed can give off quite high fields. You can reduce these fields by earthing the transformer. However, infra-red light itself is not likely to be a problem as the devices are usually situated away from householders, such as close to the ceiling or the front door, and householders only activate the devices when they do not expect to be nearby.

Reducing Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation   —  273

C Cars Cars emit electromagnetic fields, generated by devices such as the ignition, the alternator, and the air-conditioning system. These fields, which range in frequency from 2 to 2000 Hz, vary from model to model, depending on the equipment and its location in relation to passengers. Newer model cars, especially high-end models, contain more electronic gadgets that in some cases (but not always) emit higher fields and therefore create greater exposure. If you’re in the market for a new car, you might be wise to measure the fields it emits before purchasing. In a stationary car, fields of 1 to 32 mG have been measured; in cars travelling at 80 kilometres per hour, fields of up to 950 mG have been recorded.27 Hybrid cars can potentially expose travellers to particularly high fields. This is because the electricity used to power them travels from the motor, under the bonnet, along cables near the passengers, to the battery in the boot. The highest fields in cars often come from steel-belted radial tyres, which are magnetised and produce an alternating field as they rotate. Measurements of tyres alone have detected fields of 1000 mG. These fields can be greatly reduced by demagnetising tyres. Researcher Sam Milham did this with a Geneva Audio/Video Tape Eraser, Model PF211, which he held close to the hand-spun tyres of a car that had been jacked up. After degaussing a tyre in this way, the field it produced dropped from 20 to 2 mG and stayed low for several months.28 In Switzerland, some garages now provide this service. Using a mobile phone inside a car exposes both the driver and passengers. A handheld phone needs to operate at high power to penetrate the glass and metal shell of the vehicle and connect to the nearest base station. Remember, too, that as long as it’s turned on it’s firing messages to tower after tower as you travel, even if no call is being made. The radiation it emits is reflected from the metal surface and can irradiate those inside. An in-car mobile phone with an external aerial is a better idea, but make sure the aerial is not located close to a child’s travel seat. In 2002, the Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association, an industry group of phone companies, published a ten-point safety guide about mobile phones and driving. It suggested making calls when stationary, allowing calls to divert to message services, and avoiding complex or emotional phone conversations and texting. It also pointed out that using a hands-free device ‘doesn’t make using a mobile phone

274  —  The Force

while driving safe’.29 Using a mobile phone while driving also reduces driver performance and increases the risk of accidents, sometimes four-fold. As a result, some countries have banned the use of mobile phone while driving, though not all drivers comply with the bans.

Ceiling fans When operational, ceiling fans emit electromagnetic fields. Fields of up to 50 mG have been measured at 30 centimetres from a ceiling fan, and fields of 6 mG have been measured at 60 centimetres, with a median measurement of about 3 mG.30 However, these fans are usually located some distance from occupants of the room and are not, therefore, likely to be a problem. The control to the ceiling fan also emits fields and this can increase a person’s exposure if it is located near a bed. If this is the case, make sure the fan is turned off before going to sleep. Otherwise, if you have the space, move the bed away from the control. Clothes dryers Fields of 2 to 10 mG have been measured at 15 centimetres from dryers, and fields of up to 3 mG at 60 centimetres away.31 These are not likely to be a problem unless family members spend time nearby or sleep on the other side of the wall while the dryer is operating. If this is the case, you can reduce their exposure by: • using the dryer as little as possible, instead drying clothes on a clothesline or rack when you can • moving the bed to another wall • turning the dryer off before going to bed. Clothing Clothing from natural fibres such as cotton, wool, linen, hemp, or silk is slightly conductive and allows static electricity to leak to earth. Synthetic fibres such as polyesters are much less conductive, and this allows them to ‘store’ static electricity, which some people find uncomfortable. Computers Computers emit electromagnetic fields, sometimes at high frequencies, depending on the type and model. Older computer monitors, or VDUs, produced extremely low-frequency fields, radiofrequency radiation, electrostatic fields, X-rays, ultraviolet radiation, infra-red radiation, and ultrasound emissions.32 They were sometimes blamed for skin problems

Reducing Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation   —  275

and other allergic-type reactions among hypersensitive users. Laptop and many desktop computer screens use a liquid crystal display (LCD), so they do not emit electric and magnetic fields in the same way as older computer screens. Sometimes relatively high fields can be measured at a laptop’s keyboard because it is situated above the computer’s power unit. If you find that this is causing you problems, you could attach a separate keyboard. If the screen of your computer flickers, it may be located a relatively high magnetic field, possibly 15 mG or more. Measure the nearby fields and, if you find that this is the case, consider moving it to another location. Computers also contain toxic chemicals, such as flame-retardants, that accumulate in the body and may affect health. Below are some other tips to reduce your EMR exposure from computers. 1. When buying a computer • Seek out a low-emissions computer — look for the Swedish Confederation of Professional Employees, Tjänstemännens Centralorganisation (TCO), endorsement. • Choose a wired rather than wireless internet connection. Wireless connections expose users and those nearby to radiofrequency radiation. • Contact manufacturers to ask for information about the chemicals that the computer contains. • Allow the screen to outgas before you first use the computer. You can do this by airing it in an unused, well-ventilated space at full power for several days to reduce the concentration of harmful chemicals. 2. When locating a computer • Do not locate it in a bedroom, as occupants may be exposed to harmful chemical emissions while they sleep. • Try not to position it on the other side of the wall from a bed, as electromagnetic fields travel through walls. • Set the screen and hard drive as far away from the operator as possible, as electromagnetic fields reduce with distance. • Do not place it on a metal desk, as metal is conductive. 3. When using a computer • Turn the computer off when it is not in use. • Ensure that the room where you use the computer is clean and

276  —  The Force

•

•

•

well ventilated to reduce your exposure to chemicals while you work. Do not rest a laptop on your body while working for long periods of time because this can cause damage to the skin on the legs and to reproductive organs. Keep the charger, which contains a transformer and therefore generates high fields, as far away from you as possible. Try to restrict children’s computer use to ‘important’ activities, and discourage them from playing computer games for extended periods. Consider limiting computer use during pregnancy to reduce your unborn baby’s exposure to EMR.

Cordless telephones For all practical purposes, a cordless phone is just like a mobile phone. They both operate using microwave radiation, and they use similar power at similar frequencies. In the common DECT cordless phone system, the tower usually transmits microwave radiation constantly, even when no phone call is being made, exposing everyone within range. Dr Gerard Hyland states, ‘You could say these are worse than mobiles because you have the phone and the base station, both emitting microwave radiation, sitting in the same room with you.’33 The effects of this radiation are likely to be very similar to the effects of the radiation from mobile phones, which is discussed in detail in Chapter 4. To date, only a few studies have been done on cordless phone use (primarily by Dr Lennart Hardell’s team) and these have found that long-term cordless phone users have a higher risk of developing brain tumours. To avoid the potential risk to those in your home and workplace, I strongly advise you replace cordless phones with corded phones at the earliest opportunity. Cots and baby-crying monitors Babies, like young children, are often thought to be more vulnerable to EMR because their cells are actively growing and dividing and their brains are not yet fully developed. You can reduce your baby’s exposure with these tips. • Measure the exposure inside the cot to ensure that there are no fields from nearby wiring or appliances. If there are, then move the cot to a safer location.

Reducing Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation   —  277

• •

Avoid using wireless computer connections and wireless appliances, such as mobile and cordless phones, in the house. Do not use a cordless (DECT) baby monitor because, like cordless phones, it may transmit a radiofrequency signal 24 hours a day, so the baby is always exposed. A better alternative is a corded monitor — but make sure you locate it at least a metre from your baby’s cot, because it generates a small electromagnetic field.

D Defibrillators and pacemakers Implanted medical devices include a range of medical equipment such as pacemakers, defibrillators, spinal cord stimulators, and cochlear implants. Devices such as these have occasionally been found to malfunction in the presence of fields from anti-theft devices and mobile phones. However, interferences has been less of a problem with newer models. To be on the safe side, many authorities recommend taking precautions to avoid undue exposure to EMR. The GSM Association advises that interference with hearing aids can be minimised by using the mobile phone at the ear without the aid or using a hands-free kit. It suggests that interference with pacemakers can be reduced by keeping the phone at least 15 centimetres from the pacemaker and not carrying it in a breast pocket.34

Dental Believe it or not, amalgam fillings are affected by EMR. These fillings are composed of roughly 50 per cent mercury (a neurotoxin, enzyme inhibitor, and source of free radicals), 25 per cent tin, and 25 per cent silver, with traces of copper, zinc, and paladium. The combination of different metals and conductive saliva forms a simple battery that produces a tiny current. Using a computer or being exposed to other forms of EMR can trigger the release of mercury from the amalgam. For example, researchers placed samples of three types of amalgam fillings in saliva in front of five cathode-ray computer screens for six hours. They found that exposure from two of the screens increased the amount of mercury released as vapour from all three types of amalgam fillings.35 Removing amalgam fillings has proven beneficial for some people, but has triggered sensitivities in others. If you do have your amalgams removed, chose a dentist whose procedures ensure that mercury is not released into your body.

278  —  The Force

Diet Studies have found that antioxidants can be effective in reducing the harmful effects of EMR on exposed rodents.36 Common antioxidants are vitamins C and E, the mineral selenium, the herb chaparral, and the enzyme superoxide dismutase. You could consider adding antioxidants to your diet, perhaps with the support of a professional naturopath or nutritionist. Digital alarm clocks An electrically powered digital alarm clock contains a transformer, which emits quite high electromagnetic fields. I’ve measured over 1000 mG at the surface of some. It’s a good idea to keep the digital alarm clock at least two metres away from the bed as you sleep or, alternately, to use a battery-operated clock that doesn’t generate these fields at all. If you have a digital clock radio built into the bedhead, it would be a very good idea to stop using it and unplug it. Dirty electricity Dirty electricity is the name given to electricity that has been distorted by the operation of some kinds of electrical equipment. Appliances that create dirty electricity include CFL globes, fluorescent lights, multiplespeed appliances, computers, televisions, and light dimmers. You can reduce the amount of dirty electricity in your home and workplace by removing CFL globes and making sure that computers and televisions are turned off at the set, not just with the remote control. You can also cheaply and easily filter dirty electricity with a power board that has both surge protection and filtering capacity, such as entertainment boards. These boards absorb the spikes on the electricity that passes through, thereby effectively cleaning it. If you are considering buying a special filter for eliminating dirty electricity, here are some considerations to ponder. • Be aware of what frequencies it is filtering out and what it is leaving behind. • Ask whether it consumes power or generates a magnetic field. • Make sure that the device will filter electricity from light circuits, such as is produced by CFL globes, and not just power circuits. Remember that dirty electricity is unlikely to be the only way in which electricity is contributing to health problems and make sure you also reduce your exposure in other ways.

Reducing Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation   —  279

Dishwashers A dishwasher can have a relatively high electromagnetic field while it is operating, and often even when it is not operating but still plugged in. The main fields are from circuitry and transformers needed for the electronics. If you are designing a new kitchen, it would be a good idea to make sure the dishwasher is not located below a bench used for food preparation, where your body could be in close proximity to it every time you prepare food. If your dishwasher is already located in this position, you can reduce your exposure to the fields it emits by: • not turning it on while you are working at the bench • turning it off at the power point when it is not in use. E Electric blankets Electric blankets generate electromagnetic fields, so users are exposed for potentially long periods of time while they sleep. Older-style electric blankets can have quite high fields (sometimes over 200 mG within 15 centimetres of the blanket) but the fields generated from newer styles are usually lower (for example, 20 mG within 15 centimetres). Not all studies have found problems from the use of electric blankets. However, among the handful that have, the effects found are potentially quite serious. For example, studies have found that: • the use of electric blankets and heated water beds was linked to an increased risk of miscarriage and in the early stages of pregnancy and particularly to a slight increase in miscarriage 37 • the use of electric blankets by mothers was linked to an increased risk of leukaemia and brain tumours in their children 38 • the use of electric blankets was associated with a slightly higher risk of endometrial cancer.39 It is essential to reduce children’s exposure to EMR. They are especially vulnerable to the effects of radiation as their cells are growing and dividing. It is important that children do not sleep near a source of high fields. If you or your children want to enjoy the benefits of an electric blanket without the risks, you can use the blanket to warm the bed only, then turn it off and unplug the cord from the wall.

280  —  The Force

Electric ovens Electric ranges can generate a field from 20 to 200 mG at 30 centimetres.40 Highest fields are sometimes measured from the digital clock display. You can reduce your exposure to these fields by making sure you do not stand close to the stove for long periods while it is in use, and try to keep a distance from it while you are preparing food. Gas ovens emit lower fields than electric ovens, but people who are hypersensitive to EMR are often also sensitive to chemicals and can find the fumes from these devices hard to tolerate. Electric shavers Electric shavers have been found to emit fields of 4 to 600 mG at 15 centimetres, and up to 100 mG at 30 centimetres.41 These fields are, of course, in close proximity to the head but you are only likely to be exposed to them for short periods of time. If you are concerned about these fields, you could use a rechargeable battery-operated shaver or a safety razor (or grow a beard!). Electric tools All electric tools generate an electromagnetic field of some sort. Fields for common workshop items include the following. EMF emissions from electric tools Type of appliance battery chargers drills power saws soldering irons

Fields measured (in mG)

Distance (in cm)

3–50

15

2–4

30

100–200

15

20–40

30

50–1,000

15

9–300

30

26-63

near source

Sources: ‘EMF Electric and Magnetic Fields Associated with the use of Electric Power’, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Institute of Health, June 2002; ‘Report of the Panel on Electromagnetic Fields and Health to the Victorian Government’, State Electricity Commission of Victoria, 1992, p. 50.

Reducing Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation   —  281

While it is not easy to reduce your exposure to the fields from handheld tools, you can make sure that you keep appliances such as battery chargers away from you while you work.

Electronic pest control These devices usually plug into the power point and send a high-frequency electromagnetic or ultrasonic signal running through the wiring of the entire building 24 hours a day. Any electromagnetic signal increases the amount of e-pollution in our homes and contributes to ‘dirty’ electricity. It is unclear exactly how this signal may affect people, but those who are particularly sensitive to EMR have reported discomfort from these fields. To reduce EMR exposure, alternative — preferably natural — methods of pest control are recommended. F Furniture With judicious arrangement of your furniture, you can reduce the amount of exposure that you and your family receive. Electromagnetic fields drop off rapidly with distance, so the further you are from the source the less exposure you receive. For example, in your home do not place beds, couches, or frequently used chairs next to sources of high electromagnetic fields such as meter boxes, computers, or electric storage hot-water systems (even if these are on the other side of the wall) or against walls in which there are cables, water pipes, dimmer lights, or switches for ceiling fans, because electromagnetic fields travel through walls. Similarly, in the workplace, avoid locating workstations near to EMF- and EMR-emitting sources. People with intolerances to static fields often select furnishings from natural fibres such as cotton, wool, linen, hemp, or silk. Some prefer to avoid synthetics, which facilitate static electricity, or choose to treat them with anti-static spray.

G Games and gaming consoles Whereas older gaming consoles used wired connections, most modern units use wireless Bluetooth signals to connect to the television. These expose users to a continuous signal while the appliance is being used. The older transformers that were used to control electric train sets emitted very high magnetic fields around the hands of operators.

282  —  The Force

GPS (Global Positioning Systems) GPS is a worldwide navigation system, originally developed by the United States Department of Defense, which offers information about location and time for navigation, surveying, and other military purposes. It’s become a popular navigational aid for vehicle owners as it provides verbal and pictorial instructions on how to locate any given destination from any starting point. The GPS system uses a network of 24 satellites, which are continuously broadcasting signals of 1575.42 MHz and 1227.60 MHz and are picked up by the GPS receiver in a car. Having a receiver in your vehicle does not expose you to radiation. This comes from the satellites themselves, which are sending signals earthwards 24 hours a day. However, the more you use this technology, the more you create a demand for radiation-emitting satellites that expose us all. H Hairdryers Hairdryers can emit fields of up to 700 mG at 15 centimetres from the surface and fields of up to 70 mG at 30 centimetres. Once again, these fields are close to the head but will probably only be experienced for short periods at a time. If you are a hairdresser and use these appliances frequently, you might be advised to hold them away from your body as you work.

Heaters and underfloor heating All electric heaters produce electromagnetic fields, but the strength of these fields will vary greatly depending on the voltage of the heater and the distance from the motor. As an example, I’ve measured: • 69 mG at the surface of a bar heater and 3.3 mG at 30 centimetres away • 49 mG at the control panelof an oil heater and 0.4 mG at 30 centimetres away • 14 mG at the surface of a ceiling heater and 3 mG at 30 centimetres away. As you can see, the fields from a heater decline dramatically with distance, so you can reduce your exposure by not sitting or sleeping too close to one. Many kinds of underfloor heating are located in a grid pattern just below the surface of the floor — only centimetres from feet. The entire system produces fields that can affect occupants in the rooms above. In a

Reducing Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation   —  283

new, very expensive home with underfloor heating throughout, John measured an incredible 900 mG at floor level and 90 mG at waist level, where a tiny baby sat cradled in its mother’s arms. In another home, he measured a field of 639 mG at the floor level, and found that this was generating a field of 5 mG in a child’s bed on the floor below. If you have underfloor heating of this type, you may well be advised to keep it turned off while you are at home. If you are installing a new system, varieties of underfloor heating elements that emit very low fields (less than 2 mG) are now available. You will need to specifically request these varieties, which are woven in a fine mesh, from suppliers. Some underfloor heating systems heat by circulating hot water through a grid of pipes below the floor. This is safer as it does not allow for such close contact with the elements that generate fields. However, there is the potential for the metal pipes to conduct current. If using a system such as this, it may be worthwhile to check that the pipes are not conducting a field. Ceiling heaters usually create negligible fields for people in the room below, but may expose someone sleeping or working directly above them in a multi-storey building.

Hot-water heaters The fields from these differ quite considerably and some heaters produce higher fields than others. If you use an off-peak model, the heater will operate during the night while you are in bed, so try not to locate a bed on the other side of the wall from it. I Induction cooktops This form of cooktop generates a high magnetic field that heats the pan and its contents. The burners operate at frequencies between 22 and 100 kHz, higher than on conventional stoves. If the cooktop is used appropriately, the magnetic field from the cooking circle is transferred in its entirety to the pan. However, there is the potential for some of these fields to escape if the saucepan does not completely cover the cooking circle or is damaged. In 2002, the Japanese Offspring Foundation, a non-profit group, conducted an independent test of induction cooktops. It found that the fields from some models exceeded the international limits of 2000 mG.42 You can reduce your exposure to these fields by:

284  —  The Force

• • •

using appropriate pans that are in good condition and have a base that is the same size as the cooking circle keeping a distance from the cooking circle avoiding the use of metal spoons while cooking, as they could conduct a field to your body.

Irons An iron can generate a field of 6 to 20 mG at 15 centimetres, which is about the distance that the hand is from the appliance during use. If you are particularly sensitive to these fields, you can use a cordless iron that heats when connected to a stand, but is not connected with the power system while being held. There are also steam-operated irons that are not connected to electricity. K Kitchen appliances Like all electrical equipment, kitchen appliances generate electromagnetic fields. These fields will vary from one brand and model to another, so can’t be predicted accurately, but the following list of what’s been measured will at least give you a guide. The US Environmental Protection Agency measured the fields of common kitchen devices and appliances; the results are shown in the table below. You’ll see a huge range for each type of appliance and also how quickly fields drop away with distance. EMR emissions from common kitchen devices and appliances Type of appliance

Distance (in cm)

Fields measured (in mG)

15

30–100

30

5–20

15

500–1500

30

40–300

coffee makers

15

4–10

crock pots

15

3–9

30

0–1

15

10–100

30

6–30

blenders can openers

dishwashers

Reducing Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation   —  285

Type of appliance food processors garbage disposal units electric mixers electric ovens electric ranges refrigerators toasters

Distance (in cm)

Fields measured (in mG)

15

20–130

30

5–20

15

60–100

30

8–20

15

30–600

30

5–100

15

4–20

30

1–5

15

20–200

30

0–30

15

0–40

30

0–20

15

5–20

30

0–7

Source: ‘EMF Electric and Magnetic Fields Associated with the use of Electric Power’, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Institute of Health, June 2002.

The amount of exposure you receive from these appliances depends on how much time you spend using them and how far away from them you stand while they are in operation. Normal use does not present a problem for most people, but it may for hypersensitive people. Ways to reduce your exposure to these fields include: • standing at a distance from the appliance or device while it is operating (this is especially important for those that produce high fields, such as electric ranges) • not locating the bed on the other side of the wall from the fridge • locating the dishwasher away from a bench used for food preparation, so that it will not be close to the body while food is being prepared. See also ‘Microwave ovens’, ‘Refrigerators’, ‘Dishwashers’, and ‘Induction cooktops’.

286  —  The Force

L Landline telephones A standard landline phone does not normally emit an electromagnetic field. However, there are cases where the telephone line can pick up a field from a cable that is running close by it. This can lead to high electric fields in the telephone line and handset. In these cases, it is possible to rerun the phone line, ensuring that it does not come into contact with any wiring, or use a shielded phone cable. The mouthpiece of a handset contains a microphone and the earpiece contains electromagnets that cause some users pain. If you find that using a landline phone becomes uncomfortable, you can buy a speaker phone that allows you to talk while keeping the handset at a distance. Landline telephone connections should be provided in all homes and workplaces to avoid reliance on mobile and cordless phones. See also ‘Cordless telephones’ and ‘Mobile phones’.

Lights and dimmer switches Like all electrical equipment, lights emit electromagnetic fields, but some forms of lighting appear to create much more of a problem — not only in terms of EMR, but for the environment. Many governments now recommend the use of compact fluorescent lights (CFLs), because they are believed to be 80 per cent more energy efficient than incandescent globes, resulting in the production of fewer greenhouse gases. The darling of environment departments, these globes have flooded the market in recent years. However, CLFs and other types of fluorescent lights contain mercury, which is among the most toxic known substances. They should not, therefore, be disposed of in landfill, as they can produce toxic mercury vapour. If a globe is cracked or broken in the home, mercury is released, so care should be taken in cleaning up after a breakage. The Australian Government’s Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency outlines on their website a thorough procedure for cleaning up breakages. It includes ventilating the room for 15 minutes before beginning the clean-up, taking care not to disperse fragments during cleaning, disposing of cleaning equipment after use, and carefully sealing broken material and depositing it in an outside bin.43 CFLs can emit electric fields, some high-frequency and ultrasonic signals. Hungarian researchers measured electric fields of over 42 V/m in all the globes they tested and found fields as high as 216 V/m in one

Reducing Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation   —  287

of them.44 The globes can also flicker very rapidly, which contributes to the creation of dirty electricity. Many people with electromagnetic hypersensitivity have reported experiencing unpleasant reactions to these lights after they were installed, have had to remove them from their homes, and are unable to spend time in workplaces that use them. Other lighting globes and devices include incandescent globes, LED lights, dimmers, halogen lights, and fluorescent lights. • Incandescent globes. The humble incandescent globe is the form of lighting that produces the lowest electromagnetic fields and therefore poses the least problem for people with electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Unfortunately, many governments have chosen to phase out this form of lighting, and the globes can now be hard to obtain. If you can find a supplier, you might want to stock up on them. From an environmental perspective, they may use more energy than some other forms of lighting and are said not to last as long, yet they don’t contain any harmful chemicals and can be safely disposed of in landfill. • LED lights. These consume very little energy, so they are good choice from an environmental perspective. Unfortunately, they don’t yet provide a good quality of light and they frequently have transformers that emit relatively high magnetic fields. • Light dimmers. Dimmers contain transformers, which emit rather high electromagnetic fields and frequently contribute to dirty electricity. • Halogen lights. These often emit higher electromagnetic fields than incandescent or fluorescent lights because they contain transformers. They are also one of the highest energy-consuming forms of lighting available. A variation of these is the Halogen GLS Energy Savers, globes that do not contain transformers. A 42-watt globe of this variety gives out 60 watts of light, creating an energy saving of 30 per cent as compared with non-energy-saving halogen lights. These are a better alternative from an energy, health, and environmental perspective than CFL globes. • Fluorescent lights. These generate much higher electromagnetic fields — between 20 and 100 mG at the ballast, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency. How much exposure you may receive will depend on how closely to the light you sit or sleep. For example, a fluorescent globe in the ceiling above you may be less of a problem than a fluorescent light on your desk or in the ceiling below your bed or desk, where it is closer to your body.

288  —  The Force

Fluorescent lights also emit UV radiation and can contain toxic chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Dr Valerie Beral found that people who worked under fluorescent lights had a higher rate of malignant melanomas.45 Some people are sensitive to the flickering of these lights, and those with electromagnetic hypersensitivity often find them difficult to tolerate. They contain small amounts of mercury, and therefore should be recycled so that the mercury can be extracted.

M Meter boxes These are one of the highest sources of electromagnetic fields in a home and the fields travel through walls, even brick cavity walls, exposing people on the other side. For this reason, it’s a good idea to keep beds, couches, or desks well away from a meter box. If you cannot reposition the furniture, it is possible to buy specially designed meter-box shields that prevent the fields from travelling through the walls. If you are building a new home or renovating, try to locate the meter box away from rooms that receive regular use and place them on the wall of a garage, wardrobe, or bathroom.

Microwave ovens Microwave ovens generate several types of radiation, a fact that is often overlooked by users. Firstly, there are the microwaves that heat the food, using a frequency of 2450 MHz because it is effective for energising the oxygen component of water molecules. Interestingly, newer mobile phones are now operating at this frequency as well. While most of this radiation is intended to remain in the oven behind the shielded glass, a certain amount of radiation leakage is legally allowed. In Australia, microwave ovens are legally allowed to leak radiation of up to 5 milliwatts per square centimetre at a distance of 5 centimetres or more from the oven.46 As they age, microwaves can leak additional radiation, often as a result of deteriorating door seals. So, if you use a microwave oven, make sure that door seals are in good condition and routinely check for leakage. As well as microwave radiation, like all electrical equipment these ovens emit electromagnetic fields of 50 or 60 Hz. These fields are generally present whether the microwave is turned on or not. When it is turned off, it is possible to measure fields of over 250 mG, usually from the

Reducing Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation   —  289

electronic controls and display. When the oven is turned on, the fields are much higher; I’ve measured fields from hundreds to over 1000 mG from different models. To avoid exposure, there are some simple precautions you can take. • use a conventional oven where possible • regularly check your microwave for leakage — devices to aid with this are available from electronics stores • keep at least two arm lengths from a microwave while it is operational, and do not peer into it to check the food as it cooks • make sure you do not install it at head or waist height in areas where you spend extended amounts of time • turn the microwave off when it is not in use and remove the plug from the socket • allow microwaved food to stand for a few minutes before eating it to give the cells time to normalise (as recommended by manufacturers) • in a commercial kitchen or food outlet, design so that employees do not need to stand near a microwave oven as they prepare food or serve customers. There’s no universal agreement about whether it’s safe to cook food with microwave ovens. Although the question is largely outside the scope of this book, here are some of the key points in the debate. • Microwaving food can reduce its nutrient value. For example, Dr Richard Quan found that heating breast milk in a microwave oven reduces its immunologic properties and Dr Fumio Watanabe found that cooking food in a microwave oven reduces the amount of B12, which protects against neurological problems and heart disease, more quickly than conventional cooking.47 • Dangerous bacteria have been found to survive in food cooked or reheated in a microwave oven.48 • Some of the packaging designed for microwavable foods, such as waxed bags and plastic film, have been shown to contaminate food during cooking.49

Mobile phones Your mobile phone is a microwave transmitter that emits radiation while it is turned on. If you hold it against your head during a call, your head absorbs radiation; if you hold it against your body while it is turned on, your body absorbs radiation. If your mobile phone is turned on and in your pocket, the person sitting next to you is being irradiated.

290  —  The Force

iPhones and android phones offer users a greater range of functions — and therefore greater opportunities for exposure. The longer you spend using your phone for activities such as browsing the internet or playing games, the more you are being exposed. If you find yourself unable to avoid using these functions, it may be sensible to purchase a mobile phone with as few functions as possible to discourage unnecessary use. As we’ve seen in Chapter 4, mobile phone radiation has been found to affect the body in ways that are suggestive of harm. Some studies have found a higher risk of brain tumours for long-term users and others have found that it affects sperm quality and function and therefore possibility fertility. Babies and children are usually thought to be more at risk. Given that it is likely to be years and possibly decades before the full effects of this exposure is known, many authorities are advising people to reduce their exposure now. All homes and workplaces should have landline phone connections and mobile phone use should be kept to an absolute minimum. Here are some tips for reducing your exposure to the radiation from mobile phones. 1. Reduce the amount of time you spend using a mobile phone. There is evidence that the risks of phone use increase with time. • Make sure your home and business phones have corded rather than wireless connections. • Use your mobile phone only when absolutely necessary, and keep calls short. • When you receive messages on your mobile, return them on a landline. • Ring people on their landline rather than their mobile. • Avoid using your phone for unnecessary functions such as playing games, browsing the internet, and taking photos. 2. Keep the phone at a distance from your body. Any part of the body will absorb radiation if the phone is held against it. • Do not carry your phone against your body (for example, in your shirt or trouser pocket) when it is turned on. Because the phone is sporadically sending out signals to the network, your body (for example, your breast or hips) will be absorbing radiation. If you do place the phone in a pocket, make sure the back, where the antenna or antennas are usually located, is away from your body.

Reducing Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation   —  291

• • •

Use the speaker-phone mode, which will avoid the need for the phone to touch your body during a call. Follow manufacturers’ directions and keep phone 15 to 25 millimetres from body during a call. Do not use a hands-free device with a Bluetooth connection because these emit radiation, too.

3. Be cautious about where you use a mobile phone. • Do not use your phone in a low-signal area because it will need to work at higher power to connect. • Avoid using your phone in a busy or crowded area, such as on a bus or a train, where you can passively expose others. Remember that some people react badly to this radiation. • Do not keep your mobile phone near the bed at night — either for use as an alarm clock or while charging the battery. 4. Reduce children’s use of mobile phones. Children have been shown to absorb more radiation and are thought to be more vulnerable because they have thinner skulls and could be subject to a potential lifetime of exposure. Dr Lennart Hardell says that ‘Children should not use mobile phones except for urgent reasons.’50 • Avoid using your mobile phone when you are pregnant or while you are holding your baby close to your body. • When your baby is in the car with you try to avoid using your mobile phone. If you must do so, do not use it when the windows are wound up. • Do not locate the baby carseat near an external aerial. • Do not allow children to play with toy or real mobile phones. • Teach children that a landline is preferable to a mobile phone when possible. • Do not allow children under 16 to have a mobile phone. If your child does have a mobile phone, keep it out of the bedroom at night. • Put strategies in place, such as pre-arranging pick-up times, so that you know where your children are at all times and do not need to communicate with them often by mobile phone. • Set a good example by minimising your own mobile phone use. 5. Reduce workers’ exposure. Because mobile phone use for work is an occupational health and safety issue, it’s important that workplaces

292  —  The Force

put in place policies to address risk and mitigate liability in the event of future legal action. If you are developing a policy for your workplace, you will find useful recommendations above and in the policies mentioned elsewhere in this book.

Mobile phone protective devices The explosion of mobile phone technology and concerns about its risks have led to a proliferation of so-called protective devices. These range from plastic cases to shielded pouches to chips that connect to phones to amulets that are worn by the user. As mentioned in Chapter 4, there is no independent testing of these devices and no standard with which they need to comply — so you buy at your own risk. Devices such as mobile phone shields often require phones to operate at higher power to connect to the base station, and this really counteracts the benefits of the shielding. Some devices may possibly protect users, but others definitely do not and sometimes even make people’s reactions worse. Rather than rely for protection on a product that may or may not work, it is safer for you to reduce your exposure to radiation in ways that can be demonstrated to work. There’s really no better solution than reducing your use of mobile phones. If you attach a protective device to your child’s phone or even your household computer, if you give them a so-called protective pendant and allow them to continue using the technology indiscriminately, then the possibility remains that they are being exposed to potentially dangerous levels of EMR. Is it worth the risk? Wouldn’t you rather take precautions that can be guaranteed to reduce their exposure? Mobile phone towers, base stations, masts and television transmitters Protecting against the radiation from mobile phone base stations is not always easy because the towers are outside our personal control. However, there are some proactive steps that you can take. Remember that base stations exist only to support the use of mobile phones. If you do not like the proliferation of the base stations, then do not contribute to the problem by unnecessarily using the technology they are there to support. You may not be able to remove existing base stations, but at least you can make sure you do not contribute to the proliferation of them by minimising your use of mobile phones. As Eldrigde Cleaver, an African-American intellectual and author, said in his 1968 speech: ‘What we’re saying today is that you’re either part of the solution

Reducing Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation   —  293

or you’re part of the problem.’51 If you are concerned about the radiation from a base station near you, here are some tips that may be helpful. • Do not assume that being near a base station automatically exposes you to a high level of radiation. Your exposure will depend on the direction of the antenna and the area it is servicing. • Measure the radiation levels in your house so that you know to what you are being exposed. Follow the meter’s signals to identify the source of the highest readings. It might be your cordless phone or a neighbour’s wireless computer, in which case you have an opportunity to reduce your exposure (providing that your neighbour is agreeable!). • If your measurements identify a ‘high’ level of radiation comes from an external source, you could choose to place shielding on the relevant wall. Shielding paints and fabrics and reflective films which effectively block the incoming signal are commercially available. After installing shielding, measure the fields again to ensure that you’ve achieved the desired result. • Placing a trellis of chicken wire with climbing plants in line of sight of the transmitter can be effective for reducing fields in your home or workplace. • If you have a choice of bedrooms, sleep in the room with the lowest readings — providing you have reduced exposure from any other sources. • Sometimes a metal clothesline, railing, or incoming powerline can pick up a signal from a high-frequency transmitter and radiate a field. This occurs when its length is an exact multiple of the wavelength of the field. This problem can be fixed by changing the length of the line or railing, and should only be done by a competent professional. • Do not add to the radiation from a base station by having other radiating technologies (for example, mobile or cordless phones, wireless connections, or DECT baby monitors) in your home.

N Night lights A night light emits a small electromagnetic field that can add to your baby’s exposure if it is placed near the cot or bed. However, John finds that it’s the electric field that causes problems with children’s sleep.

294  —  The Force

Artificial light at night also reduce the production of melatonin, the hormone that protects against cancer and is vital for the performance of a range of other functions in the body.

P Photocopiers These generate high electromagnetic fields, not to mention chemical emissions, so they should be kept away from workstations. Fields of up to 200 mG have been measured at 15 centimetres from photocopiers, so try not to stand close to the machine while it is operating.52

Powerlines If you are concerned about your exposure from a powerline near your home, the most appropriate first step is to measure the fields in your house. Sometimes this alleviates people’s concerns. However, in the event that they are higher than you’d like, here are some ideas that you might want to consider. • Think about locating bedrooms in the rooms of the home furthest from the lines. • Plant trees between the house and the line, which will help to shield your home from electric fields — but not magnetic fields, which travel easily through objects. Similarly, be aware that most commercially available shielding products will block only electric and not magnetic fields. • Approach your electrical distributor to request that existing powerlines are replaced with bundled conductors — which have lower fields — outside your home. However, you will probably be required to pay for this service. • Do not assume that undergrounding powerlines will reduce fields at ground level, as this depends on the way the lines are laid. If your workstation is located near the perimeter of a second-storey building, it may be close to a powerline. John once measured a field of over 200 mG at the desk of a worker who was seriously ill. To reduce exposure, move workstations away from the powerline and/or ask the electric utility to install bundled conductors, as mentioned above. Power points Whether or not an appliance is plugged in, a power point will generate an electrical field. This can vary from a few to hundreds of volts

Reducing Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation   —  295

per metre. If you’re building or renovating, you can reduce the electrical field from a power point by encasing a metre or so of the power cable on each side in an earthed steel tube. However, unless you spend long periods of time directly against the power point, the fields are probably not of great concern, as they drop rapidly with distance.

R Radar guns There is some evidence that radar guns may pose a risk to operators. In 1993, two researchers from the University of Washington Medical Centre observed a cluster of testicular cancers among police officers who held radar guns close to their testicles.53 Some years later, Dr Murray Finkelstein found that police officers in Ontario had a 30 per cent higher incidence of testicular cancer and a 45 per cent higher incidence of melanoma than the general population, even though the police department’s overall cancer rates were lower than average. While Finkelstein thought that the melanomas might be a coincidence, he was concerned that the testicular cancer might be related to use of radar guns.54 So were some of the users themselves. When, in 1996, US policeman Franklin Chappell convinced the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission that his testicular cancer was caused by his handheld radar gun, the city compensated him by contributing to his medical expenses.55 According to a list compiled by US highway patrolman Gary Poynter, over 200 policemen who used radar guns later developed testicular cancers or melanomas.56 A report for the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health suggested a number of measures that could be implemented to reduce microwave exposure to officers using radar guns: 1. Handheld devices should be equipped with a switch requiring active contact to emit radiation. Such a switch, referred to as a ‘dead-man switch’, must be held down for the device to emit radiation, even though the power to the device is on … 2. Older handheld devices that do not have a ‘dead-man switch’ should not be placed with the radiating antenna pointed toward the body, whether it is held in the hand or placed near the officer. A holster or other similar

296  —  The Force

device should be used as a temporary holder for the radar when not in use. 3. When using two-piece radar units, the antenna should be mounted so that the radar beam is not directed toward the vehicle occupants. The preferred mounting location would be outside the vehicle altogether, although this may not be practical with older units that cannot withstand adverse weather conditions. Other options, e.g., mounting on the dashboard of the vehicle, are acceptable if the antenna is at all times directed away from the operator or other vehicle occupants. Mounting the antenna on the inside of a side window is not recommended. 4. Radar antennas should be tested periodically, e.g. annually, or after exceptional mechanical trauma to the device, for radiation leakage or back scatter in a direction other than that intended by the antenna beam pattern. 5. Each operator should receive training in the proper use of traffic radar before operating the device. This training should include a discussion of the health risks of exposure to microwave radiation and information on how to minimise operator exposure.’ 57

Refrigerators The highest field from a refrigerator comes from the motor, which is generally located at the bottom and back of the unit. Therefore, standing in front of the fridge exposes you to lower fields than you would receive at the rear. Because the fields from the rear of the fridge can travel through walls, it is a good idea not to locate a bed, couch, or desk behind it. Remote controls Remote controls send brief, very low-power radio signals to televisions and other appliances. When you switch off an appliance using a remote control, the appliance remains turned on, and is therefore consuming electricity and emitting electric fields. To avoid this, make sure that the appliance is turned off when it is not in use.

Reducing Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation   —  297

S Satellite dishes These dishes receive signals from orbiting satellites and do not generate any radiation themselves. Because the power from the satellite is low, they need to be large enough to collect sufficient signal. In theory, these dishes should not pose a risk to people living near them because they are not generating fields. However, people often report discomfort after satellite dishes are installed, which may possibly be due to some reflection of the signals.

Sewing machines Sewing machines can emit very high electromagnetic fields. A survey of home sewing machines found fields of 12 mG at chest level and 5 mG at head level.58 In the workforce, dressmakers and seamstresses are often considered to be among the most highly exposed workers, and one survey measured an average fields of 7 mG.59 However, some parts of the machinist’s body can be exposed to much higher fields than this. Doctors Eugene Sobel and Zoreh Davanipour found fields as high as 798 mG in their measurements of different sewing machines. Because an operator often works hunched over the machine, he or she can be exposed at the feet, knees, womb, chest, arms, and head. Sobel and Davanipour also found that highly exposed workers such as machinists had a greater risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease. Professor Claire Infante-Rivard found that they were also twice as likely to have children with brain tumours.60 As Sobel and Davanipour found great differences in the fields from various sewing machines, make sure you measure the fields before buying a machine for use in the home or workplace. Smart meters The so-called ‘smart’ metering system is being, or has been, introduced in many countries. It allows remote, two-way communication between electricity companies and customers. Presently, the meters communicate information about electricity consumption by radiofrequency radiation. Eventually it is expected that the meters will send a radiofrequency signal through the wiring of your home to communicate with electrical appliances and lights to determine the amount of electricity they consume. The meters transmit this information on a radiofrequency signal to access points on power poles and hence back to the power company. It is rather

298  —  The Force

like a mobile phone network for electricity. The effect of this will be to ‘dirty’ the electricity in your home and in the power grid and to expose people to increased levels and different types of radiofrequency radiation. Electricity companies and governments claim, in defence of the system, that it operates at low power. However, low power, as we saw in Chapter 10, does not guarantee safety, particularly in the case of longterm exposure. We have yet to see how the system impacts on people’s health, but those with hypersensitivity may well notice effects. Legally, there may not be anything you can do to prevent the installation of these meters in your home if you are concerned about or sensitive to the radiation they emit. However, if your bed is on the other side of the wall from the antenna that is transmitting the signal, you may want to consider shielding.

Static electricity Static electricity, produced by friction or movement, is present in equipment such as hair dryers, dishwashers, washing machines, air conditioners, computers, and photocopiers. It can also occur walking across a nylon carpet, using a nylon brush, or wearing synthetic clothing. For most people, static discharges are just a minor inconvenience. However, some people find them very hard to tolerate. If you are one of these people, you can avoid static electricity by: • choosing natural fibres for clothing, footwear, and furnishings • spraying clothing, footwear, and furnishings with anti-static sprays • removing static electricity from your body by walking barefoot on the ground or swimming in the ocean. Stereos Stereos can produce emissions of around 3 to 5 mG. To reduce exposure you can avoid sitting close to them while they are operating and unplug them from the power point when they are not in use. T Televisions Older-style televisions emit fields often above 50 mG at the sides and backs. They contain a cathode-ray tube and emit extremely low-frequency fields, radiofrequency radiation, electrostatic fields, and sometimes X-rays and small amounts of gamma radiation. Newer slimline models generally have lower magnetic fields, but some televisions generate wireless signals

Reducing Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation   —  299

in order to connect with a computer router, allowing the television screen to be used as a computer monitor. Digital television transmits over a wider band of frequencies than analog television and some people report experiencing greater discomfort from it. Whether your television is digital or analog, it’s a good idea to ensure that children don’t sit close to it and turn it off at the set or power point, not just using a remote control. Television antennas are simply receivers and don’t transmit any signals, so you don’t have to worry about emissions from them.

Thyristors Normally, a type of electronic switch called a thyristor is used for appliances that have multiple speeds, such as a variable speed drill. A thyristor switches the signal on or off in the middle of a wave. This produces peaks that chop up the smooth and regular sine wave, creating ‘dirty’ electricity. Thyristors are contained in an increasing number of modern appliances, including electric mixers, blenders, hair dryers, light dimmers, and controls for ceiling or stovetop fans. Appliances that contain thrystors within them tend to produce higher than normal electromagnetic fields, but they are often used for only short periods of time. Avoid sleeping near light dimmers or ceiling fan switches and, if you are sensitive, avoid all thyristors as much as possible. See also ‘dirty electricity’. Trains Electric trains operate at different frequencies — 16.6 or 50 Hz in Europe, 25 or 60 Hz in North America, and 50 Hz in Australia. Trains generate electromagnetic fields that vary considerably depending on the location measured but can reach up to several hundred milligauss. Fields as high as 70 mG have been measured in French trains, compared to 200 mG in the London Underground and 2900 mG in Finnish trains.61 I have measured fields of up to 50 mG on trains in Sydney, Australia. Even higher fields are usually found in train drivers’ cabins. Researchers measured average fields of 20 to 150 mG in Sweden and 3 to 18 mG in Maryland and Pennsylvania in the United States. Another Swedish study measured fields as high as 1000 mG in drivers’ cabins. Not surprisingly, train drivers are considered to be a highly exposed group and studies have shown that Swedish drivers and conductors had a higher risk of cancer, including leukaemia, and chromosome abnormalities.62 The use of mobile phones on trains has been a contentious issue. Because the metal carriage reflects the signal, the phone irradiates not

300  —  The Force

just the user but also other passengers. They can also be extremely annoying, as any peak-hour traveller would know. In Tokyo, mobile phones have been banned in some trains because of the nuisance impact of conversations.63

Transformers Transformers in appliances change the voltage of the electricity that passes through the appliances. Transformers are found in a range of appliances, including digital clocks, halogen lights, microwave ovens, and laptop computers. In some cases, the transformer is an obvious box-like attachment, as on battery chargers and radios. Transformers generate high electromagnetic fields and, therefore, so do the appliances that contain them. Try to keep such appliances away from your body, and well away from your bed. Large transformers are often situated in the basement of multistorey apartment or office blocks. These generate extremely high fields that can affect people living or working next to or above them if they are not well shielded. A study conducted by Dr Milham showed that office workers located above a transformer had a higher than normal rate of breast cancer.64 If you live or work near a transformer of this sort, it might be wise to measure the fields. To reduce your exposure you could move your bed or workstation away from the field or investigate shielding the transformer. V Vacuum cleaners Fields of 100 to 700 mG have been measured at 15 centimetres from the motor; fields of 20 to 200 mG at 30 centimetres and 4 to 50 mG at 60 centimetres.65 Normally, a user is separated from the motor by an arm’s length and does not receive very much exposure at all. However, vacuum cleaners that are worn on the back (of the variety sometimes worn by professional cleaners in some countries) expose wearers directly to these high fields.

Video and DVD players Video and DVD players emit fields while they’re on, so try not to sit close to them while watching television. When they’re not in use, make sure you turn the machines off properly — at the power button, not just with the remote control switch, which leaves the appliance on standby and still using electricity. If the machine is located near a bed, you might be advised to turn it off at the wall when it’s not in use.

Reducing Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation   —  301

W Walkie-talkies Walkie-talkies emit radiation with greater power than mobile phones. If the phones are a problem for users, then walkie-talkies are likely to be even more so. Because the antenna is close to the user’s head, it would be prudent to use a walkie-talkie only when necessary and not for extended periods. They should not be used as toys by children.

Washing machines Washing machines can produce fields of 4 to 100 mG at 15 centimetres and fields of 1 to 30 mG at 30 centimetres.66 The highest fields seem to be produced during the spin cycle. These fields are not usually a problem for users who are not nearby while the machine is operating, but it is a good idea to make sure that the machine is not located on the other side of the wall from a bed, if it is used at night. Watches Battery-operated watches can interfere with the body’s natural electromagnetic fields and are sometimes a source of discomfort to people who are hypersensitive to EMR. It is possible to avoid this problem by buying a watch with a wind-up or kinetic movement. Water pipes Sometimes, electrical current that has travelled to earth chooses to complete its circuit to the power station by hitching a ride on conductive copper water pipes. These could be currents from your home or even from a neighbour’s home. Conductive water pipes are often a source of high electromagnetic fields in a house and can expose all members of a family, particularly if the pipes run under or next to beds or desks. Nancy Wertheimer found that children living in homes where conductive water pipes created elevated fields had a higher than average risk of cancer.67 It is possible to prevent current from travelling through water pipes by breaking their conductivity with an insert of plastic pipe. This should always be done by qualified professionals. Firstly, engage an electrician to check that your home is properly earthed. Next, ask a plumber to insert a length of high-pressure plastic pipe, making sure it is located so that a person can’t bridge the gap with bare hands. It’s important to locate it as close as possible to the water meter so that the

302  —  The Force

pipes in the house continue to act as an earth and thus provide better protection from electric shock.

Wireless connections Remote connections — for example, from a keyboard to a computer monitor, from a headset to a phone, from a hard drive to a printer — all rely on radiofrequency radiation. Even though the signals are low power, they result in unnecessary exposure that some people are unable to tolerate. To avoid unnecessary exposure always use wired rather than wireless connections where possible. It will be years before we know the full impacts of EMR on our health and wellbeing. If we wait for effects to be proven unequivocally, it may be too late for our health. There is already enough evidence of risk to justify taking precautions to reduce exposure at all levels of society, and we need to be putting them in place now. As individuals, we may not have the power to control where industry locates its powerlines or phone towers, or how governments quantify the risks of EMR. But we do have the power to control our personal space — to create safer living and working environments. Reducing exposure to EMR in the workplace has benefits for all concerned. When fields are lowered, workers usually report benefits such as feeling less tired and stressed and having more energy. Employers benefit by less absenteeism and greater productivity — not to mention by insuring themselves against possible future negligence suits. Governments benefit by a reduction in medical benefit claims. Taking simple precautions can cost little to nothing, but failure to do so may exact a very high price indeed.

Chapter 12

Planning and Design

‘The use of the precautionary principle can also bring benefits beyond the reduction of health and environmental impacts, stimulating both more innovation, via technological diversity and flexibility, and better science.’ — European Environment Agency Report No. 22

If you are a planner or an architect, a builder, a designer, or an equipment manufacturer, you have a wonderful opportunity to create a new and lucrative product, be at the leading edge in your field, and tap into a growing trend among consumers. You have the chance to offer people designs, buildings, and appliances that are EMR-safe. And you can do this at little or no cost to yourself or your clients. If you are thinking of building or renovating a home or office, there is information for you in this chapter, too. You can learn how to find an EMR-safe location, design and construct a low-EMR building, and create an EMR-safe living or working environment. Not only can this reduce any potential risks from exposure, but it will create a highly marketable commodity — a healthy living or working space. There’s no denying that there is a growing market for products that are healthy, safe, and sustainable. Unlike the typical consumer of 20 years 303

304  —  The Force

ago, today’s shoppers are buying natural cleaning products, natural health products, organic foods, free-range animal products, biodynamic paints, natural building products, and even hybrid cars. And they want safe homes, workplaces, and communities. As people are becoming increasingly aware of the risks of EMR, they are looking for ways to minimise their daily exposure. They want to know how they can build low-EMR houses, where they can live away from concentrations of EMR, and which products are the best to use to limit EMR exposures. They want to know the safest location for their child to sleep, and what the fields in and around their homes are. Creating an EMR-safe environment starts at the design stage. Once a building is constructed or a subdivision is in place, once a suburb is up and running, it’s so much harder to make the necessary changes. Trying to fix EMR problems after they have been created is somewhat like trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted. It can be difficult and expensive. At the design stage, you have the opportunity to consider and implement simple, practical, commonsense strategies that help reduce EMR exposure in any new or renovated space.

Location, location Whether you are building a home or a subdivision, make sure the location you have in mind best serves your purpose. • Ask yourself if the site is suitable for the design you have in mind. For example, building a large, multi-storey complex, such as an office block or townhouses, on land with powerlines directly in front virtually ensures that there will be high fields in the rooms adjacent to the lines. • Before you build, measure what fields are present on the site, even if the block is vacant. You’ll be able to identify any high-frequency signals from base stations or other transmitters. You may also pick up electromagnetic fields from powerlines or other sources. John has measured fields above 5 mG on vacant blocks — in one instance the source was an underground power cable and on another occasion it was the water pipes from the demolished house, which were still connected to neighbouring pipes. • Decide the best location on the block for the building. For example, a house set back from the street will have lower fields from a powerline than a house located closer to the front of the block.

Planning and Design  —  305

Construction materials Gary Melik, a shielding specialist from the Australian company Magshield, says that some construction materials are more effective than others at screening unwanted EMR. • Steel-framed buildings and buildings with metal reinforcement provide protection at some frequencies. They don’t, as people sometimes assume, act as antennas for EMR. • Likewise, a tin roof will help reduce exposure. For example, if you live in a home with a tin roof, it’s likely that you have poor television reception; unless, of course, you have an external aerial. • Building materials such as brick and plaster provide no reduction in exposure from fields from powerlines and very little reduction in exposure to the high-frequency radiation from communications sources such as mobile-phone towers.

Design of buildings No matter how elaborate a design may be, architects and planners can incorporate a range of practical measures into the plans to reduce the potential for exposure. • Locate equipment that emits high fields away from living or sleeping areas and workstations. This includes transformers, switchboards, heavy current cables, air conditioners, heaters, and motors. • If walls are lined with aluminium foil, ensure that the foil is properly earthed to divert the electric field to earth. • Locate bedrooms as far away from any source of EMR as possible. Ensure that beds will not be placed on the other side of the wall from electrical equipment, such as electricity meter boxes, fridges, televisions, or hot-water heaters. • Avoid underfloor heating in which elements are located directly below the floor. Fortunately, most modern under-floor heating is now designed to minimise occupants’ exposure. • Make sure cables are in place so that wired telephone and internet connections can be installed easily.

Wiring How and where the wiring is run makes a great difference to exposure. John measured fields of 24 mG in the lounge room of an apartment in which cables for two other apartments and four shops ran under the floor. Two of the former residents had died of cancer.

306  —  The Force

There are several practical measures you can take to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields from wiring. • Locate electrical cables well away from areas where you will spend long periods of time, for example close to where beds and couches will be placed. Try to leave at least one wiring-free wall in bedrooms so that you can position the bed against it. • Do not locate wiring directly under the floor and avoid running lengths of unshielded wire through the walls. Where possible — for example, in a single-storey house or a top-storey apartment — locate the wiring above the ceiling so that it will be further away from individuals. • Run all wiring, whether it is in the floor or the ceiling, above or below dividing walls so that fields are not generated in living or working areas. This is particularly important when wiring is run close to sleeping areas. • Run wiring for high-current circuits away from sensitive areas such as bedrooms or workstations. • Make sure that active and neutral conductors are bound together so that the field from one cancels the field from the other. For example, if the meter is separated from the switchboard, run the phases and neutral connecting wires together. When two switches are used to control one light, make sure that the wires that connect the switches are run together, rather than separately. • Shield the mains cables by encasing the active and neutral in galvanised steel pipe or shielded metal conduit that is earthed. • Ensure that wiring is not running next to a telephone cable, or, if this is not possible, that the wiring is shielded. The wiring can cause a field in the telephone line which can affect the user. If the phone line is used to connect to the internet, high fields can travel down it and into the computer and keyboard. • Ensure that the wiring is properly earthed in accordance with relevant standards. In some countries, wiring is earthed to water pipes, which allows them to conduct current. See ‘Conductive pipes’. • Do not lay power cables in the same trench as copper water pipes, as there is a risk that the cables will induce currents in the pipes.

Wiring from a powerline to the house Your opportunity to reduce fields in a new building begins with the power supply from the electricity lines in the street.

Planning and Design  —  307

•

•

Use bundled conductors, rather than two separate wires, to connect the street electricity supply to the house wiring. Wires that are twisted and bundled together dramatically reduce the fields that are emitted. In some countries this is already common practice. Make sure that wiring from the street electricity supply does not run alongside the wall of a bedroom in order to reach the metre box.

Meter boxes Meter boxes remain one of the highest sources of electromagnetic fields in a home. Most of the EMR is produced by the kilowatt–hour meter, which spins to measure consumption. The fields emitted penetrate bricks and mortar and are still high on the other side of the wall. For this reason, it is important to locate the meter box away from areas where people spend long periods of time, particularly bedrooms. • Locate the meter box on the wall of a low-use area, such as a garage, cupboard, or wardrobe. Alternatively, you can mount the meter box on a galvanised steel pole located away from the house. • If the meter box must be on a bedroom wall, insert a sheet of steel around three millimetres thick or thin sheets of high-permeability metal between the box and the wall. The metal should extend about 50 centimetres longer than the height and width of the meter box and be connected to earth. Conductive pipes Wiring is often earthed to water pipes to prevent shock, and therefore there is a possibility that metallic water pipes will conduct an electric current that produces a magnetic field — and sometimes this field can be high — down walls and underneath floors. If the pipes are located in areas where people spend long periods of time, such as a bed, a workstation, or a lounge room, they can expose them to high fields. As we’ve seen, such exposure has been linked with health problems. There are several steps you can take to avoid this when designing a home or office. • Install non-metallic water pipes where possible. Be aware that in some countries, such as Australia, it is obligatory to earth the neutral wire of the power supply and connect it to any metallic water pipes. • If metal water pipes must be used, insert a short length of highpressure plastic pipe, in accordance with relevant building standards (see Chapter 11). • Make sure that other pipes, such as gas or under-floor water pipes for heating, are not carrying electric current.

308  —  The Force

Exposure within buildings In accommodating a large number of people and a plethora of radiating equipment, high-rise buildings and offices can create high-exposure situations for those who live or work in them. In order to avoid this scenario, it’s necessary to take exposure into consideration at every stage of building design and construction.

High-rise buildings High-rise buildings have the potential for exposure from multiple sources. High fields can be generated by, for example, photocopy rooms or computer labs, lifts, air-conditioning, and transformers. Many buildings have their own substations that convert high-voltage power from underground cables to 240-volt power for domestic or commercial use. As the fields from this sort of equipment radiate through walls and ceilings, people living or working in areas adjacent to or above the substations can be exposed. Apartments or offices in line of sight of microwave transmitters may have higher exposures to radiofrequency radiation. To reduce fields in high-rise buildings: • Locate substations, lifts, heavy equipment, and field-emitting appliances well away from living or working areas, and as far as possible from other high-use areas. • Design substations so that the equipment that generates highest fields and the connecting cables are located farthest from living, working, or other high-use areas. It may also be appropriate to shield substations to avoid exposure to people living or working nearby. • Keep the active phases and neutral (return) conductors close together, preferably by using a trefoil arrangement for three phases or a quadriture arrangement for three phases and neutral — talk to your electrician about these wiring configurations. Offices Workers are often exposed to fields in offices, whether or not their office is located in a multi-storey building. In addition to transformers, many offices contain switchboards, which can also generate high fields. Fields can usually be reduced by careful arrangement of workstations and use of low-radiation equipment. Workers often report improvements in health and/or mood after this has been done. • Locate switchboards away from workstations or high-use areas, and keep the active and neutral phases together.

Planning and Design  —  309

•

• •

• •

•

Make use of natural lighting where possible to avoid the need for artificial light. When lighting is necessary, use low-emission lights. Avoid fluorescent lights where possible. Locate workstations away from high-field areas such as lifts, transformers, and substations, and equipment such as photocopiers. Make sure workstations are arranged so that workers are not exposed to fields from other people’s equipment. This can happen when, for example, computers are located back to back. Use wired rather than wireless connections for phones, computers, and faxes. Encourage workers to keep equipment at their workstations, such as computer monitors, hard drives, printers, and scanners, as far from their body as they can. Measure the fields at workstations. If they are high, use the meter to identify the source(s). For example, be aware that when a computer screen flickers it usually means it is in a relatively high field — often around 15 mG or more. Find the source of the field and move or shield it or, if that is not possible, relocate the computer.

Interior design By being aware of where the sources of EMR are in and around a building, it’s possible to create work and living spaces that minimise people’s exposure. If you’re planning a new home or workspace, or renovating an existing building, then here are some tips that can help to create a safer environment. • Design work areas to make maximum use of natural light. • Choose lighting options with the lowest fields, such as low-energy halogens without transformers or LED lights. • Locate workstations well away from high-field equipment such as lifts, motors, switchboards, and transformers. • Locate kitchen workbenches away from electrical appliances such as microwave ovens, electric ovens, fridges, or under-bench dishwashers. • Design office workstations so that workers are not exposed to fields from other people’s computers. (Australia’s Energy Networks Association recommends a distance of two metres.)1 • Select wired rather than wireless equipment. • Allow for multiple phone sockets for convenient wired phone and internet connections. • Purchase low-emission, energy-efficient equipment and appliances.

310  —  The Force

Equipment Equipment manufacturers can tap the huge market of consumers concerned about creating a safer home and work environment. At little or no expense, they can design low-EMR products that will reduce exposure. This can be done by: • locating motors and transformers away from the part of the equipment that is held by or positioned near people • shielding areas of the equipment with high fields • installing filters within equipment to eliminate transients that create dirty electricity • providing information to consumers about emissions of products (such as SAR labels on mobile phones) and clear and visible instructions about how to use the equipment so as to reduce exposure.

Management At every level, management can develop policies to reduce the exposure of the people for whom they are responsible. For example, they can: • develop a ‘no risk’ or ‘low risk’ EMR policy for workers • measure fields in the workplace, including at each workstation • shield high-field equipment • purchase low-emissions equipment • use wired rather than wireless connections • ensure that, if workers must use mobile phones outside the office, they use speaker phones, don’t hold the phones against their body while they are turned on, and observe the other precautions listed in Chapter 11 • educate workers about how they can reduce their exposure • allow pregnant workers to perform tasks with a low risk of exposure for the duration of their pregnancy.

Regional planning Local governments can put in place sensible planning policies and building codes to minimise exposure to EMR. How much they limit this exposure will depend on what they believe constitutes ‘safe levels’. For example, Moreland City Council in Victoria, Australia, developed a draft guideline that stated, ‘The 2 mG limit has been chosen as it is the lowest practical field strength achievable … it is also the lowest level at which health effects have been associated with EMFs.’2

Planning and Design  —  311

•

Ensure that buildings are not constructed under high-voltage powerlines by regulating for wide easements. • Do not encourage children to congregate in easements by installing playground equipment or playing fields in them. • Do not allow residences or child-care facilities to be constructed in areas where exposure is above 2 mG or 0.1 µW/cm2. • Measure EMR levels in the area for proposed development so that high fields can be identified and plans can be developed to reduce exposure. • Provide public information about the health risks of EMR and suggestions for reducing exposure at home and work. • Give careful consideration to approving construction of new buildings that are in line of sight of existing mobile phone base stations or other transmitters. Ensure that you obtain data on the EMR exposure that people would receive at all levels of the building. • Monitor research and other developments relevant to the health effects of EMR. Regional planning authorities can fulfill their obligations to protect the safety and welfare of their constituents by implementing planning policies to ‘prudently avoid’ unnecessary exposure to EMR. These policies may need to be phased in over time and can include the following strategies.

Electricity supply • Encourage the local generation of electricity to avoid the need for more high-voltage powerlines in the municipality. In areas with abundant sunshine, solar panels should be mandatory for every building. • Support initiatives for achieving energy efficiency, such as use of low-energy appliances and other strategies for reducing electricity consumption, and educate communities on how they can achieve such initiatives. • Develop a policy that aims to implement lower exposure levels in the municipality. • Discuss with local energy utilities the possibility of shielding existing substations where appropriate. • When electricity supply is being installed or upgraded, discuss with the energy utility methods for reducing fields. These could include:

312  —  The Force

a.

locating transformers away from residences, classrooms, childcare centres, hospitals, and other sensitive areas b. using bundled conductors c. undergrounding cables.

Base stations • Establish a maximum exposure threshold for continuous longterm exposure (such as that which is experienced by those living or working near radiating infrastructure) of 0.1 µW/cm2. This is the level recommended by the BioInitiative Report. • Develop a policy, in consultation with stakeholders, for the appropriate siting of base stations. Whether or not you have legal jurisdiction on their placement, encourage carriers to comply with the policy. • Make sure all relevant staff are fully informed about: a. legalities regarding the placement of base stations (do not rely on the applicant to tell you what you can and cannot do ) b. the health effects of radiofrequency radiation (do not rely on the applicant to tell you that their radiating infrastructure is ‘safe’). • Require carriers who are installing infrastructure near existing facilities (for example, childcare centres, homes, hospitals) to keep exposure below 0.1 µW/cm2 at those facilities, even if that means installing shielding. • Educate communities about the relationship between the siting of base stations and their use of mobile phone and wireless technology. The more that people use these phones, the more base stations are needed.

Shielding It is quite easy to shield the electric field from power sources with highly conductive metals such as aluminium and copper. Magnetic fields are more difficult to shield and it is best to use specific shielding metals. Microwave radiation from base stations or television and radio transmitters can be shielded with metal or specialised paints and fabrics. If you are installing paint or fabric shielding yourself, you need to make sure you’re doing so in just the right locations to block the signals. Microwave signals are quite pervasive — like sunlight, they reach us from many directions at once. Just as pulling down a blind on one wall does not totally screen out light from a room, shielding one wall may not

Planning and Design  —  313

keep microwaves entirely at bay. A handheld meter can be helpful in checking that you have shielded the appropriate areas. A garden trellis of chicken wire may also help with shielding in certain situations and a metal flyscreen on the window can also help to absorb signals. In as much as each of us has a right to live in a safe environment, we have a responsibility for helping to create it. The practice of designing to minimise exposure is about taking a practical, precautionary approach to dealing with potential risks. It is why we have products such as safety glass, seatbelts, and sunscreen, and individuals such as lifeguards. Minimising our exposure to potential risks is why we have occupational health and safety policies, unions, building codes, and standards. It is time for us to include strategies for minimising exposure to EMR among those precautions. Consumers can demand EMR-safe products and manufacturers can provide them. Architects and builders can design and construct to reduce unnecessary exposure. Local government can introduce guidelines for new developments and building applications. Management can reduce workplace exposures. Unions can devise policies to reduce workers’ exposure. Governments can introduce appropriate standards and encourage innovative technology. Together we can make a difference.

Chapter 13

The Way Forward

‘Science without conscience is the soul’s perdition.’ — FranÇois Rabelais

The beautiful, curvaceous form of Lauren Bacall appears unexpectedly in the doorway of Humphrey Bogart’s hotel room. Leaning provocatively against the wall, she asks him for a match, her manner inviting very much more. Catching the box of matches he throws to her, she strikes a light and, eyeing Bogart speculatively, touches the flame suggestively to her cigarette… It was 1944, the Golden Age of Hollywood. In the glamorous world of film, smoking was synonymous with feminine allure, manliness, and sex. The invitation to light up was the entrée to many a romantic liaison and the artistic exhalation of a puff of smoke punctuated many an affair. In the world of cellulose, just about everyone’s role model smoked: Gary Cooper, Al Jolson, Clark Gable, Bob Hope, Henry Fonda, Spencer Tracey, Robert Taylor, Gloria Swanson, Joan Crawford, Susan Hayward, Rosalind Russell. Smoking was glamorous; smoking was sophisticated. Smoking was the ultimate form of seduction. Not only did a galaxy of stars light up on the set, but they took part in off-screen advertising campaigns to promote cigarette brands and their latest film simultaneously. It was an arrangement that movie studios were 315

316  —  The Force

keen to promote. In paid testimonials, stars claimed that smoking ‘relaxes your nerves’, ‘insures you against throat irritation’, provides the ‘quickest relief’, and ‘protects’ the voice.1 What’s more, advertisements proclaimed smoking as an alterative to eating sweets and so, by implication, it was seen to be good for you.2

Figure 21. Oscar-winning actors Gary Cooper and Claudette Colbert were among the many Hollywood stars to advertise smoking. Gary Cooper died of lung cancer at 61.

For decades, the tobacco industry invested heavily in this hugely profitable liaison with Hollywood. In 1943, the amount spent on advertising by the six leading cigarette brands was equivalent to US$315 million today.3 And it paid off — millions of moviegoers emulated their screen idols and women entered the cigarette market en masse. Smoking became mainstream, the tobacco industry reaped huge profits, and governments benefited from tobacco taxes. Smoking soon became an entrenched social phenomenon and there were powerful interests determined to keep it that way. The smoking pendulum reached the zenith of its swing. There were, of course, a few dissident voices. As early as the 1920s, there had been warnings about the health effects of smoking in the popular press. In 1924, Reader’s Digest published an article asking ‘does tobacco injure the human body?’ However, no one really knew the answer.

The Way Forward  —  317

During the 1930s the incidence of lung cancer began to increase, but the cause was a mystery. In 1949, a young British researcher called Richard Doll was asked to assist with a survey to identify the cause of this disease among patients in London hospitals. When he analysed the data he had collected, he found, to his surprise, that the single, outstanding constant for 647 of the 649 patients was smoking. Doll instantly gave up the habit. When he expanded his survey to 5000 patients in other cities he found the same association. But society was not yet ready to accept his results: the tobacco industry organised doctors to give contrary messages to the press and even the Department of Health warned him against worrying people about the dangers of smoking.4 More than half a century since Doll made the first link, the connection between smoking and lung cancer is well established. Tobacco smoke is now known to contain at least 80 different carcinogens and to be responsible for the vast majority of lung cancers. It’s also a risk factor for other types of cancer and diseases. The World Health Organization estimates that: ‘The tobacco epidemic kills 5.4 million people a year from lung cancer, heart disease, and other illnesses. Unchecked, that number will increase to more than eight million a year by 2030.’ It also tells us that: Tobacco use is a risk factor for six of the eight leading causes of deaths in the world … Most of tobacco’s damage to health does not become evident until years or even decades after the onset of use. So, while tobacco use is rising globally, the epidemic of tobacco-related disease and death has yet to reach its peak.5 The costs of cigarette smoking extend not just to sufferers and the families that support them. In the United States alone it’s been estimated that each year smoking costs the health-care system approximately US$75.5 billion in direct medical costs and $92 billion in lost productivity at work from smoking-related diseases.6 Cigarette butts account for large quantities of trash, and globally smoking is responsible for causing fires that cost around US$27 billion annually.7 It’s also responsible for higher accident rates and insurance premiums.8

318  —  The Force The World Health Organization estimates that tobacco-related health problems have cost: • Canada $1.6 billion • USA $76 billion • UK $2.25 billion • Germany $14.7 billion • China $3.5 billion • Australia $6 billion • New Zealand $84 million • Philippines $600 million.9

A hundred years after smoking first crested the wave of popularity, the tide has turned. Today not even a Bacall or Bogart could restore to smoking that sensuous glamour of its heyday. Information about its adverse health effects and graphic anti-cancer pictures of diseased lungs have made sure of that. Smoking may still be with us, but its status is diminished and its appeal forever tarnished. The pendulum has swung again. Among the many who are carrying the cost of the smoking burden today is the tobacco industry itself. In 1998, a landmark agreement in the United States forced the industry to its corporate knees. Four leading tobacco companies signed an historic compensation agreement with 46 states worth US$206 billion; it was known as the Master Settlement Agreement. It placed astonishing demands on the companies, requiring them to make payments to the states for costs of dealing with tobaccorelated health problems until 2025 and pay US$25 million each year to support an anti-smoking education program. The companies’ abilities to sell merchandise, sponsor events, and advertise were greatly restricted. Their industry associations were dissolved. They were banned from limiting or suppressing research into the link between smoking and health (the very need for this clause suggests that this is what they had been doing) and they were required to make internal documents freely available to the public on the internet. And finally, their lobbyists were not allowed to oppose legislation. The story of smoking is one that most of us can relate to because we’ve lived it to some extent or other. We have only to cast our minds back a few decades or watch a Hollywood movie from the 1940s to see that the way in which society regarded smoking then is vastly different from the way it regards smoking now. And it illustrates that culture is a work in progress. Smoking is just one chapter in society’s fascinating,

The Way Forward  —  319

ongoing cultural epic, in which social phenomena have come and gone and what’s been acceptable to one generation has been abhorrent to the next.

Changing social customs Skimming across the pages of time, we find astonishing social customs practiced across the globe. In China, parents once deliberately mutilated their daughters’ feet by binding them so tightly at birth that they failed to grow properly. This practice was perpetrated in the belief that women with small feet were more attractive to men — even if they couldn’t walk properly. In Elizabethan England, women used cosmetics that contained lead (to whiten the skin), mercury (as a facial peel), and belladonna (to brighten the eyes). In Europe of the late 1800s, where a small waist was considered desirable, adolescent girls were strapped into corsets so tight that their ribs were unable to grow properly, which depressed their lungs. (No wonder so many literary heroines of the period were wont to faint at the slightest provocation!) In the Middle Ages, town-dwellers threw household garbage and effluent into the streets. Most cultures at one time or other practiced slavery and some had a taste for cannibalism. Not one of these practices is still in place. That’s because the costs outweighed the benefits.

For a time, the benefits of smoking were all that people saw. It felt good, looked good, and was fashionable — and, just maybe, it helped to protect from throat ‘irritations’.10 It was not till some decades after taking up the habit that smokers began to pay the price, usually lung cancer. Likewise, at some point earlier in history people had realised that streets full of garbage led to disease, cosmetics containing lead made people sick, being able to walk correctly was more important than having delicately small feet. Today there’s a new social phenomenon that’s sweeping the globe — it’s the era of electric and electronic gadgetry. We live in a world mad for technology, where desire for the new, faster, smaller, drives innovation and feeds the economy; where, more and more, electronic equipment and radiating devices are becoming part of our way of life. Whether you are an executive or a toddler, a lecturer or a student, there’s a product for you. Though the products are new, the game is not — powerful commercial interests work hard to convince us we need it, want it, and must have it; they even fund research to convince us that it’s safe. Mobile phone technology is promoted as necessary, fashionable,

320  —  The Force

and convenient, just as smoking was promoted as sexy, sophisticated, and stylish. If smoking was the social phenomenon of the early twentieth century, then surely personal technology is the phenomenon of the twenty-first century. Society’s love affair with mobile phones, computers, remote connections, and their as-yet unknown technological spawn have created a niche in every marketplace. Eventually, we reach a critical mass where individuals embrace new technologies because without them it is harder to connect with those who have already embraced them. The story of this particular love affair is, so far, without an ending. Immersed in the midst of it, we don’t really know where it’s going, how it will turn out, and whether there will be a happy outcome for users down the track. There’s no denying that today’s radiation-emitting technologies have benefits. They have created breakthroughs in medicine, science, education, work, entertainment — and, of course, in our daily lives. Who could imagine a home without electricity or a business without computers? What’s not so clear is the price we may have to pay for these benefits. The social costs of radiation-emitting technologies include addiction, diminished interpersonal skills, erosion of privacy, and disempowering of communities, as corporate giants construct radiating infrastructure in local neighbourhoods. However, it’s the health costs that are the real concern. We know that the electromagnetic fields from electricity and the radiation from mobile phones and wireless equipment have unhealthy effects on our bodies and have been linked, often convincingly, with disease. We have yet to see what the long-term health effects will be. If radiating-emitting technologies are proven to be harmful, the costs to governments in the long term will be incalculable. Remember those costs for health care and lost productivity for tobacco? Remember that four US tobacco companies agreed to pay US$206 billion in compensation? The costs are likely to be very much more for EMR, because EMR is ubiquitous. We are all exposed. It’s a cost that’s potentially so great that insurance companies will not insure against it. Dr Magda Havas believes that, with 5 billion mobile phone users worldwide, ‘if we don’t react in a timely fashion to these “early warnings” we will face a human health tsunami’.11 In the space of a single century, humans have transformed the electromagnetic environment of the entire planet without adequately testing the technology responsible for it, without knowing the effects of

The Way Forward  —  321

long-term exposure, and without being able to guarantee its safety, particularly for future generations. Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Is our love affair with technology good for us or is it a dangerous liaison? Let’s look at what we know. • Technological innovation is producing radiation-emitting devices at an unprecedented rate and wireless technologies are rapidly replacing conventional wired services. We have mobile phones, cordless phones, wireless computers, wireless baby monitors, wireless doorbells, wireless speakers, remote controls for dozens of appliances… technology for just about every conceivable purpose. • In many cases, governments, which reap huge profits from the sale of spectrum and licence fees, are bending over backwards to accommodate this technology. It’s been granted exemptions from state and federal government legislation because it has been deemed an essential service (which it is not) and national health standards have been changed to accommodate it. With the blessing of our elected representatives, radiation-emitting infrastructure that supports these technologies is being forced on communities irrespective of their wishes, effectively disempowering them. • International authorities require radiation-emitting products to comply with irrelevant standards, which protect against only a small number of acute, short-term effects of radiation, even though people are being exposed on a continuous, long-term basis. I know of no radiation authority willing to commit on paper that mobile phones or powerlines are actually ‘safe’. • Research into the health effects of radiation-emitting technologies is being conducted after the technology has been introduced, and on the people who are using it. Long-term effects can only be gauged after large numbers of people have been exposed to it for long periods of time (in the case of cancer, usually for several decades). This means that, for example, if there are any lifethreatening health problems resulting from the long-term use of mobile phones, we will only know when a sufficient number of people have become sick or died. • Clever marketing of radiation-emitting technologies gives the impression that they are safe, necessary, desirable, and socially advantageous — creating not only a market, but social dependence and even addiction. This drives the economic machinery to create further technological innovation in the form of more radiationemitting technologies. And so the cycle of addiction begins again.

322  —  The Force

What this means is that society is currently taking part, willingly or unwillingly, in the greatest biological experiment of all time — one that would gain the approval of no ethics committee on Earth. It is an experiment in which the results will not be available for years, perhaps even generations. As Albert Einstein once said, ‘Technological change is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal.’ This experiment is being perpetrated in the belief that the hallowed halls of ‘official’ science are protecting us; that because radiation doesn’t harm us in some situations it never will. But this is not necessarily true. History is replete with examples of official scientific ‘truths’ that have changed over time. The earth was flat until it was proven to be a globe; uranium and X-rays were thought harmless until proven otherwise; continental drift was thought to be impossible until it was proven to occur. Galileo — forced to recant his observation that the Earth revolved around the sun because it didn’t fit with the religio-scientific opinion of the time — was proven right. As Carl Sagan said so astutely, ‘Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge.’ Right now the flat-earth paradigm of technology — the belief that only high levels of radiation are harmful — is being challenged. Scientists have to date published hundreds of studies showing that the harmful effects of EMR are occurring at lower, everyday levels of exposure. People exposed to these levels of radiation are also reporting problems and long-term mobile phone users are developing higher than normal rates of brain tumours.12 Nevertheless, officialdom is clinging tenaciously to this dogma as if admitting any health effects from EMR would cause it to fall off the edge of the world. It’s stacking committees, ignoring relevant research, and criticising folk who challenge its views. But the flat-earth view of radiation is becoming harder to sustain. As more courageous independent researchers speak out, as people are exposed for longer periods, as more people report effects, it’s becoming obvious that even low levels of EMR are a problem and that official standards are obsolete. German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer said: ‘All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.’ If we accept the plethora of evidence in this book indicating that low levels of EMR are likely to be harmful, particularly after long-term exposure, then the question is not so much ‘what will be the outcome of society’s gamble with technology?’

The Way Forward  —  323

as ‘at what point do we admit our mistakes?’ In other words, how many people need to become sick, to become sensitive, or to die, before society takes another technological tack? A society in which technology is given precedence over health, personal freedom, and nature is a society gone mad — a society so out of balance with life that it can’t be sustained; one in which the force disempowers. For some people, there is already enough proof that EMR is harmful to warrant regulatory action. Independent researcher Örjan Hallberg believes there’s enough proof for mobile phones to be banned right now. The authors of the BioInitiative Report say there is already enough proof for biologically based standards to be developed. I’m not suggesting that we ban mobile phones or return to the pretechnology era of the past. I’m suggesting something quite different: that we need to develop ethical technology. What do I mean by ‘ethical technology’? I mean technology that’s tested for safety before it’s released onto the market. I mean technology that’s required to comply with appropriate, biologically based standards. I mean technology that’s developed to meet a real need in society, not a need that’s created by advertisers. By ethical technology, I mean technology that is sustainable — that supports health, life, personal liberty, and nature. Technology where the benefits are weighed against the costs. What would ethical technology look like? To start with, we’d see precautions applied to existing technologies and the way that they are used. For example, we’d see mobile phones come with attached headsets and an automatic default speaker function. We’d see convenient wired connections for phones and computers in every home and workplace. We’d see low-emissions equipment and computers made without toxic chemicals. We’d see meter boxes and appliances designed with inbuilt filters for eliminating dirty electricity. We’d see compulsory labelling of emissions from all equipment, from mobile phones to computers, fridges, and vacuum cleaners. It would be customary to take measurements of fields in every home and workplace. We’d have phone-free carriages on trains and coverage-free zones for people who are sensitive to EMR. We’d see a ban on advertising of mobile phones to children and a separation of industry from research and the bodies who set the standards and independent science. Stakeholders would be represented on decision-making bodies; governments would give more weight to public health than economic profit; and our health authorities would listen to

324  —  The Force

people with problems, rather than trying to convince them that their problems don’t exist. And we’d remember to balance the use of technology with other important facets of life, such as creativity, fostering face-to-face personal relationships, and appreciating the natural world. Ultimately, we’d harness the creative genius of our technicians to develop technology that is clean, healthy, and safe. We could, for example, develop efficient fibre-optic networks for communication. We could develop effective ways of generating local power to avoid stringing high-voltage powerlines across our communities — imagine, for example, homes that generated their own electricity to feed low-emission appliances. Mobile phone networks could be operated at frequencies that supported the human body rather than harming it. Equipment, homes, and whole communities could be designed to minimise exposure. If this sounds like a pipe dream to you, remember that just 50 years ago so were ipods, mobile phones, and wireless computers. In a society that can build machines activated by brainwaves and organise joyflights into space for billionaires, do we have the capacity to design such technology? Of course! And it’s already happening. We have already seen the development of lower-emission computers and lower-emission high-voltage powerlines. To continue to turn our scientists’ infinite creativity to practical outcomes such as these, what’s needed is incentive and funding. Both will ultimately flow from consumer demand. In the long run, the development of ethical technology is in everyone’s interests. Governments benefit by reduced health-care costs, businesses save on lost productivity, industry protects itself against litigation and compensation costs, and you and I benefit by knowing our health and wellbeing, and that of our children, is protected. It is no longer enough to utilise the brilliance and infinite creativity of the mind to produce technology in isolation from the world around us. We need to create in balance with nature — our wonderful science should be used, as the father of the modern scientific method, Francis Bacon, said, ‘for the relief of man’s estate’. In a world that’s struggling to survive the twenty-first century, ethical technology offers us a doorway to the future. Just as we need to live more sustainably to survive the environmental crises we have created, so we need to design more ethically to survive the technological crisis we have created. In fifty or a hundred years from now, when our descendants look back at our present affair with radiating technologies, what

The Way Forward  —  325

will they see — an enduring social phenomena that benefits society? Or will they shake their heads and ponder the folly of their forebears? Will the costs outweigh the benefits? The answer to that depends very much on our decisions now and the way we choose to engage with radiation-emitting technologies in the future. We have come to the critical point in our journey with technology where the road ahead forks and we have two paths from which to choose. We can race full-speed along the path of least resistance, manufacturing all that the creative technician can envisage, lapping up all that the corporate spin serves us, and consuming all that’s novel as desirable and necessary. Or we can proceed with caution, balancing the benefits with the costs. In a world that has been tantalised by technology — seduced by its sexy appeal — we are a society in the grips of addiction. With the continuous rollout of radiation-emitting networks; escalating use of mobile phones, often by children; the saturation of the planet with satellite radiation; and the development of more and innovative radiation-emitting technologies, our exposure is growing daily. It remains to be seen whether we can we learn from the lessons of the past and master our addiction before it masters us. With electromagnetic radiation affecting all of us, we each have an opportunity to make a difference. As evidence of the risks that EMR poses to health and wellbeing grows, as administration after administration urges precaution, it’s incumbent on each of us to ensure our future and the future of those for whom we care. If you are a parent responsible for your children, an employer responsible for your workers, an administrator responsible to your constituents, or if you are an architect, a designer, a manufacturer, you can help to create a safer environment. As we create a demand for technology to meet our needs, we can sow the seeds for the ethical technology of tomorrow and create a sustainable future for all.

Appendix: Statements by scientists and medical practitioners

In the last decade, scientists and medical practitioners from around the world have endorsed statements expressing concern about the effects of EMR and calling for appropriate standards and precautions to protect public health.

Copenhagen Resolution (October 2010) ‘The Copenhagen Resolution was passed at the conference titled “The Shadow Side of the Wireless Society”. It is based on previous international appeals and resolutions and the BioInitiative Report from medical doctors and scientists who state the need for prevention of damage to public health from the exposure to radiation from wireless technology. Together we, the signatories, submit the following demands: • A considerable lowering of guidelines and exposure to wireless microwave radiation to a biologically based precautionary level, with a peak-level maximum of 0.6 V/m as recommended by the BioInitiative Report. • Information and official warnings for the general public regarding the health risks from wireless microwave radiation — with emphasis on increased risks for pregnant women and children. • Warning labels on wireless radiation-emitting products and a determination by the producers to design such products to emit as little radiation as possible, and emit radiation only when necessary. 327

328  —  The Force

•

Restrict and discourage children’s access to and use of wireless radiation emitting products. • Electro Hyper Sensitivity must be officially recognised as a functional impairment. • Enable and respect local community influence on the location of wireless base stations and a full disclosure of all existing and planned wireless base station locations. • Minimise wireless radiation exposure in public spaces occupied by vulnerable groups, like schools, day-care facilities,xxxs and public transport. • Establish White-Zones: low-radiation communities where Electro Hyper Sensitive people can live as well as providing financial support for shielding from wireless radiation in existing homes. • Promote health safe alternatives to wireless technology. • Independent causal research must be undertaken.’ Full text at www.kbh-resolution.dk

London Resolution (November 2009) ‘We, the undersigned, do call on the UK Health Protection Agency (HPA), UK Government, and all the health protection agencies and governments worldwide, to take note of the findings and recommendations in the BioInitiative Report (2007) and its predecessors the Benevento Resolution (2006), the Catania Resolution (2002), and the Salzburg Resolution (2000) to immediately reduce the guidelines for exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RF) and extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMF) for the following reasons. • The overwhelming evidence of adverse non-thermal health effects at exposures many times below the current guidelines. • The near 100% penetration of the market in Europe, the USA, and many other markets by mobile phones and increasing penetration elsewhere. • The vast proliferation of wireless networks and devices beyond those envisaged at the time the current guidelines were set. We call for the ICNIRP to reconvene as a matter of urgency to reassess the exposure guidelines and to develop and implement biologically based public safety limits reflecting the overall scientific evidence that existing ICNIRP guidelines are not sufficiently protective against health effects from chronic exposures to the rapidly increasing environmental-level ELF-EMF and RF. Failing that:

Appendix  —  329

•

We call for the setting up of an independent body to define new biologically based public exposure limits and/or preventative actions for ELF-EMF and RF that address reported biological effects, which, with prolonged exposure, can reasonably be presumed to result in adverse health consequences. • In the absence of such recommendations we suggest as an intermediate step that the HPA and UK Government immediately implement the ELF-EMF and RF recommendations of the BioInitiative Report (2007) and strive for the recommendations of the Public Health Department of the Government of Salzburg (2002) of 0.06 V/m for outdoor and 0.02 V/m for indoor RF exposure. Based on the precautionary principle, children and vulnerable groups (such as people with epilepsy and heart conditions) should not be exposed to a risk of harm, thus we propose that: • Children under 16 should use mobile phones and cordless phones for emergency calls only. • No wi-fi, wiMax, or other forms of wireless networking are placed in homes, schools, or public areas or promoted for use thereof. • That regular and frequent independent audits are undertaken of emissions to ensure that base stations (“masts”) do not exceed the new biologically based guidelines at any locality either singly or by accumulation. Such audits should be widely publicised and made available for public scrutiny. The precautionary principle needs to be implemented.’ Source: Johansson, O., ‘The London Resolution’, Pathophysiology 16, 2009, pp. 247–48.

Porto Alegre Resolution (May 2009) ‘We, the undersigned scientists, were honored to participate in a workshop … entitled “International Workshop on Non-Ionizing Radiation, Health and Environment” ... This resolution follows several international resolutions agreed to by concerned scientists and medical doctors over the past decade, including resolutions developed by the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety, based on evidence and consideration on documents such as the BioInitiative Report and a special issue of the journal Pathophysiology on electrical and magnetic fields, published in August 2009. We agreed that the protection of health, wellbeing, and the environment requires immediate adoption of the Precautionary Principle, which

330  —  The Force

states, “when there are indications of possible adverse effects, though they remain uncertain, the risks from doing nothing may be far greater than the risks of taking action to control these exposures. The Precautionary Principle shifts the burden of proof from those suspecting a risk to those who discount it”, until new scientific discoveries are recognised as the only criterion for the establishment or modification of non-ionising radiation exposure standards … We recognise that, in Brazil as well as all over the world, where there has been an unprecedented explosion in the availability and use of nonionising electromagnetic fields for electrical and wireless communications technologies (mobile and cordless phones, wi-fi and WIMAX networks, RFID, etc,), as well as major electrical grid and wireless broadband infrastructure changes, this assessment should inform risk management to take proper steps to protect the public from long-term, low-level exposure to extremely-low frequency as well as radiofrequency electromagnetic fields that have substantially increased in the ambient environment in recent years. We are concerned about the body of evidence that indicates that exposure to electromagnetic fields interferes with basic human biology and may increase the risk of cancer and other chronic diseases. The exposure levels at which these effects have been observed are many times lower than the standards promulgated by the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the IEEE’s International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (ICES). These standards are obsolete and were derived from biological effects of short-term high-intensity exposures that cause health effects by temperature elevation and nerve excitation discovered decades ago. Recent research indicates that electromagnetic fields could cause detrimental health effects even at very low levels of exposure. The ICNIRP and IEEE/ICES standards are being supported and promoted by interested parties to avoid precautionary technical planning, precautionary laws, and precautionary advice to the public. We are deeply concerned that current uses of non-ionising radiation for mobile phones, wireless computers and other technologies place at risk the health of children and teens, pregnant women, seniors and others who are most vulnerable due to age or disability, including a health condition known as electromagnetic hypersensitivity. We strongly recommend these precautionary practices: 1. Children under the age of 16 should not use mobile phones and cordless phones, except for emergency calls;

Appendix  —  331

2. The licensing and/or use of wi-fi, WIMAX, or any other forms of wireless communications technology, indoor or outdoor, shall preferably not include siting or signal transmission in residences, schools, day-care centres, senior centres, hospitals, or any other buildings where people spend considerable time; 3. The licensing for siting and installation of infrastructure related to electrical power and wireless broadband telecommunications, particularly, cellular telephony, wi-fi and WIMAX, should only be approved after open public hearings are held and approval granted with full consideration given to the need to apply the Precautionary Principle. Sensitive areas should be avoided to protect vulnerable populations; 4. Mankind shall be encouraged to continue to discover new means of harnessing non-ionising electromagnetic energy, aiming at bringing benefits to society through definition of new standards of human exposure, which are based on the biological realities of nature and not solely on the consideration of economic and technological needs. We, therefore, urge all nations to join Switzerland, Italy, Belgium, Russia, China, the United States (for the FCC standard for partial exposure of the head) and other countries and regions that have chosen to adopt a more precautionary strategy, aiming to assure more safety to the public while maintaining good service quality. We make an urgent call to all nations to convene a panel of experts, selected from candidates recommended by civil society groups (not only those preferred by the affected industries) to discuss precautionary technology, laws, and advice in order to develop policies that reconcile public health concerns with further development of wireless communications technology such as mobile phones as well as electric power transmission and distribution systems.’ Full text at www.icems.eu/docs/resolutions/Porto_Alegre_Resolution.pdf

Venice Resolution (June 2008) ‘As stated in the Benevento Resolution of September 2006, we remain concerned about the effects of human exposure to electromagnetic fields on health. At the Venice Workshop entitled ‘Foundations of bioelectromagnetics: towards a new rationale for risk assessment and management,’ we discussed electro-hypersensitivity, blood–brain barrier changes, learning and behavioural effects, changes in antioxidant enzyme activities, DNA damage, biochemical mechanisms of interaction, biological damage, and experimental approaches to validate these effects. As an outcome, we are compelled to confirm the existence of non-thermal

332  —  The Force

effects of electromagnetic fields on living matter, which seem to occur at every level of investigation from molecular to epidemiological. An urgent task before international researchers is to discover the detailed mechanisms of non-thermal interactions between electromagnetic fields and living matter. A collateral consequence will be the design of new general public and occupational protection standards. We, who are at the forefront of this research, encourage an ethical approach in setting of exposure standards which protect the health of all, including those who are more vulnerable. We recognise the need for research to reveal the critical exposure parameters of effect and risk from exposure to electromagnetic fields. The non-ionising radiation protection standards recommended by international standards organisations, and supported by the World Health Organization, are inadequate. Existing guidelines are based on results from acute exposure studies and only thermal effects are considered. A worldwide application of the Precautionary Principle is required. In addition, new standards should be developed to take various physiological conditions into consideration, e.g., pregnancy, newborns, children, and elderly people. We take exception to the claim of the wireless communication industry that there is no credible scientific evidence to conclude there is a risk. Recent epidemiological evidence is stronger than before, which is a further reason to justify precautions be taken to lower exposure standards in accordance with the Precautionary Principle. We recognise the growing public health problem known as electrohypersensitivity; that this adverse health condition can be quite disabling; and that this condition requires further urgent investigation and recognition.  We strongly advise limited use of cell phones and other similar devices by young children and teenagers, and we call upon governments to apply the Precautionary Principle as an interim measure while more biologically relevant standards are developed to protect against not only the absorption of electromagnetic energy by the head, but also adverse effects of the signals on biochemistry, physiology and electrical biorhythms.’ Full text at www.icems.eu/resolution.htm

Benevento Resolution (February 2006) ‘The International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS) held an international conference entitled “The Precautionary EMF Approach: rationale, legislation and implementation” … The scientists at the conference endorsed and extended the 2002 Catania Resolution and resolved that:

Appendix  —  333

1. More evidence has accumulated suggesting that there are adverse health effects from occupational and public exposures to electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields, or EMF, at current exposure levels. What is needed, but not yet realised, is a comprehensive, independent, and transparent examination of the evidence pointing to this emerging potential public health issue. 2. Resources for such an assessment are grossly inadequate despite the explosive growth of technologies for wireless communications as well as the huge ongoing investment in power transmission. 3. There is evidence that present sources of funding bias the analysis and interpretation of research findings towards rejection of evidence of possible public health risks. 4. Arguments that weak (low-intensity) EMF cannot affect biological systems do not represent the current spectrum of scientific opinion. 5. Based on our review of the science, biological effects can occur from exposures to both extremely low frequency fields (ELF EMF) and radiation frequency fields (RF EMF). Epidemiological and in vivo as well as in vitro experimental evidence demonstrates that exposure to some ELF EMF can increase cancer risk in children and induce other health problems in both children and adults. Further, there is accumulating epidemiological evidence indicating an increased brain tumour risk from long-term use of mobile phones, the first RF EMF that has started to be comprehensively studied. Epidemiological and laboratory studies that show increased risks for cancers and other diseases from occupational exposures to EMF cannot be ignored. Laboratory studies on cancers and other diseases have reported that hypersensitivity to EMF may be due in part to a genetic predisposition. 6. We encourage governments to adopt a framework of guidelines for public and occupational EMF exposure that reflect the Precautionary Principle — as some nations have already done. Precautionary strategies should be based on design and performance standards and may not necessarily define numerical thresholds because such thresholds may erroneously be interpreted as levels below which no adverse effect can occur. These strategies should include: 6.1. Promote alternatives to wireless communication systems, e.g., use of fibre optics and coaxial cables; design cellular phones that meet safer performance specifications, including radiating away from the head; preserve existing landline phone networks; place powerlines underground in the vicinity of populated areas, only siting them in residential neighbourhoods as a last resort;

334  —  The Force

6.2. Inform the population of the potential risks of cell phone and cordless phone use. Advise consumers to limit wireless calls and use a landline for long conversations. 6.3. Limit cell phone and cordless phone use by young children and teenagers to the lowest possible level and urgently ban telecom companies from marketing to them. 6.4. Require manufacturers to supply hands-free kits (via speaker phones or ear phones), with each cell phone and cordless phone. 6.5. Protect workers from EMF-generating equipment through access restrictions and EMF shielding of both individuals and physical structures. 6.6. Plan communications antenna and tower locations to minimise human exposure. Register mobile phone base stations with local planning agencies and use computer mapping technology to inform the public on possible exposures. Proposals for city-wide wireless access systems (e.g. wi-fi, WIMAX, broadband over cable, or powerline or equivalent technologies) should require public review of potential EMF exposure and, if installed, municipalities should ensure this information is available to all and updated on a timely basis. 6.7. Designate wireless-free zones in cities, in public buildings (schools, hospitals, residential areas) and, on public transit, to permit access by persons who are hypersensitive to EMF. 7. ICEMS3 is willing to assist authorities in the development of an EMF research agenda. ICEMS encourages the development of clinical and epidemiological protocols for investigations of geographical clusters of persons with reported allergic reactions and other diseases or sensitivities to EMF, and document the effectiveness of preventive interventions. ICEMS encourages scientific collaboration and reviews of research findings. We, the undersigned scientists, agree to assist in the promotion of EMF research and the development of strategies to protect public health through the wise application of the precautionary principle.’ Full text at www.icems.eu/docs/BeneventoResolution.pdf

Catania Resolution (September 2002) ‘The Scientists at the International Conference “State of the Research on Electromagnetic Fields — Scientific and Legal Issues”, organised by ISPESL, the University of Vienna, and the City of Catania, held in Catania (Italy) on 13 and 14 September 2002, agree to the following:

Appendix  —  335

1. Epidemiological and in vivo and in vitro experimental evidence demonstrates the existence of electromagnetic field (EMF) induced effects, some of which can be adverse to health. 2. We take exception to arguments suggesting that weak (low intensity) EMF cannot interact with tissue. 3. There are plausible mechanistic explanations for EMF-induced effects which occur below present ICNIRP and IEEE guidelines and exposure recommendations by the EU. 4. The weight of evidence calls for preventive strategies based on the precautionary principle. At times the precautionary principle may involve prudent avoidance and prudent use. 5. We are aware that there are gaps in knowledge on biological and physical effects, and health risks related to EMF, which require additional independent research. 6. The undersigned scientists agree to establish an international scientific commission to promote research for the protection of public health from EMF and to develop the scientific basis and strategies for assessment, prevention, management and communication of risk, based on the precautionary principle.’ Full text at www.icems.eu/docs/resolutions/Catania_res.pdf

Freiburger Appeal (October 2002) ‘Out of great concern for the health of our fellow human beings we do — as established physicians of all fields, especially that of environmental medicine — turn to the medical establishment and those in public health and political domains, as well as to the public. We have observed, in recent years, a dramatic rise in severe and chronic diseases among our patients, especially: • learning, concentration, and behavioural disorders (e.g. attention deficit disorder, ADD) • extreme fluctuations in blood pressure, ever harder to influence with medications • heart rhythm disorders • heart attacks and strokes among an increasingly younger population • brain-degenerative diseases (e.g. Alzheimer’s) and epilepsy • cancerous afflictions such as leukaemia, brain tumours. Moreover, we have observed an ever-increasing occurrence of various disorders, often misdiagnosed in patients as psychosomatic: • headaches, migraines • chronic exhaustion

336  —  The Force

• • • • •

inner agitation sleeplessness, daytime sleepiness tinnitus susceptibility to infection nervous and connective tissue pains, for which the usual causes do not explain even the most conspicuous symptoms. Since the living environment and lifestyles of our patients are familiar to us, we can see — especially after carefully directed inquiry — a clear temporal and spatial correlation between the appearance of disease and exposure to pulsed high-frequency microwave radiation (HFMR), such as: • installation of a mobile telephone sending station in the near vicinity • intensive mobile telephone use • installation of a digital cordless (DECT) telephone at home or in the neighbourhood. We can no longer believe this to be purely coincidence, for: • too often do we observe a marked concentration of particular illnesses in correspondingly HFMR-polluted areas or apartments; • too often does a long-term disease or affliction improve or disappear in a relatively short time after reduction or elimination of HFMR pollution in the patient’s environment; • too often are our observations confirmed by on-site measurements of HFMR of unusual intensity. On the basis of our daily experiences, we hold the current mobile communications technology (introduced in 1992 and since then globally extensive) and cordless digital telephones (DECT standard) to be among the fundamental triggers for this fatal development. One can no longer evade these pulsed microwaves. They heighten the risk of already present chemical/physical influences, stress the body’s immune system, and can bring the body’s still-functioning regulatory mechanisms to a halt. Pregnant women, children, adolescents, elderly, and sick people are especially at risk. Our therapeutic efforts to restore health are becoming increasingly less effective: the unimpeded and continuous penetration of radiation into living and working areas — particularly bedrooms, an essential place for relaxation, regeneration, and healing — causes uninterrupted stress and prevents the patient’s thorough recovery. In the face of this disquieting development, we feel obliged to inform the public of our observations, especially since hearing that the German courts regard any danger from mobile telephone radiation as “purely hypothetical” (see the decisions of the constitutional court in Karlsruhe and the administrative court in Mannheim, Spring 2002).

Appendix  —  337

What we experience in the daily reality of our medical practice is anything but hypothetical! We see the rising number of chronically sick patients also as the result of an irresponsible “safety limits”, policy which fails to take the protection of the public from the short- and long-term effects of mobile telephone radiation as its criteria for action. Instead, it submits to the dictates of a technology already long recognised as dangerous. For us, this is the beginning of a very serious development through which the health of many people is being threatened. We will no longer be made to wait upon further unreal research results — which in our experience are often influenced by the communications industry — while evidential studies go on being ignored. We find it to be of urgent necessity that we act now! Above all, we are, as doctors, the advocates for our patients. In the interest of all those concerned, whose basic right to life and freedom from bodily harm is currently being put at stake, we appeal to those in the spheres of politics and public health. Please support the following demands with your influence: • new health-friendly communications techniques, given independent risk assessments before their introduction. And, as immediate measures and transitional steps: • stricter safety limits and major reduction of sender output and HFMR pollution on a justifiable scale, especially in areas of sleep and convalescent science • a say on the part of local citizens and communities regarding the placing of antennae (which in a democracy should be taken for granted) • education of the public, especially of mobile telephone users, regarding the health risks of electromagnetic fields • ban on mobile telephone use by small children, and restrictions on use by adolescents • ban on mobile telephone use and digital cordless (DECT) telephones in preschools, schools, hospitals, nursing homes, events halls, public buildings, and vehicles (as with the ban on smoking) • mobile telephone and HFMR-free zones (as with auto-free areas) • revision of DECT standards for cordless telephones with the goal of reducing radiation intensity and limiting actual use time, as well as avoiding the biologically critical HFMR pulsation • industry-independent research, finally with the inclusion of amply available critical research results and our medical observations.’ Full text at www.emrpolicy.org/regulation/international/docs/freiburger_ appeal.pdf

338  —  The Force

Salzburg Resolution (June 2000) ‘1. It is recommended that development rights for the erection and for operation of a base station should be subject to a permission procedure. The protocol should include the following aspects: • information ahead and active involvement of the local public • inspection of alternative locations for the siting • protection of health and wellbeing • considerations on conservation of land- and townscape • computation and measurement of exposure • considerations on existing sources of HF-EMF exposure • inspection and monitoring after installation. 2. It is recommended that a national database be set up on a governmental level giving details of all base stations and their emissions. 3. It is recommended for existing and new base stations to exploit all technical possibilities to ensure exposure is as low as achievable (ALATA principle) and that new base stations are planned to guarantee that the exposure at places where people spend longer periods of time is as low as possible, but within the strict public health guidelines. Presently the assessment of biological effects of exposures from base stations in the low-dose range is difficult but indispensable for protection of public health. There is at present evidence of no threshold for adverse health effects. Recommendations of specific exposure limits are prone to considerable uncertainties and should be considered preliminary. For the total of all high-frequency irradiation a limit value of 100 mW/m² (10 µW/cm²) is recommended. For preventive public health protection a preliminary guideline level for the sum total of exposures from all ELF pulse modulated high-frequency facilities such as GSM base stations of 1 mW/m² (0.1 µW/cm²) is recommended.’ Full text available at www.salzburg.gv.at/salzburg_resolution_e.htm

Vienna EMF Resolution (October 1998) Preamble During recent years the fast progression of mobile phone systems (GSM) resulted in a massive increase of electromagnetic field exposure in residential areas. This situation will be aggravated with every additional network provider. At the same time it is established that the GSM signal, which utilises pulsed electromagnetic fields, is interacting with biologic systems.

Appendix  —  339

Measurements in the city of Salzburg, Austria, showed that pulsed GSM electromagnetic fields exceeded other prevalent EMF fields such as television and radio by up to 100 times. A satisfactory protection of neighbours’ interests is not warranted by the applicable laws. The constitutional right of protection of life and health is vastly neglected. In summary, in regard to legal aspects there is protection deficit in the public and private laws which is unsatisfactory. The legislator is required to solve the conflict of interests between the industries commission on one side and the neighbours’ involvement and their interests for protection of life and health on the other side. Because of the constitutionally determined objectives of the state to comprehensively protect the environment, there is a demand for precautionary action on the political and legal level. The currently used national and international strategy to determine limit values is extremely conservative. It demands to be urgently replaced by the precautionary principle, similar to strategies in many other sciences. The “Salzburg model” showed that neighbour involvement and a precautionary limit value of 1 mW/m² EMF-flux-density can be achieved, even for the sum of all GSM frequencies, without compromising technically the quality of the GSM net. Measures by the Austrian Research Centre, Seibersdorf, revealed that in Salzburg there was a high correlation between the computed exposure values before mast erection and real exposure after the mast was erected and switched on. This petition and the demanded actions, in particular the request to introduce the Salzburg limit values, also consider the interests and rights of users and the interest in protection of consumers and their health through application of the precautionary principle. According to the experiences in Salzburg, it is possible to use mobile phones without noticeable problems and stay within the specific limit values.

Petition Parliament should take the following actions: 1. The telecommunication law should be amended such that in the process of erecting a base station the neighbours and the communities must become involved. 2. With every county a contract ... should be signed to impose neighbour rights and introduce the duty to subject any base station to approval. 3. The current values should be amended by introduction of the precautionary principle and the Salzburg limit value of 1 mW / m² The recommendations of ICNIRP protect in the high-frequency range

340  —  The Force

only from heating above 1 degree Celsius but they do not protect from biological effects in the low-dose range, which can occur at exposures below the ICNIRP limit values. 4. ... the precautionary principle should be applied to issues of health and consumer protection through national law. 5. A law should be passed to produce a nation-wide register of the EM emissions of GSM-base-stations, including micro and indoor cells. This register should be updated and published on a regular basis. 6. A more detailed and improved testing of the intertechnical EMFcompatibility of pulsed EM high-frequency fields, in particular in regard to medical devices and body implants (e.g. pacemakers and hearing aids) and the testing of security in traffic, is needed. 7. By law the antennas producing pulsed fields (like GSM base stations, microcells, indoor cells, mobile phones, cordless phones, and wireless computing networks) should carry labels to explain their EMF emissions (indicating EM-fluxdensity of the devices). 8. Because of the urgent need for research, funds ... should be created for independent national and internationally coordinated research in advance of and accompanying new technical items. 12. The precautionary principle in EMF issues should become part of the federal constitution to take into account basic principles of health care and environmental and consumer protection. 13. The relevant ministries are requested to ... inform people about established and possible risks. Full text available at www.icems.eu/docs/resolutions/Vienna_ Resolution_1998.pdf

Acknowledgements

My very grateful and heartfelt thanks go to the following people: To my friend and fellow believer, John Lincoln. John is an electrical engineer who has been measuring and mitigating electromagnetic fields in Australian homes and workplaces for over 20 years. He has represented the community on the RF (radiofrequency) and ELF (extra-low frequency) standards committees and on the Department of Health’s EME Reference Group. Among his greatest acts of selfless dedication to raising awareness of EMR has been his patient review of chapter after chapter of this manuscript and his ever-ready assistance. John is Director of EMR Surveys, based in Sydney. To Bob Walshe OAM, for support, faith, and the inspiring example of a life lived in service. Bob is founder of Sutherland Shire Environment Centre, where my love of EMR was born, and of the Total Environment Centre. He is a tireless campaigner for worthy causes, environmental, educational, and political. I’d like to also thank the following people for patiently reviewing portions of the book that relate to EMR and health: Dr David O. Carpenter, a public health physician, Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University of Albany in New York, and coeditor of the BioInitiative report. Dr Henry Lai, Professor of Bioengineering at the University of Washington in Seattle, who has been researching the biological effects of EMR since 1980. Dr Igor Y. Belyaev, Associate Professor in the Department of Genetics, 341

342  —  The Force

Microbiology, and Toxicology at Stockholm University in Sweden. Dr. Gerd Oberfeld, a specialist in environmental medicine at the Salzburg Department of Health in Austria. Dr. Magda Havas, Associate Professor of Environmental and Resource Studies at Trent University in Canada. Dr Zoreh Davanipour, Associate Professor at Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. Lloyd Morgan, an electrical engineer and a Senior Research Fellow for the Environmental Health Trust NGO. Per Segerbäck, who developed hypersensitivity while working as an integrated circuit designer for Ericsson in Sweden. For information on workplace exposure and mitigating fields, I’m indebted to (as well as John): Sandy Doull, for sharing his experiences as an occupational health consultant in Melbourne. Garry Melik, for sharing his expertise on shielding and reducing electromagnetic fields. Garry is an electrical engineer, a former teacher at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology in Melbourne, and author of a technical manual for engineers on measuring, calculating, and mitigating electromagnetic fields. Sincere thanks also go to the following people, who have provided valuable input to the book: Dr Vini Khurana, Professor of Neurosurgery at the Australian National University in Canberra. Dr Bo Sernelius, Professor in Theoretical Physics at Linköping University in Sweden. Örjan Hallberg, electronics engineer and CEO of Hallberg Independent Research. Dr Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News and world-respected commentator on EMR issues. Dr Don Maisch, a Tasmanian-based EMF consultant and Director of EMFacts Information service. Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency staff. Steve Miller and the many people who are adversely affected by EMR and have shared their experiences with me over the years — your suffering has motivated me throughout the hardest phases of this project. The many unnamed and unacknowledged people who have answered questions and provided input during my research. And, not least, Henry Rosenbloom, Julia Carlomagno, and the team at Scribe who have made the book a reality.

Glossary

atom A building block of matter with electrical properties. It has a dense nucleus of positively charged protons and neutrons and is surrounded by moving, negatively charged electrons.

base station Transmitting and receiving antennas for mobile communications with associated infrastructure.

carrier wave A radiowave that carries superimposed information.

chromosome A component of a cell’s nucleus that contain genes.

circuit The route that electricity takes from the point of supply to the load (for example, an appliance) and back to the source.

conductor Any material, such as metal, that allows the easy flow of electrons.

control A subject (human, animal, or cell) that is similar to the subject under 343

344  —  The Force

study yet is not exposed to the experimental variable. The role of a control is to provide researchers with a comparison, allowing them to more easily deduce the effect of the experimental variable.

current The flow of electrons around a circuit. It is measured in amps and creates an electromagnetic field.

digital A series of pulses which reproduce an audio signal. This technique is commonly used in mobile phone and television technologies.

earthing The connection of electrical equipment to the ground. This is often achieved by driving a metal stake into the earth and connecting to the earth/neutral terminal in the meter box.

electric field A field that occurs as a result of voltage. An electric field is present whenever an appliance is turned on — even if it is turned off but still plugged into the power point. Electric fields are measured in volts per metre (V/m).

electromagnetic field (EMF) The physical field of force produced by electrically charged objects. It contains both a magnetic field and an electric field.

electromagnetic radiation (EMR) Waves of energy that radiate from moving electrical current. It contains both a magnetic field and an electric field. It includes cosmic rays, gamma rays, X-rays, ultraviolet light, visible light, infra-red light, radar, microwaves, and radiowaves.

electromagnetic spectrum A system that classifies radiation according to its frequency. The nonionising electromagnetic spectrum contains direct current, extra-low frequency, radiofrequency, microwaves, and visible light. The ionising part of the spectrum includes X-rays, cosmic rays, and nuclear radiation.

electron A negatively charged particle that moves around the nucleus of an atom.

Glossary   —  345

epidemiology A type of medical science that deals with the causes, distribution, and control of disease. It includes studies of human populations exposed to a particular agent, such as people living near high-voltage powerlines or working in occupations where they are exposed to EMR.

extra-low frequency (ELF) The portion of the electromagnetic spectrum from 0 to 3000 Hertz (3 kHz).

field An area of energy around a source, in some situations referred to as radiation.

frequency The number of wavelengths to pass a given point in a given period. It is normally measured in Hertz, which is the number of wavelengths passing a given point in one second. Higher frequencies have shorter wavelengths than lower frequencies.

gauss The unit used to measure the intensity of a magnetic field. 1 Gauss (G) is equal to 1000 milliGauss (mG) or 10 microtesla (µT).

gene A unit of hereditary composed of DNA and forming part of a chromosome.

hertz The unit used to measure the frequency of electric waves. A kilohertz (KHz) is equal to 1000 hertz, a megahertz (MHz) is equal to 100,000,000 hertz, and a gigahertz is equal to 100,000,0000 hertz. It is named for Heinrich Hertz, the German physicist who discovered radiowaves in 1888.

in vitro In an artificial environment such as a test tube; it refers to studies conducted in a laboratory outside the body of the organism. The term is Latin for ‘in glass’.

346  —  The Force

in vivo Within the body of an organism; it refers to studies conducted on animals such as rats or mice. The term is Latin for ‘in a living thing’.

ion An atom that has lost or gained electrons. An atom that has lost one or more electrons becomes a positively charged ion; an atom that has gained one or more electrons becomes a negatively charged ion.

ionising radiation Electromagnetic radiation, such as X-rays and nuclear radiation, with the energy to break chemical bonds.

magnetic field A field present whenever current is flowing. It is not blocked by solid objects and can travel through nearly all materials. It is measured in milligauss (mG) and microTesla (µT). One µT is equal to 10 mG.

melatonin A hormone produced by the pineal gland that acts as a free-radical scavenger, among other functions.

microwatts per square centimetre (µW/cm2) The unit used to measure the power density of radiofrequency signals such as emitted by mobile phones and base stations.

microwave The portion of the electromagnetic spectrum from 500 MHz up to the frequency of visible light. Technology that operates at this frequency includes radar, telecommunications, satellite communications, weatherobservation equipment, and medical diathermy.

modulated wave A radiofrequency wave that carries information superimposed onto a carrier wave.

non-ionising radiation The portion of the electromagnetic spectrum extending from 0 frequency to frequencies of visible light. This form of radiation does not contain sufficient energy to break chemical bonds.

Glossary   —  347

polarisation A term that refers to the orientation of a field through space. A linearly polarised field may be oriented vertically, horizontally, or a combination of the two. A circularly polarised field occurs when the field is propagated as a series of circles.

radiofrequency (RF) The portion of the electromagnetic spectrum from 3 kilohertz (kHz) to 3 gigahertz (gHz).

resonance A phenomenon that occurs when one object vibrates at the same natural frequency as another object, causing it to vibrate as well. For example, an opera singer could reach a pitch that resonates with a glass, causing it to shatter. An adult standing upright resonates to about 77 megahertz (MHz) and if he or she stood in a moderately small electrical field of 77 MHz, large currents would eventually be induced in the body.

semiconductor A substance that is neither a good conductor nor an insulator.

specific absorption rate (SAR) The rate at which radiofrequency radiation is absorbed by body tissue. The SAR will be affected by size and density of the body and the frequency of the field. It is measured in watts (W), milliwatts (mW), or microwatts (µW) per kilogram.

static electricity Stored electricity in which positively or negatively charged electrons remain on the surface of an object without moving. This is in contrast to electricity whereby electrons move through a conductor.

transformer A device that changes alternating current from one voltage to another.

very low frequency The portion of the electromagnetic spectrum with frequencies from 3 kilohertz (kHz) to 30 kilohertz.

348  —  The Force

voltage The electrical force that ‘pushes’ electrons through the circuit. It is measured in volts and causes an electric field, which is measured in volts per metre (V/m).

wavelength The distance from one point on a wave to the identical point on the next wave. Higher frequencies have shorter wavelengths than lower frequencies.

Notes

Chapter 3: Powerlines and Appliances 1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9

10

11 12

13

World Health Organization, ‘Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health’, Fact Sheet 322, June 2007. Wertheimer, N. and Leeper, E., ‘Electrical Wiring Configurations and Childhood Cancer’, American Journal of Epidemiology 109 (3), 1979, pp. 273–84. Ahlbom, A. et al., ‘A Pooled Analysis of Magnetic Fields and Childhood Leukaemia’, British Journal of Cancer 83 (5), 2000, pp. 692–98. Doll, R., ‘ELF Electromagnetic Fields and the Risk of Cancer’, Documents of the National Radiological Protection Board 12 (1), 2001, pp. 1–179. Milham, S. and Ossiander, E. M., ‘Historical Evidence that Residential Electrification Caused the Emergence of the Childhood Leukaemia Peak’, Medical Hypotheses 56 (3), 2001, pp. 290–95. International Agency for Research on Cancer, ‘Non-ionizing Radiation, Part 1’, Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans 80, 2002. Draper, G. et al., ‘Childhood Cancer in Relation to Distance From High-voltage Powerlines in England and Wales’, British Medical Journal 330, 2005, pp. 1290–92. Kabuto, M. et al., ‘Childhood Leukaemia and Magnetic Fields in Japan’, International Journal of Cancer 119 (3), 2006, pp. 643–50. Lowenthal, R. M. et al., ‘Residential Exposure to Electric Power Transmission Lines and Risk of Lymphoproliferative and Myeloproliferative Disorders’, Internal Medicine Journal 37 (9), 2007, pp. 614–19. ‘double the risk’, Savitz, D. A. et al, ‘Case-control Study of Childhood Cancer and Exposure to 60-Hz Magnetic Fields’, American Journal of Epidemiology 128 (1), 1988, pp. 21–38; ‘six times the risk’, Linet, M. S. et al., ‘Residential Exposure to Magnetic Fields and Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia in Children’, New England Journal of Medicine 337 (1), 1997, pp 1–7. London, S. J. et al, ‘Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields and Risk of Childhood Leukaemia’, American Journal of Epidemiology 134 (9), 1991, pp. 923–37. McBride, M. L. et al, ‘Power-frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields and Risk of Childhood Leukaemia in Canada’, American Journal of Epidemiology 149 (9), 1999, pp. 831–42. Green, L. M. et al., ‘A Case-control Study of Childhood Leukaemia in Southern

349

350  —  The Force

14

15 16 17

18 19 20

21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Ontario, Canada, and Exposure to Magnetic Fields in Residences’, International Journal of Cancer 82 (2), 1999, pp. 161–70. ‘five times the risk’, Feychting, M. and Ahlbom, A., ‘Magnetic Fields and Cancer in Children Residing Near Swedish High-voltage Powerlines’, American Journal of Epidemiology 138 (7), 1993, pp. 467–81; ‘three times the risk’, Michaelis, J. et al., ‘Childhood Leukaemia and Electromagnetic Fields’, Cancer Causes Control 8 (2), 1997, pp. 167–74. Li, C. Y. et al, ‘Risk of Leukaemia in Children Living Near High-voltage Transmission Lines’, Journal of Occupational Environmental Medicine 40 (2), 1998, pp. 144–47. Wartenberg, D., ‘Residential Magnetic Fields and Childhood Leukaemia’, American Journal of Public Health 88 (12), 1998, pp. 1787–94. Greenland, S. et al., ‘A Pooled Analysis of Magnetic Fields, Wire Codes, and Childhood Leukaemia. Childhood Leukaemia-EMF Study Group’, Epidemiology 11 (6), 2000, pp. 624–34. Mejia-Arangure, J. M. et al, ‘Magnetic Fields and Acute Leukaemia in Children with Down Syndrome’, Epidemiology 18 (1), 2007, pp. 158–61. Environmental Health Investigations Branch, ‘Executive Summary of the California EMF Risk Evaluation’, June 2002. International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection, ‘Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric and Magnetic Fields (1 Hz–100 kHz)’, Health Physics 99 (6), 2010, pp. 818–36. Coghill, R. W., ‘Extra Low Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields in the Bedplace of Children Diagnosed with Leukaemia’, European Journal of Cancer Prevention 5 (3), 1996, pp. 153–58. Villeneuve, P. J. et al, ‘Leukaemia in Electric Utility Workers’, American Journal of Industrial Medicine 37 (6), 2000, pp. 607–17. Blank, M., ‘Evidence for Stress Response (Stress Proteins)’, BioInitiative Report, July 2007, at www.bioinitiative.org World Health Organization, ‘Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health Cautionary Policies’, Backgrounder, March 2000. Gibbs, H., ‘Inquiry into Community Needs and High Voltage Transmission Line Development’, New South Wales Government, February 1991. A double-circuit powerline carries two sets of three lines. When ‘reverse-phased’, the lines are arranged so that the fields from one set of lines reduces those from the other set. Peach, H. G. et al., ‘Report of the Panel on Electromagnetic Fields and Health’, Victorian Government, 1992. ‘Agreement to Control EMF Exposure’, signed 22 June 1995 by Quik Stik International Pty Ltd. (trading as RAECO and Australian Services Union), from author’s library. Energex v Logan City Council, Planning and Environment Court of Queensland, file no. 2604, 2002. Bill 143, Ground Current Pollution Act, 2006. Toronto Public Health, ‘Children and Safe Cell Phone Use’, May 2008. ‘Tenne T Presents New Innovative Pylon Design’, 24 April 2008. Israeli Ministry of Environmental Protection, ‘Environmental Protection Ministry Warns: keep cell phone chargers at a distance’, 22 July 2008. Swedish National Board of Occupational Safety and Health et al, ‘Low-frequency Electrical and Magnetic Fields’, 1996. ‘Cheers for UK’s Local Government Association’, EMRAA News 4 (2), June 1999, p. 2. ‘Cross-Party Inquiry into Childhood Leukaemia and Extremely Low Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields (ELF EMF)’, July 2007. R. K. Partnership Ltd, Stakeholder Advisory Group on ELF EMFs (SAGE), ‘Precautionary Approaches to ELF EMFs First Interim Assessment’, 27 April 2007. United Kingdom Department of Health et al, ‘Government Response to the

Notes  —  351

39 40 41 42 43 44 45

46

47 48

49 50 51 52

53 54 55 56

57 58 59

Stakeholder Advisory Group on Extremely Low Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields (ELF EMFs) (SAGE) Recommendations’, 2009. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, ‘Report on Health Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields’, 1999, p. 38. Union of the Electricity Industry Eurelectric, ‘EMF Exposure Standards Applicable in Europe and Elsewhere’, March 2006. ‘European Parliament Resolution of 2 April 2009 on Health Concerns Associated with Electromagnetic Fields’. World Heath Organization, ‘Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health’, 2002. Blank, M., op. cit. Milham Jr, S., ‘Increased Incidence of Cancer in a Cohort of Office Workers Exposed to Strong Magnetic Fields’, American Journal of Industrial Medicine 30 (6), 1996, pp. 702–04. Havas, M. and Olstad, A., ‘Power Quality Affects Teacher Wellbeing and Student Behavior in Three Minnesota Schools’, The Science of Total Environment 402 (2–3), 2008, pp. 157–62. Havas, M., ‘Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: biological effects of dirty electricity with emphasis on diabetes and multiple sclerosis’, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 25 (4), 2006, pp. 259–68. Milham, S. and Morgan, L. L., ‘A New Electromagnetic Exposure Metric’, 2008. McLeish, K., ‘High Voltage Debate Over Noosa Powerlines’, Stateline Queensland, ABC, aired 18 June 2010, transcript and video at www.abc.net.au/news/ video/2010/06/18/2931239.htm Taylor, T., ‘HOMES RISK… hundreds live near powerline forces linked to childhood cancer’, Herald Sun, 3 April 2001, p. 8. Gell, C., ‘Shocking Overheads — Powerlines’, National Association of Real Estate Appraisers, at www.powerlinefacts.com/UK%20Powerlines.htm ‘Bank Refuses Mortgage, Citing Utility Substation Next Door’, Microwave News, Sept./Oct. 1998, p. 5. Bolton, D. et al., ‘Powerlines and Property Values’, Southwestern Legal Foundation in the Proceedings of the Institute of Planning, Zoning and Eminent Domain, held at the Municipal Legal Studies Center in Dallas, Texas, 18–20 November 1998. The Taxing Problems of EMFs’, Microwave News, Mar./Apr. 1997, p. 4. ‘Virginia Power Granted Appeal of $1 Million Property Award’, Microwave News, Mar./Apr. 1996, p. 4. Colwell, P. F., ‘Powerlines and Land Value’, Journal of Real Estate Research 5 (1), 1990, pp. 117–28. Gregory, R. and von Winterfeldt, D., ‘The Effects of Electromagnetic Fields from Transmission Lines on Public Fears and Property Values’, Journal of Environmental Management 48, 1996, pp. 201–14. Joseph Criscuola et al., Appellants, v. Power Authority of the State of New York et al., Respondents, New York State Court of Appeals no. 172, 12 October 1993. Freedman, A., ‘Powerlines Short-circuit Sales, Homeowners Claim’, Wall Street Journal, 8 December 1993, p. B1. Brodeur, P., Currents of Death, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1989, pp. 197–8.

Chapter 4: Mobile Phones 1

2 3

Global Mobile Communications — Statistics, Trends & Forecasts’, 2009, at www. budde.com.au/Research/Global-Mobile-Communications-Statistics-Trends-Forecasts. html#execsummary International Telecommunication Union, ‘Mobile Cellular Subscriptions’, Geneva, Switzerland, 2008. Today Tonight, Seven Network, aired 2 May 2008, video at www.youtube.com/ watch?v=dJ03Ho8u6eA

352  —  The Force 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22

23

24 25 26 27 28

‘Mobile life 2008’, The Carphone Warehouse. ‘Text addiction’, Sydney Morning Herald, 12 July 2004. World Health Organization, ‘Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health’, Fact Sheet 193, May 2010. ‘no evidence that microwave exposure from mobile telephones causes cancer’, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Authority, ‘Mobile Phones and Health Effects’; ‘no established evidence of health effects’, Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association, ‘Practical Advice for Reducing Exposure from Mobile Phones’, 2 December 2009; ‘negligible temperature rise in the brain or any other organs of the body’, World Health Organization, op. cit.; ‘radio signals routinely encountered by the public are far below the levels needed to produce significant heating’ and ‘no established health risks from exposure to radio frequency signals’, ‘Mobile Communications and Health’, GSM World. World Health Organization, op. cit. Hughes, S., ‘Safety Debate Over Cell Phones Claim Wireless Phones May Cause Brain Tumours’, CBS News, aired 17 June 1999. ‘Do Cell Phones Cause Cancer?’, Larry King Live, CNN, aired 9 August 2000. Interphone Study Group, ‘Brain Tumour Risk in Relation to Mobile Telephone Use’, International Journal of Epidemiology, 2010. Morgan, L. et al., ‘Cellphones and Brain Tumours’, 25 August 2009. ‘We have no certain explanation for the overall reduced risk of brain cancer among mobile phone users … although selection bias is almost certainly a contributor’, Interphone Study Group, op. cit, 2010, p. 14. ‘‘Wake Up Call’, Sixty Minutes, Nine Network, aired 3 April 2009. Khurana, V., ‘Mobile Phones and Brain Tumours – A Public Health Concern’, 2008, p. 3. ‘Wake Up Call’, op. cit. Statement of Ellen Marks to the US Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee on 25 September 2008. See www.cutecircuit.com/products/mdress ‘one and a half times the number of brain tumours’ in Hardell, L. et al., ‘Cellular and Cordless Telephone Use and the Association With Brain Tumours in Different Age Groups’, Archives of Environmental Health 59 (3), 2004, pp. 132–37; ‘1.8 times the average rate of astrocytoma brain tumours’ in Hardell, L. et al., ‘Further Aspects on Cellular and Cordless Telephones and Brain Tumours’, International Journal of Oncology 22 (2), 2003, pp. 399–407. Hardell, L. et al., ‘Cellular and Cordless Telephone Use and the Association With Brain Tumours’, 2004. Hardell, L. et al., ‘Tumour Risk Associated With Use Of Cellular Telephones or Cordless Desktop Telephones’, 2006, p. 74. Hardell, L. et al., ‘Pooled Analysis of Two Case-Control Studies on Use of Cellular and Cordless Telephones and the Risk For Malignant Brain Tumours Diagnosed in 1997–2003’, International Archives of Occupational Environmental Health 79 (8), 2006, pp. 630–39. Mild, K. H. et al., ‘Pooled Analysis of Two Swedish Case-Control Studies on the Use of Mobile and Cordless Telephones and the Risk of Brain Tumours Diagnosed During 1997–2003’, International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics 13 (1), 2007, pp. 63–71. Hardell, L. and Carlberg, M., ‘Mobile Phones, Cordless Phones And The Risk For Brain Tumours’, International Journal of Oncology 35 (1), 2009, pp. 5–17. German Federal Agency for Radiation Protection, ‘DECT Radiation at Home: cordless phones radiate unnecessarily’, 1 January 2001. Open letter from Gerd Oberfeld, M.D., to Land Salzburg, 5 December 2005. ECOLOG Institute, ‘Mobile Telecommunications and Health’, 2000. See www.fireflymobile.com/give_a_gift

Notes  —  353 29 30

31

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

56 57 58 59

See www.geckoworld.com.au/phone-kids.htm ‘69 per cent of children’, International Telecommunications Union, ‘Overuse of Mobiles Threatening Juvenile Sleep Patterns’, 9 June 2009; ‘90 per cent of children’, ‘Use of Information and Communication Technology by the World’s Children and Youth’, 2008. ‘a quarter of three-year-olds’, Hiscott, G., ‘Health Alert Over Toddlers Who Have Their Own Mobiles’, Daily Express, 6 November 2007; ‘40 per cent of four- to sevenyear-olds’, ‘Overuse of Mobiles Threatening Juvenile Sleep Patterns’, op. cit. ‘Mobile Life 2008’, op. cit. ‘Overuse of Mobiles Threatening Juvenile Sleep Patterns’, op. cit. ‘Mobile Life 2008’, op. cit. Downie, C. and Glazebrook, K., ‘Mobile Phones and Consumer Kids’, Australia Institute Research Paper no. 41, February 2007. Phillips, J. G. et al., ‘Personality and Self-reported Use of Mobile Phones for Games’, Cyberpsychology and Behavior 9 (6), 2006, pp. 753–58. ‘Addicted to Phones?’, University of Florida News, 18 January 2007. de la Puente, M. and Balmori, A., ‘Addiction to Cell Phones’, Proyecto 61, 2007, pp. 8–12. Martin, D., ‘Children Who Use Mobile Phones are “Five Times More Likely to Develop Brain Tumours”’, Daily Mail, 23 September 2008. Divan, H. A. et al., ‘Prenatal and Postnatal Exposure to Cell Phone Use and Behavioral Problems in Children’, Epidemiology 19 (4), 2008, pp. 523–29. Rezk, A. Y. et al., ‘Fetal and Neonatal Responses Following Maternal Exposure to Mobile Phones’, Saudi Medical Journal 29 (2), 2008, pp. 218–23. For example, Yan, J. G. et al, ‘Effects of Cellular Phone Emissions on Sperm Motility in Rats’, Fertility Sterility 88 (4), 2007, pp. 957–64 and De Iuliis, G. N. et al., ‘Mobile Phone Radiation Induces Reactive Oxygen Species Production and DNA Damage in Human Spermatozoa in Vitro’, PLoS One, 4 (7), 2009, p. 6446. Statement of Ronald B. Herberman M.D. to the US Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee on 25 September 2008. Morgan, L. in correspondence to author, 31 March 2010. See Environment Working Group, www.ewg.org. See www.who.int/docstore/peh-emf/EMFStandards/who-0102/Worldmap5.htm IEEE, ‘IEEE Std C95.6™-2002’, p. 16. Lai, H. et al., ‘Neurological Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation Relating to Wireless Communication Technology’, 1997. Adey, R., in correspondence to D. Maisch, 1995. Lai, H., International Workshop on Non-Ionizing Radiation, Health, and Environment, Brazil, 18–19 May 2009. BioInitiative Report, BioInitiative Working Group, July 2007, at www.bioinitiative.org Allison, L., Radiofrequency Spectrum Conference, Sydney, 23 March 2001. Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, and the Arts, Inquiry into Electromagnetic Radiation, 4 May 2001. Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association, ‘Practical Advice on Reducing Exposure From Mobile Phones’, 2 December 2009. ‘Statement from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) on Release of World Health Organization Report on INTERPHONE Study’, 17 May 2010. Toronto Public Health, ‘Children and Safe Cell Phone Use’, May 2008. ‘Statement of Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK) Concerning Mobile Phones and Health on 7th January 2009’. Brennar, C., ‘Mobile Phones to be Banned in French Primary Schools to Limit Health Risks’, The Times, 27 May 2009. ‘German Academy of Paediatrics’, Microwave News, Jan./Feb. 2001, p. 5.

354  —  The Force 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82

‘Government Warns About Ill-effects of Mobile Phone Radiation’, Express India, 16 June 2008. Azoulay, Y. and Rinat, Z., ‘Health Min.’, Haaretz, 28 July 2008. ‘Environmental Protection Ministry Warns’, 2008. Mallia, A., ‘Harm From Mobile Phones’, Malta Today, 6 October 2010. Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, ‘Children and Mobile Phones’, 14 April 2008. ‘News and Comment’, Microwave News, April 2007. Swiss Federal Office of Public Health, ‘Mobile Phones’, 17 May 2010. ‘UK Police Warn Staff Over Mobile Phones’, BBC News, aired 2 June 1999. Edwards, M. and Hamer, R., ‘Switch Off Your Mobiles Union Warns Staff’, Sunday Mirror, 19 March 2000. Charter, D., ‘Mobile Phone Health Alert for Schools’, The Times, 27 July 2000. British Department of Health, ‘Mobile Phones and Health’, December 2000. National Radiological Protection Board, ‘Mobile Phones and Health’, Oxon, April 2000. ‘School Gives Lesson on Mobile Phone Dangers’, The Mirror, 17 January 2000. Joint Committee on Communications, Marine, and Natural Resources, ‘Report on Non-ionising Radiation From Mobile Phone Handsets and Masts’, June 2005. Irish Doctors Environmental Association, ‘IDEA Position on Electromagnetic Radiation’, 2005. ‘Children Offered Precautionary Advice on Mobile Phones’, Welsh assembly government, 10 July 2010. ‘Reducing Exposure’, US Food and Drug Administration, 2009. Herberman, R., op. cit. Gee, D., ‘EMF’, 2009. McGlade, J., ‘Statement on Mobile Phones for Conference on Cell Phones and Health’, Washington, 15 September 2009. ‘European Parliament Resolution of 2 April 2009 on Health Concerns Associated with Electromagnetic Fields’. Document issued by the Doctors Chamber of Vienna, 2008. World Health Organization, ‘Standards and Guidelines’.

Chapter 5: Base Stations and Broadcast Towers 1 2

3 4 5 6 7

Maurer, S., ‘Resolution Adopted by the Sebastopol City Council’. Resolution adopted 7 July 2009. In Australia, it is possible to access information about the location of all mobile phone base stations and antennas from two sources. The Australian Communications and Media Authority has established a Register of Radiocommunications Licences at http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/register_search.main_page. The Mobile Carriers Forum, the peak body of the Australian telecommunications carriers, established the Radio Frequency National Site Archive, which lists all new mobile telephone base station facilities built or upgraded since April 2003. It can be found at www.rfnsa. com.au/nsa/index.cgi. Australian Communications Industry Forum, ‘Code for the Deployment of Mobile Phone Network Infrastructure’. M. Havas, ‘The BragTM Antenna Ranking of Schools Report’, 2010. World Health Organization, ‘Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health’, Fact Sheet 322, June 2007. Santini, R. et al., ‘Investigation on the Health of People Living Near Mobile Telephone Relay Stations’, Pathologie et Biologie (Paris) 50 (6), 2002, pp. 369–73. Navarro, E. et al, ‘The Microwave Syndrome’, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 22 (2), pp. 161––69.

Notes  —  355 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18

19

20

21 22 23

24 25 26 27 28 29

30

31

Oberfeld, G, et al., ‘The Microwave Syndrome’, Third International Workshop on Biological Effects of EMFs, held in Kos, Greece, 4–8 October 2004. Wolf, R. and Wolf, D., ‘Increased Incidence of Cancer Near a Cell-phone Transmitter Station’, International Journal of Cancer Prevention 1 (2), 2004. Bortkiewicz, A. et al, ‘Subjective Symptoms Reported by People Living in the Vicinity of Cellular Phone Base Stations’, Preventative Medicine, 55 (4), 2004, pp. 345–51. Eger, H. et al, ‘The Influence of Being Physically Near to a Cell Phone Transmission Mast on the Incidence of Cancer’, Umwelt Medizin Gesellschaft, 17 April 2004. Oberfeld, G. ‘Mobilfunksende-Anlagen Beeinflussen Gehirnströme’, ÖÄZ 11, 10 June 2005. Hutter, H.P. et al, ‘Subjective Symptoms, Sleeping Problems, and Cognitive Performance in Subjects Living Near Mobile Phone Base Stations’, Occupational Environmental Medicine 63 (5), 2006, pp. 307–13. Abdel-Rassoul, G. et al, ‘Neurobehavioral Effects Among Inhabitants Around Mobile Phone Base Stations’, Neurotoxicology 28 (2), 2007, pp. 434–40. Augner, C. et al, ‘GSM base stations’, Bioelectromagnetics 30 (1), 2009, pp. 73–80. Hallberg, O. and Johansson, O., ‘Apparent Decreases in Swedish Public Health Indicators After 1997’, Pathophysiology 16 (1), 2009, pp. 43–6. P. Elliott et al., ‘Mobile Phone Base Stations and Early Childhood Cancers’, British Medical Journal 340, 2010, c3077. V. G. Khurana et al., ‘Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk from Mobile Phone Base Stations’, International Journal of Occupational Environmental Health 16, 2010, pp. 263–67. Otitoloju, A. A. et al, ‘Preliminary Study on the Induction of Sperm Head Abnormalities in Mice, Mus Musculus, Exposed to Radiofrequency Radiations from Global System for Mobile Communication Base Stations’, Bulletin of Environmental Contamination Toxicology, 9 October 2009. W. Joines et al., ‘Microwave Power Absorption Differences Between Normal and Malignant Tissue’, International Journal of Radiation Oncology • Biology • Physics 6 (6), 1980, pp. 681–87. ‘Freiburger Appeal’, Interdisziplina re Gesellschaft fur Umweltmedizin, 9 October 2002. Waldmann Selsam, C., ‘Open Letter to Edmund Stoiber, President of the Federal State of Bavaria, Germany’. Hennies, K. et al, ‘Mobile Telecommunications and Health Review of the Current Scientific Research in View of Precautionary Health Protection’, ECOLOG Institute, p. 37. Eger, H. and Jahn, M., ‘Specific Symptoms and Radiation From Mobile Base Stations in Selbitz, Bavaria, Germany’, Umwelt Medizin Gesellschaft 23 (2), 2010, pp. 130–39. Dagbladet, S., ‘Cellphone Microwave Radiation Allows Leakage in the Blood-brain Barrier’, 15 September 2000. Loscher, W. and Kas, G., ‘Extraordinary Behavior Disorders in Cows in Proximity to Transmission Stations’, Der Praktische Tierarz 79, 1998, pp. 437–44. Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Authority, ‘ARPANSA Base Station Survey 2007–2010’. N. Cherry, ‘Criticism of the Proposal to Adopt the ICNIRP Guidelines for Cellsites in New Zealand’, Lincoln University, 1999. R. Santini, ‘Arguments in Favor of Applying the Precautionary Principle to Counter the Effects of Mobile Phone Base Stations’, hearing of Parliamentary Office for Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Alternatives, held 6 March 2002. D. Carpenter and C. Sage, ‘Key Scientific Evidence and Public Health Policy Recommendations’, BioInitiative Report, BioInitiative Working Group, at www. bioinitiative.org ‘Prestons Mobile Telephone Towers’, Legislative Assembly, Parliament of New South Wales, 22 October 1997.

356  —  The Force 32 33

34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

52 53 54 55 56 57

58

59

60

Australian Communications Industry Forum, ‘Code for the Deployment of Mobile Phone Network Infrastructure’, 2004. ‘Position on the Health Effects from Radio Frequency/Microwave (RF/MW) Radiation in Fire Department Facilities from Base Stations for Antennas and Towers for the Conduction of Cell Phone Transmissions’, International Association of Firefighters, 2010. ‘The Appeal Court in Rancagua Confirms the Demolition of a Mobile Phone Mast in Santa Cruz’, El Mercurio, 4 December 2009. Menvielle, D., ‘The City Removes the Phone Mast in a School’, Le Progress, 2 February 2008. ‘Government Round Table on Phone Masts’, press release, City of Grenoble, 25 May 2009. Dehos, A. and Weiss, W., ‘In the Consumers’ Interest’, Gesundheitswesen 64 (12), 2002, pp. 651–6. ‘Rajasthan Bans Use of New Mobile Phone Towers’, The Economic Times, 7 December 2009. ‘Radiofrequency Radiation’, Ministry of Environmental Protection, 10 October 2005. McIntyre v Bell, South New Zealand Environment Court, A96/15 NZPT 1996. Simpson, J., ‘New Zealand Bans Cellular Antennas at Public Schools’, Microwave News, Sept./Oct. 1996, p. 7. ‘Petition 2005/179 of Sarah Allen and 3,100 Others, and Two Other Petitions of a Similar Nature’, Report of the Local Government and Environment Committee, 2005. Case No M7485-04, Swedish Environmental Court of Appeal, 12 October 2005. ‘Ordinance Relating to Protection from Non-ionizing Radiation’, Swiss Federal Council, 23 December 1999. This order came into effect on 1 February 2000. Federal Assembly, Swiss Parliament, 4 June 2009. ‘City of St Gallen and Swisscom sign fibre-optic agreement’, press release, Swisscom, 13 October 2010. National Radiological Protection Board, ‘Mobile Phones and Health’, Oxon, 2000. ‘Report on Non-ionising Radiation from Mobile Phone Handsets and Masts’, Joint Committee on Communications, Marine, and Natural Resources, June 2005. ‘Health Concerns Associated with Electromagnetic Fields’, 2008/2211 (INI), European Parliament, 2 April 2009. ‘GTE Mobilnet Ordered to Pay Couple’, Houston Business Journal, 25 February 1999. Hutchison, R., ‘Economic Impact Study, Property Value Declines Associated with the Perceived Medical Harm from a Proposed High Definition Television Broadcast Antenna’, Colorado, 3 March 1999. Bradley, U., ‘Phone Mast Battle Opens in High Court’, Belfast Telegraph Newspapers Ltd., 15 January 1999. Butler, K. ‘Tough Call on Phone Masts’, Sunday Times, 17 July 2005. München, Aktenzeichen, file ref. 432 C 7381/95, Munich District Court, 27 March 1998. Telecommunications Bills, Australian Senate, 14 February 1997. World Health Organization, ‘Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health’, op. cit. Michelozzi, P. et al., ‘Adult and Childhood Leukaemia near a High-power Radio Station in Rome, Italy’, American Journal of Epidemiology 155 (12), 2002, pp. 1096–103. Kolodynski, A. and Kolodynska, V., ‘Motor and Psychological Functions of School Children Living in the Area of the Skrunda Radio Location Station in Latvia’, Science of the Total Environment 180 (1), 1996, pp. 87–93. Bruvere, R. et al., ‘Effect of Pulse Radio-frequency Radiation on the Functioning of the Immune System’, Proceedings of the Latvian Academy of Sciences, Section B, 51 (5/6), 1997, pp. 270–76. Woodliff, H. J. and Dougan, L., ‘Survival in Chronic Granulocytic Leukaemia’, paper presented at the 16th International Congress of Hematology, Kyoto, Japan, 1976.

Notes  —  357 61 62

63

64 65

66 67

68 69 70

71 72 73

Hocking, B. et al., ‘Cancer Incidence and Mortality and Proximity to TV Towers’, Medical Journal of Australia 165 (11–12), 1996, pp. 601–05. Hocking, B. and Gordon, I., ‘Decreased Survival for Childhood Leukaemia in Proximity to Television Towers’ , Archives of Environmental Health 58 (9), 2003, pp. 560–64. Park, S. K. et al., ‘Ecological Study on Residences in the Vicinity of AM Radio Broadcasting Towers and Cancer Death’, International Archives of Occupational Environmental Health 77 (6), 2004, pp. 387–94. Dolk, H. et al., ‘Cancer Incidence Near Radio and Television Transmitters in Great Britain’, American Journal of Epidemiology 145 (1), 1997, pp. 1–9. Maskarinec, G. et al., ‘Investigation of Increased Incidence in Childhood Leukaemia Near Radio Towers in Hawaii’, Journal of Environmental Pathology, Toxicology and Oncology 13 (1), 1994, pp 33–37. Selvin, S. et al., ‘Distance and Risk Measures for the Analysis of Spatial Data’, Social Science and Medicine 34 (7), 1992, pp. 769–77. Ha, M. et al., ‘Radio-frequency Radiation Exposure from AM Radio Transmitters and Childhood Leukaemia and Brain Cancer’ , American Journal of Epidemiology 166 (3), 2007, pp. 270–79. Elwood, J. M. and Lee, J. A., ‘Recent Data on the Epidemiology of Malignant Melanoma’, Seminars in Oncology 2 (2), 1975, pp. 149–54. Hallberg, O. and Johansson, O., ‘Melanoma Incidence and Frequency Modulation (FM) Broadcasting’, Archives of Environmental Health 57 (1), 2002, pp. 32-40. Milham Jr, S., ‘Increased Mortality in Amateur Radio Operators Due to Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Malignancies’, American Journal of Epidemiology 127 (1), 1988, pp. 50–54. Tynes, T. et al., ‘Incidence of Breast Cancer in Norwegian Female Radio and Telegraph Operators’, Cancer Causes & Control 7 (2), 1996, pp. 197–204. Lagorio, S. et al., ‘Mortality of Plastic-ware Workers Exposed to Radiofrequencies’, Bioelectromagnetics 18 (6), 1997, pp. 418–421. Szmigielski, S., ‘Cancer Morbidity in Subjects Occupationally Exposed to High Frequency (Radiofrequency and Microwave) Electromagnetic Radiation’, Science of the Total Environment, 180 (1), 1996, pp. 9–17.

Chapter 6: Computers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10

‘World Internet Users’, InternetWorldStats.com. Frean, A., ‘Technology for Toddlers’ Scheme Risks Creating a Screen-addict Generation’, The Times, 3 May 2008. International Telecommunications Union, ‘Use of Information and Communication Technology by the World’s Children and Youth’, June 2008, p. 20. ibid., pp. 20, 30. US Department of Health and Human Services, Publications on Video Display Terminals (3rd edition), 1999, p. 55. Cited in Grandlund-Lind, R. and Lind, J., Black on White (2nd edition), 2004. Swedish Union of Clerical and Technical Employees in Industry, ‘Hypersensitive in IT Environments’, 1996. Goldhaber, M. K. et al., ‘The Risk of Miscarriage and Birth Defects Among Women Who Use Visual Display Terminals During Pregnancy’, American Journal of Industrial Medicine 13 (6), 1988, pp. 695–706. Lindbohm, M. L. et al., ‘Magnetic Fields of Video Display Terminals and Spontaneous Abortion’, American Journal of Epidemiology 136 (9), 1992, pp. 1041–51. Youbicier-Simo, B. J. et al., ‘Biological Effects of Continuous Exposure of Embryos and Young Chickens to Electromagnetic Fields Emitted by Video Display Units’, Bioelectromagnetics 18 (7), 1997, pp. 514–23.

358  —  The Force 11 12 13 14

15 16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

Ryan, P. et al., ‘Risk Factors for Tumours of the Brain and Meninges’, International Journal of Cancer 51 (1), 1992, pp. 20–27. Anderson, M. and Westlund, L., ‘Hypersensitivity to Electricity, Can it be Prevented?’, AMA-Konsult AB, Sweden. See Nordström, G., The Invisible Disease, O Books, Winchester, 2004, pp. 41–42, 93, 102. Jakobsson, K. et al., ‘Exposure to Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers and Tetrabromobisphenol A Among Computer Technicians’, Chemosphere 46 (5), 2002, pp. 709–16. Carlsson, H. et al., ‘Video Display Units’, Environment Science and Technology 34 (18), 2000, pp. 3885–89. Connie Ostman is a co-author of this study. Teutsch, D., ‘Danger in Sight for Screen Teens’, Sun-Herald, 3 February 2002, p. 10–11. Tatemichi, M. et al., ‘Possible Association Between Heavy Computer Users and Glaucomatous Visual Field Abnormalities’, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 58 (12), 2004, pp. 1021–27. See Armstrong, A. and Casement, C., The Child and the Machine, Scribe Publications, Melbourne, 2001, p. 151. ‘Hypersensitive in IT Environments’, op. cit. See www.tcodevelopment.com ‘Guidelines for Screen Based Work’, Australian Council of Trade Unions, 1998. ‘2008 Global Wireless Broadband — Next Generation Mobility’, BuddeComm. S. Miller in correspondence to author, 8 August 2009. ‘Wi-fi and Cellular Antennae Policy’, Lakehead University, 10 November 2009. Abaya, E. and Gilbert, F., ‘Lakehead Says No to Wi-fi’, Lakehead University Magazine, Spring/Summer 2008. See larger excerpt in the appendix. Full text at www.icems.eu/docs/ BeneventoResolution.pdf ‘France National Library (BNF) is Giving up Wi-fi’, press release, Bibliotheque Nationale de France, 3 April 2008. ‘Progressive Librarians Guild Statement on Wi-fi in Libraries and the Precautionary Principle’, press release, Progressive Librarians Guild, 16 June 2008. ‘Wi-fi’, Panorama, aired 23 May 2007. ‘Scientists Demand Inquiry Over Wi-fi’, Independent on Sunday, 29 April 2007, p. 27. Fleming, N., ‘Warning on Wi-fi Health Risk to Children’, The Daily Telegraph, 28 April 2007. UK Health Protection Agency, press release, 15 September 2009. Transcripts from the lower house of German Parliament, 23 July 2007. ‘German Government Advises Schools to Abstain From WLAN’, Bayerischer Rundfunk, further source details unknown. ‘European Parliament Resolution of 2 April 2009 on Health Concerns Associated with Electromagnetic Fields’. ‘Appeals Medical Radiation Risks’. See also McLean, L., ‘Doctors Observe Health Effects’, EMR and Health 5 (2), p. 7. Rees, C. and Havas, M., Public Health SOS, Wide Angle Health, 2008. Oberfeld, G., letter to Salzburg Region Public Health Department, 5 December 2005. Heinen, K., ‘WLAN is to be Banished from the School Sphere’, Frankfurter Rundschau, 7 June 2006. Bale, J., ‘Health Fears Lead Schools to Dismantle Wireless Networks’, The Times, 20 November 2006. ‘Briefing to Press Association on Wi-fi, 22 April 2007’. Havas, M., ‘Open Letter to Parents, Teachers, School Boards Regarding Wi-Fi Networks in Schools’, 5 May 2009. Sanchez-Carbonell, X., et al., ‘Internet and Cell Phone Addiction’, Adicciones 20 (2), 2008, pp. 149–59.

Notes  —  359

Chapter 7: Electromagnetic Radiation and the Body 1

2 3

4

5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16

17

18 19 20

21 22 23

A. Tinniswood exposed the visual, touch, and auditory senses to a number of external stimuli. He found that an auditory stimulus caused the brain to produce an average electric field of 19.2 mV/m with a current density of 0.3 amps per square metre. He presented these findings at the Bioelectromagnetics Society Annual Meeting, Long Beach, California, 20–24 June 1999. See Lipton, B. H., The Biology of Belief, op. cit., p. 37. Donnellan, M. et al., ‘Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation at 835 MHz on Growth, Morphology and Secretory Characteristics of a Mast Cell Analogue, RBL2H3’, Cell Biology International 21, 1997, pp. 427–39. Byus, C. V. et al., ‘Increased Ornithine Decarboxylase Activity in Cultured Cells Exposed to Low Energy Modulated Microwave Fields and Phorbol Ester Tumour Promoters’, Cancer Research 48 (15), 1998, pp. 4222–26. See for example Kristupaitis, D., ‘Electromagnetic Field-induced Stimulation of Bruton’s Tyrosine Kinase’, Journal of Biological Chemistry 273 (20), May 1998, pp. 12397–401. National Research Council, Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields’, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1996. Bawin, S. M. et al., ‘Effects of Modulated VHF Fields on the Central Nervous System’, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 274, 1975, p. 74. A summary of these studies can be found in Lai, H., ‘Evidence for Effects on Neurology and Behaviour’, BioInitiative Report, BioInitiative Working Group, 2007, p. 42–4. Blank, M. and Goodman, R., ‘Do Electromagnetic Fields Interact Directly with DNA?’, Bioelectromagnetics, 18 (2), 1997, pp. 111–15. Kirschvink, J. L., ‘Microwave Absorption by Magnetite’, Bioelectromagnetics, 17 (3), 1996, pp. 187–94. ibid. Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 16 November 2000. Harvey, C. and French, P. W., ‘Effects on Protein Kinase C and Gene Expression in a Human Mast Cell Line, HMC-1, Following Microwave Exposure’, Cell Biology International 23 (11), 2000, pp. 739–48. French, P. W. et al, ‘Mobile Phones, Heat Shock Proteins, and Cancer’, Differentiation 67 (4–5), 2001, pp. 93–7. Blank, M., ‘Evidence for Stress Response’, op. cit. Lai, H. and Singh, N. P., ‘Acute Low-intensity Microwave Exposure Increases DNA Single-strand Breaks in Rat Brain Cells’, Bioelectromagnetics 16 (3), 1995, pp. 207– 10. Successive quotations ibid. ‘Confidential Working Draft, 13 December 1994’, reproduced in ‘Motorola, Microwaves and DNA Breaks: “war-gaming” the Lai-Singh experiments’, Microwave News, Jan./Feb. 1997, p. 13. Memorandum from Norm Sandler to Michael Kehs, dated 13 December 1994, reproduced in ibid. Lai, H. and Singh, N. P., ‘Acute Low-intensity Microwave Exposure’, op. cit., pp. 156–65, 513–21. Phillips, J. L. et al., ‘DNA Damage in Molt-4 T-lymphoblastoid Cells Exposed to Cellular Telephone Radiofrequency Fields In Vitro’, Bioelectrochemistry and Bioenergetics 45, 1998, pp. 103–10. See Harrill, R., ‘Wake-up Call’, Columns, March 2005, p. 11. Malyapa, R. S., ‘Measurement of DNA Damage after Exposure to 2450 MHz Electromagnetic Radiation’, Radiation Research 148 (6), 1997, pp. 608–17. Malyapa, R. S., ‘Measurement of DNA Damage after Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation in the Cellular Phone Communication Frequency Band (835.62 and 847.74 MHz)’, in ibid., pp. 618–27.

360  —  The Force 24 25 26 27

28 29 30

31

32 33 34

35 36 37

38

39

40

41 42

43

‘Two Labs at Odds Over Microwaves and DNA Breaks’, Microwave News, Jan/Feb 1998, p. 1. Leszczynski, D. et al., ‘Applicability of Discovery Science Approach to Determine Biological Effects of Mobile Phone Radiation’, Proteomics 4 (2), 2004, pp. 426–31. Lee, S. et al, ‘2.45 GHz Radiofrequency Fields Alter Gene Expression in Cultured Human Cells’, FEBS Letters 579 (21), 2005, pp. 4829–36. Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources, ‘Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards from Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods’, 31 May 2004. Lai, H. and Singh, N. P., ‘Magnetic-field-induced DNA Strand Breaks in Brain Cells of the Rat’, Environmental Health Perspective 112 (6), 2004, pp. 687–94. Interview with author, EMR and Health 1 (1), Jan./Mar. 2005, p. 1. ‘electric fields were shown to affect’, see Yan, Z. et al, ‘Study on Temperature & EMF Co-effects on Insulin Conformation and Biological Functions by Fluorescence and Raman Spectroscopy’, Guang Pu Xue Yu Guang Pu Fen Xi 28 (6), 2008, pp. 1343–47; ‘magnetic field to increase insulin secretion’, Sakurai, T. et al, ‘Exposure to Extremely Low Frequency Magnetic Fields Affects Insulin-secreting Cells’, Bioelectromagnetics 29 (2), 2008, pp. 118–24; ‘problems with sugar metabolism’, see Bielski, J. and Sikorski, M., ‘Disturbances of Glucose Tolerance in Workers Exposed to Electromagnetic Radiation’, Medycyna Pracy 47 (3), 1996, pp. 227–31. Lai, H. et al, ‘Corticotropin-releasing Factor Antagonist Blocks Microwave-induced Changes in Central Cholinergic Activity in the Rat’, Brain Research Bulletin 25, 1990, pp. 609–12. Burch, J. B. et al., ‘Melatonin Metabolite Excretion among Cellular Telephone Users’, International Journal of Radiation Biology 78 (11), 2002, pp. 1029–36. Roth, J. A. et al., ‘Melatonin Promotes Osteoblast Differentiation and Bone Formation’, Journal of Biological Chemistry 274 (31), 1999, pp. 22,041–47. Burch, J. B. et al, ‘Melatonin Metabolite Levels in Workers Exposed to 60-Hz Magnetic Fields’, Journal of Occupational Environmental Medicine 42 (2), 2000, pp. 136–42. Kato, M. and Shigemitsu, T., in Stevens, et.al., The Melatonin Hypothesis, Battelle Press, Columbus, 1997, pp. 337–76. Johansson, O., ‘Evidence for Effects on the Immune System’, op. cit. Johansson, O. et al., ‘Skin Changes in Patients Claiming to Suffer from “Screen Dermatitis”: a two-case open-field provocation study’, Experimental Dermatology 3 (5), 1994, pp. 234–38. Johansson, O., ‘A Screening of Skin Changes, with Special Emphasis on Neurochemical Marker Antibody Evaluation, in Patients Claiming to Suffer from “Screen Dermatitis” as Compared to Normal Healthy Controls’, in Experimental Dermatology 5 (5), 1996, pp. 279–85. Rajkovic, V. et al., ‘Histological Characteristics of Cutaneous and Thyroid Mast Cell Populations in Male Rats Exposed to Power-frequency Electromagnetic Fields’, International Journal of Radiation Biology, 81 (7), 2005, pp. 491–99. Gangi, S. and Johansson, O. ‘A Theoretical Model Based Upon Mast Cells and Histamine to Explain the Recently Proclaimed Sensitivity to Electric and/or Magnetic Fields in Humans’, Medical Hypotheses 54 (4), 2000, pp. 663–71. Cleary, S. F. et al., ‘Effect of Isothermal Radiofrequency Radiation on Cytolytic T Lymphocytes’, FASEB Journal 10 (8), 1996, pp. 913–19. ‘Rats exposed to radiation’, Trosic, I. et al., ‘Animal Study on Electromagnetic Field Biological Potency’, Arhiv za Higijenu Rada i Toksikologiju 50 (1), 1999, pp. 5–11; ‘people exposed to 2.45 and 7.7 GHz’, Zotti-Martelli, L. et al., ‘Induction of Micronuclei in Human Lymphocytes Exposed in Vitro to Microwave Radiation’, Mutation Research 472 (1–2), 2000, pp. 51–58. Bonhomme-Faivre, L. et al., ‘Study of Human Neurovegetative and Hematologic

Notes  —  361

44 45 46 47 48 49

50

51 52

53 54

55

56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

Effects of Environmental Low-frequency (50-Hz) Electromagnetic Fields Produced by Transformers’, Archives of Environmental Health 53 (2), 1998, pp. 87–92. Repacholi, M. H. et al., ‘Lymphomas in E mu-Pim1 Transgenic Mice Exposed to Pulsed 900 MHZ Electromagnetic Fields’, Radiation Research 147 (5), 1997, pp. 631–40. Lai, H., BioInitiative Report, op. cit, pp. 3, 35–39. ibid. Lai, H. et al., ‘Acute Exposure to a 60 Hz Magnetic Field Affects Rats’ Water-maze Performance’, Bioelectromagnetics 19 (2), 1998, pp. 117–22. Wang, B. and Lai, H., ‘Acute Exposure to Pulsed 2450-MHz Microwaves Affects Water-maze Performance of Rats’, Bioelectromagnetics 21 (1), 2000, pp. 52–6. Kolodynski, A. and Kolodynska, V. ‘Motor and Psychological Functions of School Children Living in the Area of the Skrunda Radio Location Station in Latvia’, Science of Total Environment 180 (1), 1996, pp. 87–93. Duan, L. et al, ‘Observations of Changes in Neurobehavioral Functions in Workers Exposed to High-frequency Radiation’, Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi 32 (2), 1998, pp. 109–11. Lai, H., BioInitiative Report, op. cit. Persson, B. R. R. et al, ‘Blood-brain Barrier Permeability in Rats Exposed to Electromagnetic Fields Used in Wireless Communication’, Wireless Network 3, 1997, pp. 455–61. Dagbladet, S., ‘Cellphone Microwave Radiation Allows Leakage in the Blood-brain Barrier’, 15 September 2000, further source details unknown. See for example Schirmacher, A. et al, ‘Electromagnetic Fields (1.8 GHz) Increase the Permeability to Sucrose of the Blood-brain Barrier In Vitro’, Bioelectromagnetics 21 (5), 2000, pp. 338–45. Leszczynski, D. et al, ‘Non-thermal Activation of the hsp27/p38MAPK Stress Pathway by Mobile Phone Radiation in Human Endothelial Cells’, Differentiation 70 (2–3), 2002, pp. 120–29. Frey, A. H., ‘Headaches from Cellular Telephones’, Environmental Health Perspectives 106 (3), 1998, pp. 101–03. Akerstedt, T. et al, ‘A 50-Hz Electromagnetic Field Impairs Sleep’, Journal of Sleep Research 8 (1), 1999, pp. 77–81. Huber, R. et al., ‘Exposure to Pulsed High-frequency Electromagnetic Field During Waking Affects Human Sleep EEG’, Neuroreport 11 (15), 2000, pp. 3321–25. McLean, L., ‘EMR and Sleep’, EMR and Health 5 (2), 2009, pp. 8–10. Graham, C. and Cook, M. R., ‘Human Sleep in 60 Hz Magnetic Fields’, Bioelectromagnetics 20 (5), 1999, pp. 277–83. Mann, K. and Röschke, J., ‘REM Suppression Induced by Digital Mobile Radio Telephones’, Wien Med Wochenschr 146 (13–14), 1996, pp. 285–86. van den Bulck, J., ‘Adolescent Use of Mobile Phones for Calling and for Sending Text Messages After Lights Out’, Sleep, 30 (9), 2007, pp. 1220–23. Sernelius, B., ‘Possible Induced Enhancement of Dispersion Forces by Cellular Phones’, Physical Chemistry 6, 2004, pp. 1363–68. ibid.

Chapter 8: Electromagnetic Radiation and Health 1

2 3

Thériault, G. and Li, C.Y., ‘Risks of Leukaemia Among Residents Close to Highvoltage Transmission Electric Lines’, Occupational Environmental Medicine 54 (9), 1997, pp. 625–8. Milham Jr, S., ‘Mortality in Workers Exposed to Electromagnetic Fields’, Environmental Health Perspectives 2, 1985, pp. 297–300. Floderus, B. et al, ‘Occupational Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields in Relation to Leukaemia and Brain Tumours’, Cancer Causes & Control, 4 (5), 1993, pp. 465–76

362  —  The Force

4

5

6

7 8

9

10 11

12

13

14

15

16 17

and Floderus, B. et al, ‘Incidence of selected cancers in Swedish railway workers, 1961-79’, Cancer Causes & Control, 5 (2), 1994, pp. 189–94. ‘six times higher’, Bethwaite, P. et al, ‘Acute Leukaemia in Electrical Workers’, Cancer Causes & Control 12 (8), 2001, pp. 683–89; ‘seven times higher’, Matanoski, G. M. et al, ‘Leukaemia in Telephone Linemen’, American Journal of Epidemiology 137 (6), 1993, pp. 609–19. ‘Risk was double’, Minder, C. E. and Pfluger, D. H., ‘Leukaemia, Brain Tumours, and Exposure to Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields in Swiss Railway Employees’, American Journal of Epidemiology 153 (9), 2001, pp. 825–35; ‘five times higher’, Röösli, M. et al., ‘Leukaemia, Brain Tumours and Exposure to Extremely Low Frequency Magnetic Fields’, Occupational Environmental Medicine 64 (8), 2007, pp. 553–59. ‘three times the average risk’, Thériault, G. et al, ‘Cancer Risks Associated with Occupational Exposure to Magnetic Fields Among Electric Utility Workers in Ontario and Quebec, Canada, and France’, American Journal of Epidemiology 139 (6), 1994, pp. 550–72; ‘five times the average rate’, Miller, A. B. et al, ‘Leukaemia Following Occupational Exposure to 60-Hz Electric and Magnetic Fields Among Ontario Electric Utility Workers’, American Journal of Epidemiology 144 (2), 1996, pp. 150–60. Feychting, M. et al, ‘Occupational and Residential Magnetic Field Exposure and Leukaemia and Central Nervous System Tumours’ Epidemiology, 8 (4), 1997, pp. 384–9. Infante-Rivard, C. and Deadman, J.E., ‘Maternal Occupational Exposure to Extremely Low Frequency Magnetic Fields During Pregnancy and Childhood Leukaemia’, Epidemiology 14 (4), 2003, pp. 437–41. Pearce, M.S. et al, ‘Paternal Occupational Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields as a Risk Factor for Cancer in Children and Young Adults’, Pediatric Blood and Cancer, 49 (3), 2007, pp. 280–86. Floderus, B. et al, ‘Occupational Magnetic Field Exposure and Site-specific Cancer Incidence’, Cancer Causes & Control 10 (5), 1999, pp. 323–32. Håkansson, N. et al, ‘Cancer Incidence and Magnetic Field Exposure in Industries Using Resistance Welding in Sweden’, Occupational Environmental Medicine 59 (7), 2002, pp. 481–86; Håkansson, N. et al, ‘Arc and Resistance Welding and Tumours of the Endocrine Glands’, Occupational Environmental Medicine, 62(5) pp 304-8, 2005. Stenlund, C. and Floderus, B., ‘Occupational Exposure to Magnetic Fields in Relation to Male Breast Cancer and Testicular Cancer’, Cancer Causes & Control 8 (2), 1997, pp. 184–91. ‘higher rate of lymphatic and hematopoietoc cancer’, Rønneberg, A. et al, ‘Occupational Exposure and Cancer Incidence Among Workers From an Aluminium Smelter in Western Norway’, Scandinavian Journal of Work Environmental Health 25 (3), 1999, pp. 207–14; ‘seven times the normal rate of pancreatic cancer’, Ji, B.T. et al, ‘Occupation and Pancreatic Cancer Risk in Shanghai, China’, American Journal of Industrial Medicine 35 (1), 1999, pp. 76–81; ‘higher rates of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma’, Schroeder, J.C. and Savitz, D.A., ‘Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma Mortality in Relation to Magnetic Field Exposure Among Electric Utility Workers’, American Journal of Industrial Medicine 32 (4), 1997, pp. 392–402. Hardell, L. et al, ‘Exposure to Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields and the Risk of Malignant Diseases’, European Journal of Cancer Prevention 4, 1995, Supplement 1, pp. 3–107. Gobba, F. et al, ‘Extremely Low Frequency Magnetic Fields (ELF-EMF) Occupational Exposure and Natural Killer Activity in Peripheral Blood Lymphocytes’, Science of Total Environment 407 (3), 2009, pp. 1218–23. Sadetzki, S. et al, ‘Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Benign and Malignant Parotid Gland Tumours’, American Journal of Epidemiology 167 (4), 2008, pp. 457–67. ‘a higher risk of brain tumours’, Grayson, J.K., ‘Radiation Exposure, Socioeconomic Status, and Brain Tumour Risk in the US Air Force’, American Journal of

Notes  —  363

18 19

20

21 22

23

24

25 26 27 28

29

30 31

32 33

Epidemiology 143 (5), 1996, pp. 480–86; ‘double the expected rate of brain tumours’, Szmigielski, S., ‘Cancer Morbidity in Subjects Occupationally Exposed to Highfrequency (Radiofrequency and Microwave) Electromagnetic Radiation’, Science of Total Environment 180 (1), 1996, pp. 9–17. Saito, T. et al, ‘Power-frequency Magnetic Fields and Childhood Brain Tumours’, Journal of Epidemiology 20 (1), 2010, pp. 54–61. See Villeneuve, P.J. et al, ‘Brain Cancer and Occupational Exposure to Magnetic Fields Among Men’, International Journal of Epidemiology 31 (1), 2002, pp. 210–17; Rodvall, Y. et al, ‘Occupational Exposure to Magnetic Fields and Brain Tumours in Central Sweden’, European Journal of Epidemiology 14 (6), 1998, pp. 563–69; D. A. Savitz et al., ‘Case-cohort Analysis of Brain Cancer and Leukaemia in Electric Utility Workers Using a Refined Magnetic Field Job-exposure Matrix’, American Journal of Industrial Medicine 38 (4), 2000, pp. 417–25. Li, P. et al, ‘Maternal Occupational Exposure to Extremely Low Frequency Magnetic Fields and the Risk of Brain Cancer in the Offspring’, Cancer Causes & Control 20 (6), 2009, pp. 945–55. Savitz, D.A. et al, ‘Magnetic Field Exposure from Electric Appliances and Childhood Cancer’, American Journal of Epidemiology 131 (5), 1990, pp. 763–73. De Roos, A.J. et al, ‘Parental Occupational Exposures to Electromagnetic Fields and Radiation and the Incidence of Neuroblastoma in Offspring’, Epidemiology 12 (5), 2001, pp. 508–17. ‘Sweden’, Feychting, M. et al, ‘Magnetic Fields and Breast Cancer in Swedish Adults Residing Near High-voltage Powerlines’, Epidemiology 9 (4), 1998, pp. 392–97; ‘Norway’, Kliukiene, J. et al, ‘Residential and Occupational Exposures to 50-Hz Magnetic Fields and Breast Cancer in Women’, American Journal of Epidemiology 159 (9), 2004, pp. 852–61. Vena, J. E. et al, ‘Use of Electric Blankets and Risk of Postmenopausal Breast Cancer’, American Journal of Epidemiology 134 (2), 1991, pp. 180–5; Zhu, K. et al, ‘Use of Electric Bedding Devices and Risk of Breast Cancer in African-American Women’, American Journal of Epidemiology 58 (8), 2003, pp. 798–806. Coogan, P.F. et al, ‘Occupational Exposure to 60-hertz Magnetic Fields and Risk of Breast Cancer in Women’, Epidemiology 7 (5), 1996, pp. 459–64. Loomis, D.P. et al, ‘Breast Cancer Mortality Among Female Electrical Workers in the United States’, Journal of the National Cancer Institute 86 (12), 1994, pp. 921–25. Peplonska, B. et al, ‘Occupation and Breast Cancer Risk in Polish Women’, American Journal of Industrial Medicine 50 (2), 2007, pp. 97–111. ‘Canada’, Labrèche, F. et al, ‘Occupational Exposures to Extremely Low Frequency Magnetic Fields and Postmenopausal Breast Cancer’, American Journal of Industrial Medicine 44 (6), 2003, pp. 643–52; ‘Sweden’, Forssén, U. M. et al, ‘Occupational and Residential Magnetic Field Exposure and Breast Cancer in Females’, Epidemiology 11 (1), 2000, pp. 24–9. Milham, S., ‘A Cluster of Male Breast Cancer in Office Workers’, American Journal of Industrial Medicine 46 (1), 2004, pp. 86–87; for example, Pollán, M. et al, ‘Breast Cancer, Occupation, and Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields Among Swedish Men’, American Journal of Industrial Medicine 39 (3), 2001, pp. 276–85. Liburdy, R. P. et al, ‘ELF Magnetic Fields, Breast Cancer, and Melatonin’, Journal of Pineal Research 14 (2), 1993, pp. 89–97. Harland, J. D. and Liburdy, R. P., ‘Environmental Magnetic Fields Inhibit the Antiproliferative Action of Tamoxifen and Melatonin in a Human Breast Cancer Cell Line’, Bioelectromagnetics 18 (8), 1997, pp. 555–62. Davanipour, Z. and Sobel, E., ‘Magnetic Field Exposure’, BioInitiative Report, BioInitiative Working Group, 2007, at www.bioinitiative.org Beral, V. et al, ‘Malignant Melanoma and Exposure to Fluorescent Lighting at Work’, Lancet 2 (8293), 1982, pp. 290–93.

364  —  The Force 34

35 36 37 38 39

40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

51

52 53 54 55 56 57

58

Tynes, T. et al, ‘Residential and Occupational Exposure to 50 Hz Magnetic Fields and Malignant Melanoma’, Occupational Environmental Medicine 60 (5), 2003, pp. 343–47. ibid. Hallberg, O. and Johansson, O., ‘Malignant Melanoma of the Skin’, Medical Scientific Monitor 10 (7), 2004, CR336-40. Hallberg, Ö., ‘Bed Types and Cancer Incidence’, Letter to the Editor, Pathophysiology 17 (3), 2009, p. 161. Fews, A.P. et al, ‘Increased Exposure to Pollutant Aerosols Under High-voltage Powerlines’, International Journal of Radiation Biology 75 (12), 1999, pp. 1505–21. Thun-Battersby, S. et al, ‘Exposure of Sprague-Dawley Rats to a 50-Hertz, 100-microTesla Magnetic Field for 27 Weeks Facilitates Mammary Tumourigenesis in the 7,12-dimethylbenz[a]-anthracene Model of Breast Cancer’, Cancer Research 59 (15), 1999, pp. 3627–33. World Health Organization, ‘Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health’, Fact Sheet 304. ‘Long-suppressed Draft EPA Report’, Microwave News, Jan./Feb. 1998, p 7. ‘NIEHS Panel Finds EMFs Are “Possible” Human Carcinogens’, Microwave News, Jul./Aug. 1998, p. 1. Delpizzo, V. et. al, ‘California EMF Risk Evaluation for Policymakers and the Public.’ Sage, C., ‘Summary for the Public’, BioInitiative Report, op. cit. Cherry, N., ‘Criticism of the Proposal to Adopt the ICNIRP Guidelines for Cellsites in New Zealand’, Lincoln University, 1999. Davanipour, Z. and Sobel, E., ‘Magnetic Field Exposure’, BioInitiative Report, op. cit. Sobel, E. et al, ‘Occupations with Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields’, American Journal of Epidemiology 142 (5), 1995, pp. 515–24. Davanipour, Z. and Sobel, E., ‘Long-term Exposure to Magnetic Fields and the Risks of Alzheimer’s Disease and Breast Cancer’, Pathophysiology 16 (2–3), 2009, pp. 149–56. Davanipour, Z. et al, ‘A Case-control Study of Occupational Magnetic Field Exposure and Alzheimer’s Disease’, BMC Neurology 7, 2007, pp. 13. See Qiu, C. et al, ‘Occupational Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields and Risk of Alzheimer’s disease’, Epidemiology 15 (6), 2004, pp. 687–94; Håkansson, N. et al, ‘Neurodegenerative Diseases in Welders and Other Workers Exposed to High Levels of Magnetic Fields’, Epidemiology 14 (4), pp. 420–26. ‘Switzerland’, Röösli, M. et al, ‘Mortality From Neurodegenerative Disease and Exposure to Extremely Low-frequency Magnetic Fields’, Neuroepidemiology 28 (4), 2007, pp. 197–206; ‘Turkey’, Harmanci, H. et al, ‘Risk Factors for Alzheimer Disease’, Alzheimer Disease Association Journal 17 (3), 2003, pp. 139–45. Davanipour, Z. and Sobel, E., ‘Long-term Exposure to Magnetic Fields’, op. cit. Huss, A. et al, ‘Residence Near Powerlines and Mortality From Neurodegenerative Diseases’, American Journal of Epidemiology 169 (2), 2009, pp. 167–75. Davanipour, Z. et al, ‘Electromagnetic Field Exposure and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis’, Neuroepidemiology 10 (5–6), 1991, pp. 308. Davanipour, Z. et al, ‘Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Occupational Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields’, Bioelectromagnetics 18 (1), 1997, pp. 28–35. Magras, I. N. and Xenos, T. D., ‘RF Radiation-induced Changes in the Prenatal Development of Mice’, Bioelectromagnetics 18 (6), 1997, pp. 455–61. See for example Yan, S. W. et al, ‘Long-term Exposure to Low-intensity Microwave Radiation Affects Male Reproductivity’, Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue 13 (4), 2007, pp. 306–08. ‘potentially affecting both their fertility and the health’, De Iuliis, G.N. et al, ‘Mobile Phone Radiation Induces Reactive Oxygen Species Production and DNA Damage in Human Spermatozoa in vitro’, PLoS One 4 (7), 2009, pp. 6446; ‘negatively affect spermatozoa and impair male fertility’; Agarwal, A. et al, ‘Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Waves (RF-EMW) From Cellular Phones on Human Ejaculated

Notes  —  365

59 60 61 62 63

64

65

66

67

68 69

70 71 72 73

74

75

76 77

78 79

Semen’, Fertility Sterility 92 (4), 2009, pp. 1318–25; ‘negatively affects semen quality and may impair male fertility’, Mailankot, M. et al, ‘Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation (RF-EMR) From GSM (0.9/1.8GHz) Mobile Phones Induces Oxidative Stress and Reduces Sperm Motility in Rats’, Clinics 64 (6), 2009, pp. 561–65. De Iuliis, G. N., op. cit. For example, Weyandt, T. B. et al, ‘Semen Analysis of Military Personnel Associated with Military Duty Assignments’, Reproductive Toxicology 10 (6), 1996, pp. 521–28. Genuis, S. J., ‘Fielding a Current Idea’, Public Health 122 (2), 2008, pp. 113–24. Wertheimer, N. and Leeper, E., ‘Possible Effects of Electric Blankets and Heated Waterbeds on Fetal Development’, Bioelectromagnetics 7 (1), 1986, pp. 13–22. Wertheimer, N. and Leeper, E., ‘Fetal Loss Associated with Two Seasonal Sources of Electromagnetic Field Exposure’, American Journal of Epidemiology 129 (1), 1989, pp. 220–24. ‘lived in a home where there were high fields’, Juutilainen, J., et al, ‘Early Pregnancy Loss and Exposure to 50-Hz Magnetic Fields’, Bioelectromagnetics 14 (3), 1993, pp. 229–36; ‘used electric blankets at the time of conception’, Belanger, K. et al, ‘Spontaneous Abortion and Exposure to Electric Blankets and Heated Water Beds’ , Epidemiology 9 (1), 1998, pp. 36–42. Li, D. K. et al, ‘A Population-based Prospective Cohort Study of Personal Exposure to Magnetic Fields During Pregnancy and the Risk of Miscarriage’, Epidemiology 13 (1), 2002, pp. 9–20. Ouellet-Hellstrom, R., and Stewart, W. F., ‘Miscarriages Among Female Physical Therapists who Report Using Radio- and Microwave-frequency Electromagnetic Radiation’, American Journal of Epidemiology 138 (10), 1993, pp. 775–86. Møllerløkken, O. J. and Moen, B. E., ‘Is Fertility Reduced Among Men Exposed to Radiofrequency Fields in the Norwegian Navy?’ Bioelectromagnetics 29 (5), 2008, pp. 345–52. Töro, K. et al, ‘Evaluation of Meteorological Factors on Sudden Cardiovascular Seath’, Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine 17 (5), 2010, pp. 236–42. Coghill, R. W. et al, ‘Extra Low-frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields in the Bedplace of Children Diagnosed with Leukaemia’, European Journal of Cancer Prevention 5 (3), 1996, pp. 153–38. Ramanathan, R. et al, ‘Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and Water Beds’, New England Journal of Medicine 318 (25), 1988, pp. 1700. Duncan, J. R. et al, ‘Brainstem Serotonergic Deficiency in Sudden Infant Death Syndrome’, Journal of the American Medical Association 303 (5), 2010, pp. 430–37. For example, Rezk, A. Y. et al, ‘Fetal and Neonatal Responses Following Maternal Exposure to Mobile Phones’, Saudi Medical Journal 29 (2), 2008, pp. 218–23. Szmigielski, S. et al, ‘Alteration of Diurnal Rhythms of Blood Pressure and Heart Rate to Workers Exposed to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields’, Blood Pressure Monitoring 3 (6), 1998, pp. 323–30. Savitz, D. A. et al, ‘Magnetic Field Exposure and Cardiovascular Disease Mortality Among Electric Utility Workers’, American Journal of Epidemiology 149 (2), 1999, pp. 135–42. Fazzo, L. et al, ‘Morbidity Experience in Populations Residentially Exposed to 50-Hz Magnetic Fields’, International Journal of Occupational Environment and Health 15 (2), 2009, pp. 133–42. Tikhonova, G. I. et al, ‘Evaluation of Occupational Risk Caused by Exposure to Electromagnetic Rays’, Meditsina Truda i Promyshlennaia Ekologiia 5, 2004, pp. 30–4. Francis, J. and Niehaus, M., ‘Interference Between Cellular Telephones and Implantable Rhythm Devices’, Indian Pacing and Electrophysiology Journal 6 (4), 2006, pp. 226–33. ‘Information Brief on Potential for Interference to Electronics’, GSM World. Li, L. et al, ‘Pulsed Electric Field Exposure of Insulin Induces Anti-proliferative Effects

366  —  The Force

80

81 82 83 84 85

86 87 88 89

90 91 92 93 94

on Human hHpatocytes’, Bioelectromagnetics 26 (8), 2005, pp. 639–47. Beale, I. L. et al, ‘Psychological Effects of Chronic Exposure to 50-Hz Magnetic Fields in Humans Living Near Extra-high-voltage Transmission Lines’, Bioelectromagnetics 18 (8), 1997, pp. 584–94. Bielski, J. and Sikorski, M., ‘Disturbances of Glucose Tolerance in Workers Exposed to Electromagnetic Radiation’, Medycyna Pracy 47 (3), 1996, pp. 227–31. Havas, M, ‘Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity’, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 25 (4), 2006, pp. 259–68. Tasali, E. et al, ‘Slow-wave Sleep and the Risk of Type-2 Diabetes in Humans’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 105 (3), 2008, pp. 1044–49. Holt, J., ‘Observations on Cancer and Genetics’, notes provided to author. Asher, M.I. et al, ‘Worldwide Time Trends in the Prevalence of Symptoms of Asthma, Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis, and Eczema in Childhood’, The Lancet 368 (9537), 2006, pp. 733–43. Pawankar, R. et al, ‘State of World Allergy Report 2008’, World Allergy Organisation Journal, 1 (6), pp S4-S17, Supplement 1. Kimata, H., ‘Microwave Radiation from Cellular Phones Increases Allergen-specific IgE Production’ , Allergy 60 (6), 2005, pp. 838–39. Beale, I. L. et al, op. cit. Jamieson, K. S. et al, ‘The Effects of Electric Fields on Charged Molecules and Particles in Individual Microenvironments,’ Atmospheric Environment 41 (25), 2007, pp. 5224–35. Imperial College London, ‘Electrical Fields From Everyday Equipment and Materials Could Increase Infection Risk’, press release, 20 July 2007. European Environment and Health System fact sheet; Medicine.net; and Patten, S., ‘Allergies and Major Depression’, Biopsychosocial Medicine 3, January 2009. Milham, S., ‘Historical Evidence that Electrification Caused the 20th-century Epidemic of “Diseases of civilization”’, Medical Hypotheses 74 (2), 2010, pp. 337–45. Hallberg, O. and Johansson, O., ‘Apparent Decreases in Swedish Public Health Indicators After 1997’, Pathophysiology 16 (1), 2009, pp. 43–6. ibid.

Chapter 9: Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity 1 2 3

4 5 6

7 8

Feldman, L. R. et al., ‘Terminal illness’, Journal of American Academy of Dermatology 12 (2:1), 1985, p. 366. Johansson, O. et al., ‘Skin Changes in Patients Claiming to Suffer From “Screen Dermatitis”’, Experimental Dermatology 3 (5), 1994, pp. 234–38. Anna’s case is discussed in Johansson, O., ‘A Case of Extreme and General Cutaneous Light Sensitivity in Combination with so-called “Screen Dermatitis” and “Electrosensitivity”’, Australian College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine 18 (1), 1999, pp. 13–16. See Nordström, G., The Invisible Disease, O Books, Winchester, United Kingdom, 2004, pp. 5–6. Johansson, O., ‘Mystery in the Skin’, FEB, October 2001. Levallois, P., ‘Prevalence of Electrical Hypersensitivity in Populations of Different Countries’, presentation given at the International Workshop on EMF Hypersensitivity, Prague, Czech Republic, on 25–27 October 2004. Hallberg, O. and Oberfeld, G., ‘Will we all become electrosensitive?’, Letter to the Editor, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 25 (3), 2006, pp. 189–91. See Gibson, P. R., ‘Chemical and Electromagnetic Exposures as Disability Barriers’, Disability & Society 24 (2), March 2009, pp. 187–199. In addition, it is believed that Hannelore Kohl, the wife of former chancellor of Germany, Helmut Kohl, committed suicide as a result of photodermatits, a condition in which the skin is sensitive to light.

Notes  —  367 9 10

11

12 13 14

15

16

17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Hull, L. ‘I’m Allergic to Modern Living’, Daily Mail, 22 March 2007. Sufferer of electromagnetic hypersensitivity in correspondence with the author. Successive quotations are taken from the stories of other sufferers who have contacted the author (unless otherwise referenced). Sweet, M., ‘Concerns of the Residents of Ouruhia Regarding the Radio Tower at 123 Lower Styx Road Christchurch, New Zealand’, report for Christchurch City Council, October 1998, p. 14. Granlund-Lind, R. and Lind, J., Black on White, (trans. J. Ganellen), Mimers Brunn, Kunskapsforlaget, 2004, p. 34. Sufferer cited in ‘Protect Sussex from Tetra’, 8 March 2004, press release sent to author. Rajkovic, V. et al., ‘The Effect of Extremely Low-frequency Electromagnetic Fields on Skin and Thyroid Amine- and Peptide-containing Cells in Rats’, Environmental Research 99 (3), 2005, pp. 369–77. Gangi, S. and Johansson, O., ‘A Theoretical Model Based upon Mast Cells and Histamine to Explain the Recently Proclaimed Sensitivity to Electric and/or Magnetic Fields in Humans’, Medical Hypotheses 54 (4), pp. 663–71. Hardell, L. et al., ‘Increased Concentrations of Certain Persistent Organic Pollutants in Subjects with Self-reported Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity’, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 27 (2), 2008, pp. 197–203. See for example Thun-Battersby, S. et al., ‘Exposure of Sprague-Dawley Rats to a 50-Hertz, 100-microTesla Magnetic Field for 27 Weeks Facilitates Mammary Tumourigenesis in the 7,12-dimethylbenz[a]-anthracene Model of Breast Cancer’, Cancer Research 59 (15), 1999, pp. 3627–33. Nordström, G., op. cit. Successive quotation ibid. Fews, A. P. et al., ‘Increased Exposure to Pollutant Aerosols under High-voltage Powerlines’, International Journal of Radiation Biology 75 (12), 1999, pp. 1505–21. Hviid, S., ‘Hospital Accommodations of Electrically Hypersensitive Patients in Sweden’. ‘Policy on Environmental Sensitivities’, Canadian Human Rights Commission. ‘European Parliament Resolution of 2 April 2009 on Health Concerns Associated with Electromagnetic Fields’. G. H. Brundtland in Dalsegg, A. ‘Mobile Phone Radiation gives Gro Harlem Brundtland Headaches’, Dagbladet, 9 March 2002. World Health Organization, ‘Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health’, Fact Sheet 296, December 2005.

Chapter 10: The Controversy 1 2

3 4 5

6

7

Belyaev, I. Y., ‘Non-thermal Biological Effects of Microwaves’, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 24 (3), 2005, pp. 375–403. Bawin, S. M. and Adey, W. R., ‘Sensitivity of Calcium Binding in Cerebral Tissue to Weak Environmental Electric Fields Oscillating at Low Frequency’, PNAS USA, 73 (6), 1976, pp. 1999–2003. Belyaev, I. Y., op. cit. Hyland, G. J., ‘Physics and Biology of Mobile Telephony’, The Lancet 356, 2000, pp. 1833–36. Persson, B. R. et al., ‘Blood-brain Barrier Permeability in Rats Exposed to Electromagnetic Fields Used in Wireless Communication’, Wireless Networks 3 (6), 1997, pp. 455–61. French, P. et al., ‘Electromagnetic Radiation at 835 MHz Changes the Morphology and Inhibits Proliferation of a Human Astrocytoma Cell Line’, Bioelectrochemistry and Bioenergetics 43, 1997, pp. 13–18. Laurence, J. A. et al., ‘Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields’, Journal of Theoretical Biology 206, 2000, pp. 291–98.

368  —  The Force 8 9

10 11 12 13

14 15

16 17 18 19

20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Blackman, C. F. et al., ‘Multiple Power-density Windows and their Possible Origin’, Bioelectromagnetics 10 (2), 1989, pp. 115–28. Lai, H., ‘Neurological Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation’, Mobile Phones and Health Symposium, held in Vienna, 25–8 October 1998. Successive quotation ibid. Milham, S., in correspondence with the author, 14 October 2010. Commonwealth of Australia, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 22 September 2000. Belyaev, I. Y., op. cit. E. Postow and M. L. Swicord in C. Polk and E. Postow (eds), ‘Modulated fields and “windows” effects’ in Handbook of Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, CRC Press, Florida, 1996, pp. 535–80. Repacholi, M. H. et al., ‘Lymphomas in E mu-Pim1 Transgenic Mice Exposed to Pulsed 900 MHZ Electromagnetic Fields’, Radiation Research 147 (5), 1997, pp. 631–40. Fedrowitz, M. et al., ‘Significant Differences in the Effects of Magnetic Field Exposure on 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene-induced Mammary Carcinogenesis in Two Substrains of Sprague-Dawley Rats’, Cancer Research 1 (64), 2004, pp. 243–51. Belyaev, I. Y., op. cit. ibid. ibid. Adlkofer, F., ‘The Endorsement of Safety by the German Mobile Telecommunication Research Programme (DMF) Regarding the Health Risks of Mobile Phone Radiation is Based Rather on Wishful Thinking than Facts’, Competence Initiative for the Protection of Humanity, Environment and Democracy 3, March 2009. ‘The 2010 Telecommunications Industry Review’, The Insight Research Corporation, 2010. ‘Microwave News Responds to Mike Repacholi’, Microwave News, 26 (9), 17 November 2006. Goldsmith, J., ‘Epidemiologic Evidence of Radiofrequency Radiation (Microwave) Effects on Health in Military, Broadcasting and Occupational Studies’, International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 1 (1), 1995, pp. 47–57. See the full list of sponsored research at http://responsibility.motorola.com/index.php/ consumers/wirelesscommhealth/research/#independentresearch See ‘MMF Research Forum’, Mobile Manufacturers Forum, www.mmfai.org/public/ MMFresearch.cfm?lang=eng Hannom, H., ‘Condemning the Drinks Industry Rules out Potentially Useful Research’, British Medical Journal 317 (7154), 1998, pp. 333–39. ‘The Tightening Grip of Big Pharma’, Editorial, The Lancet, 14 April 2001. Huss, A. et al., ‘Source of Funding and Results of Studies of Health Effects of Mobile Phone Use’, Environmental Health Perspectives 115 (1), 2007, pp. 1–4. See Hardell, L. et al., ‘Secret Ties to Industry and Conflicting Interests in Cancer Research’, American Journal of Industrial Medicine 50 (3), 2007, pp. 227–33. Information in previous two paragraphs taken from ‘Radiation Research and the Cult of Negative Results’, Microwave News 26 (4) July 2006. Fist, S., ‘Media Rethinks Mobile Claims’, The Australian, 1 June 1999. Carlo, G., letter to industries who contributed to the WTR program, dated 7 October 1999. Brodeur, P., Currents of Death, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1989. Commonwealth of Australia, Senate, Parliamentary Debates, 5 March 1997. Cherry, N. at ‘Electromagnetic Radiation in the Environment’ conference, Sydney, Australia, on 4 March 1997. Cherry, N., ‘Scientific Evidence of the Risk of Adverse Health Effects From Chronic Exposure to Low-level Electromagnetic Radiation’, in Electromagnetic Radiation in the Environment, Australian Institute of Environmental Health, New South Wales division; Australian Institute of Building Surveyors, New South Wales chapter;

Notes  —  369

36 37 38 39

40 41

Local Government and Shires Association, 4 March 1997. Hyland, G. ‘The Physiological and Environmental Effects’, March 2001. ‘Scientific Comment on Individual Statements of Concern About Health Hazards of Weak EMF’, Steering Committee of COST Action 281, 2001. Hyland, G., ‘Response to COST 281’s “Scientific Comment on Individuals Statements of Concern About Health Hazards of Weak EMF” ’, 2002. Sykes, P. J. et al, ‘Effect of Exposure to 900 MHz Radiofrequency Radiation on Intrachromosomal Recombination in pKZ1 Mice’, Radiation Research, 2001, pp. 495–502. Australian Commonwealth of Australia, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 7 May 1997. Cherry, N., ‘Scientific Evidence of the Risk of Adverse Health Effects’, op. cit.

Chapter 11: Reducing Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation 1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Brix, J. et al, ‘Measurement of the individual exposure to 50 and 16 2/3 Hz magnetic fields within the Bavarian population’, Bioelectromagnetics 22, no. 5, 2001, pp. 323–32. Speech given by L. Zaffanella at the EMF Engineering Review Symposium held by the United States Department of Energy, Charleston, 29 April 1998. Moriyama, K. and Yoshitomi, K., ‘Apartment electrical wiring: a cause of extremely low frequency magnetic field exposure in residential areas’, Bioelectromagnetics 26, no. 3, 2005, pp. 238–41. McCurdy, A. L. et al., ‘Exposure to Extremely Low Frequency Magnetic Fields Among Working Women and Homemakers’, The Annals of Occupational Hygiene 45 (8), 2001, pp. 643–50. Deadman, J. E. and Infante-Rivard, C., ‘Individual Estimation of Exposures to Extremely Low Frequency Magnetic Fields in Jobs Commonly Held by Women’, American Journal of Epidemiology 155 (4), 2002, pp. 368–78. Lee, J. H. et al., ‘How Much Are Anesthesiologists Exposed to Electromagnetic Fields in Operating Rooms?’ Yonsei Medical Journal 44 (1), 2003, pp. 133–37. A. L. McCurdy et al., op. cit. See http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/ClassificationsAlphaOrder.pdf N. Farrell, ‘UK Police Sick of Tetra Handsets’. ibid. Milham, S. and Morgan, L. L., ‘A New Electromagnetic Exposure Metric’, American Journal of Industrial Medicine 51 (8), 2008, pp. 579–86. Melton, G. B., ‘Measurement and Analysis of Magnetic Fields From Welding Processes’, TWI Limited, prepared for the United Kingdom Health and Safety Executive, 2005. Håkansson, N. et al., ‘Arc and Resistance Welding and Tumours of the Endocrine Glands’, Occupational and Environmental Medicine 62 (5), 2005, pp. 304–8. Vogel, G., ‘Next Asbestos Could be in Air’, Business Insurance, 12 September 2010. Edwards. M. and Hamer, R., ‘Switch Off Your Mobiles Union Warns Staff’, Sunday Mirror, 19 March 2000. Whelan, J., ‘Hospital Warns Staff’, Sydney Morning Herald, 15 March 2000, p.1. Statement of Ronald B. Herberman, M.D. to the US Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee on 25 September 2008. ‘ACTU Guidelines for Screen Based Work’, ACTU Occupational Health and Safety Unit, Melbourne, 1998. Swedish Trade Union confederation, ‘Cancer and Magnetic Fields at the Workplace,’ Stockholm, 1993. Reproduced in Electrosensitivity News 3 (3), p. 8. Email sent by Roy L. Beavers, dated 9 September 1999. Nicholas, J. S., ‘Flight Deck Magnetic Fields in Commercial Aircraft’, American Journal of Industrial Medicine 38 (5), 2000, pp. 548–54. World Health Organization, Extremely Low Frequency Fields, Environmental Health

370  —  The Force

23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30

31 32 33 34 35

36

37

38 39 40 41 42 43 44

45 46 47

Criteria Monograph 238, 2007, p. 53. ‘Important Information on Anti-Theft and Metal Detector Systems and Pacemakers, ICDs, and Spinal Cord Stimulators’, US Food and Drug Administration, 28 September 2010. ibid. ‘Research Needs and Methodology to Address the Remaining Knowledge Gaps on the Potential Health Effects of EMF’, Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, 6 July 2009. Correspondence from E. Sobel to R. Beaver’s email list, 3 May 2000. Stankowski, S. et al, ‘Low Frequency Magnetic Fields Induced by Car Tire Magnetization’, Health Physics 90 (2), 2006, pp. 148–53. S. Milham in a letter to Microwave News, Mar./Apr. 1998 p. 14. Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association, ‘Mobile Phones and Driving’, 2002. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Institute of Health, ‘EMF Electric and Magnetic Fields Associated with the use of Electric Power’, June 2002. ibid. US Department of Health and Human Services, NIOSH Publications on Video Display Terminals, Third Edition, Sept. 1999, p. 55. G. Hyland cited in ‘Cordless Phones Now Seen as Threat to Health’, Adelaide Advertiser, 6 July 1999, p. 25. Mobile Technology, Health and the Environment, ‘Potential for Interference to Electronics’, 2006. Ortendahl, T. W. et al. ‘Mercury Vapor Release From Dental Amalgam in Vitro Caused by Magnetic Fields Generated by CRT’s and Electrical Cutting Procedures’, Swedish Dental Journal, Abstract 22, 1991, p. 31. Guney. M. et al, ‘900 MHz Radiofrequency-induced Histopathologic Changes and Oxidative Stress in Rat Endometrium’, Toxicology and Industrial Health, 23 (7), 2007, pp. 411–20. ‘increased risk of miscarriage’, Wertheimer, N. and Leeper, E., ‘Possible Effects of Electric Blankets and Heated Waterbeds on Fetal Development’, Bioelectromagnetics 7 (1), 1986, pp. 13–22; ‘slight increase in miscarriage’, Belanger, K. et al, ‘Spontaneous Abortion and Exposure to Electric Blankets and Heated Water Beds’, Epidemiology 9 (1), 1998, pp. 36-42. Savitz, D. A. et al, ‘Magnetic Field Exposure from Electric Appliances and Childhood Cancer’, American Journal of Epidemiology (5), 1990, pp. 763–73. Abel, E. L. et al, ‘Use of Electric Blankets and Association with Prevalence of Endometrial Cancer’, European Journal of Cancer Prevention 16 (3), 2007, pp. 243–50. ‘EMF Electric and Magnetic Fields Associated With the Use of Electric Power’, June 2002. ibid. Shimuzu, K., ‘Government, Industry Pass the Buck’, Japan Times, 13 June 2002. ‘Lighting’, Australian Government Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Bakos, J. et al, ‘Spot Measurements of Intermediate Frequency Electric Fields in the Vicinity of Compact Fluorescent Lamps’, Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 5 October 2010. Beral, V. et al, ‘Malignant Melanoma and Exposure to Fluorescent Lighting at Work’, Lancet 7 (2), 1982, pp. 290–3. National Health and Medical Research Council, Procedures for Testing Microwave Leakage From Microwave Ovens, 1985. ‘heating breast milk… reduces its immunologic qualities’, Quan, R. et al, ‘Effects of Microwave Radiation on Anti-infective Factors in Human Milk’, Pediatrics 89 (4) 1992, pp. 667–69; ‘cooking food in a microwave oven reduces the amount of B12’, Watanabe, F. et al, ‘Effects of Microwave Heating on the Loss of Vitamin B12 in

Notes  —  371

48 49 50 51 52 53

54 55 56 57

58 59 60

61 62

63 64

65 66 67

Foods’, Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry 46 (1), 1998, pp. 206–10. See Ashton, J. and Laura, R. S., Perils of Progress, UNSW Press, Sydney, 1997. ibid. Hardell, L., correspondence to EMR and Health 1 (4), 2005 E. Cleaver cited in Scheer, R., Eldridge Cleaver, Random House, New York, 1969, p. 32. United States National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Institutes of Health, op. cit. Davis, R. L. and Mostofi, F. K., ‘Cluster of Testicular Cancer in Police Officers Exposed to Hand-held Radar’, American Journal of Industrial Medicine 24 (2), 1993, pp. 231–33. Finklestein, M. M. ‘Cancer Incidence Among Ontario Police Officers’, American Journal of Industrial Medicine 34 (2), 1998, pp. 157–62. ‘Police Radar’, Microwave News Mar./Apr. 1996, p. 18. ‘Obituaries’, Microwave News Nov./Dec. 1997, p. 17. Lotz, W. G. et al., ‘Occupational Exposure of Police Officers to Microwave Radiation from Traffic Radar Devices’, National Technical Information Service, Publication No. PB95-261350, June 1995. United States National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Institutes of Health, op. cit. Deadman, J. E. and Infante-Rivard, C., op. cit. Li, P. et al, ‘Maternal Occupational Exposure to Extremely Low Frequency Magnetic Fields and the Risk of Brain Cancer in the Offspring’, Cancer Causes & Control, 20 (6), 2009, pp. 945–55. World Health Organization, op. cit. Alfredsson, L. et al, ‘Cancer Incidence Among Male Railway Engine-drivers and Conductors in Sweden, 1976-90’, Cancer: Causes & Control 7 (3), 1996, pp. 377–81; Nordenson, I., ‘Chromosomal Abberations in Peripheral Lymphocytes of Train Engine Drivers’, Bioelectromagnetics Society Annual Meeting, held in München, Germany, on 9–16 June 2000. ‘JR Cracks Down on Mobile Phone Users’, Japan Times, 8 April 1997. Milham Jr, S., ‘Increased Incidence of Cancer in a Cohort of Office Workers Exposed to Strong Magnetic Fields’, American Journal of Industrial Medicine 30 (6), 1996, pp. 702–04. United States National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Institutes of Health, op. cit. ibid. Wertheimer, N. et al, ‘Childhood Cancer in Relation to Indicators of Magnetic Fields From Ground Current Sources’, Bioelectromagnetics 16 (2), 1995, pp. 86–96.

Chapter 12: Planning and Design 1 2

Energy Networks Association, ‘Guidance on Electrical Installation Practices to Reduce EMF From Low Voltage Wiring’, 23 January 2008. Moreland City Council, ‘Strategy for Reducing Public Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields’, draft of September 1998.

Chapter 13: The Way Forward 1 2

Lum, K. L. et al., ‘Signed, Sealed and Delivered’, Tobacco Control 17, 2008, pp. 313–323. See for example the ad for Lucky Strike cigarettes, featuring Al Jolson, with the text: ‘I light a Lucky and go light on the sweets… It brings to men the health and vigor that come with avoiding overweight … And all it means is a few puffs of a Lucky Strike when you crave fattening cigarettes.’ Available at www.pophistorydig. com/?tag=tobacco-advertising-history

372  —  The Force 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Lum, K. L. et al., op. cit. Garfield, S., ‘Blowing Smoke Rings’, Guardian Weekly, 15 May 2005. World Health Organization, ‘10 Facts on the Tobacco Epidemic and Global Tobacco Control’. ‘Annual Smoking-attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Productivity Losses’, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 54 (25), 2005, pp. 625–28. World Health Organization, ‘10 Facts on the Tobacco Epidemic and Global Tobacco Control’. World Health Organization, ‘Costs to the Economy’. ibid. Lum, K. L. et al., op. cit. Havas, M., ‘Mobile Phones’, Trent University, 2009. The Interphone Study Group, ‘Brain Tumour Risk in Relation to Mobile Telephone Use’, International Journal of Epidemiology 39 (3), 2010, Appendix 2.

index

acetylcholine 36, 49 active wire 15, 24, 25, 36, 49 ACTU see unions aeroplanes 25, 268 Ahlbom, Anders 27, 175, 176 allergies 3, 10, 65, 104, 130, 131, 135, 162, 201–3, 207, 210, 214, 215–6, 239, 242, 243, 265, 275, 334 see also chemical sensitivity Alston, Richard 239–40, 242 Alzheimer’s disease 3, 10, 30, 84, 105, 137, 159, 165, 167, 170, 188–90, 204, 214, 297, 336 amalgam fillings 277–8 amyloid beta 189 amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) see Lou Gehrig’s disease analog systems 18, 95, 121–2, 299 anti-theft systems 269–70 antioxidants 155, 231, 232, 278 appliances 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 14, 19, 23–53, 129, 139, 170, 172, 174, 208, 209, 253, 263, 268, 270–1, 271, 272, 278, 281, 284–5, 297, 299, 300, 311, 312, 313, 325 asthma 48, 152, 201–3 see also mast cell, allergy

baby-crying monitors 56, 277, 294, 323 bacteria 164, 202, 289 barcode scanners 256, 270–1 base stations animal studies on 105–6 health effects of 99–107 international precautions for 109–15, 115–16 and networks 93–5 and property values 116–7 reducing exposure to 293–4 and schools 97–8 standards for 107–09 battery-operated equipment 337 bedrooms 5, 7, 8, 28, 66, 100, 139, 339 reducing exposure in 170, 271–2, 276, 292, 293, 294, 306, 307, 308 behaviour 58, 62, 69, 103, 104, 136, 139, 148, 165, 166, 167, 199, 337 Belyaev, Igor 225–35 Benevento Resolution 136, 333–5 BioInitiative Report 30, 32, 37, 42, 64, 77, 109, 183, 187, 190, 312, 323, 327, 328, 329, 345, 330, 331

373

374  —  The Force Blank, Martin 43, 147, 153, 242 blood pressure 104, 159, 169, 196–7, 212, 239, 338 blood-brain barrier 65, 105, 136, 167–8, 189, 226 bluetooth 73, 84, 87, 134, 255, 272, 282, 291 Brag™ Antenna Ranking of Schools 98 brain 164–8 see also neurotransmitters, bloodbrain barrier brain tumours 58, 64, 77, 137, 338 cordless phones 56, 62–4, 276 electricity vii, 34, 129, 179, 181, 264, 280, 298 mobile phones 53–92, 134, 180–1, 243 see also parotid gland tumours breast cancer see cancer – breast cancer breathing difficulties 129, 130, 165, 208, 212 Brundtland, Gro Harlem 70, 220 building construction materials 305 design 309 buildings high rise 308 office 308 bundled conductors 294, 295, 307, 312 burglar alarms 272–3 buses 25, 70, 87, 91, 252, 261, 291 calcium ions 65, 136, 151, 227 cancer 184–8, 232, 237, 332, 338 link to base stations and broadcast towers 98, 100–3, 106, 107, 118, 120 biological changes 65, 150–1, 152–3, 156, 157, 158, 159–60, 164, 178–80 breast cancer 181–3, 230 and electricity 23, 27, 30, 34, 47–8, 203, 228, 258, 266, 280, 300, 302, 335 endocrine 178–9 and mobile phones 59, 61, 70, 81, 89, 105 pancreatic 179

and RF radiation 121, 137, 239, 257 testicular 178–9, 295–6 and wi-fi 138 see also brain tumours, leukemia cars 306 fields from 25, 261, 273 mobile phones and 70, 91, 274 Catania Resolution 334–5 ceiling fans 274 cell phones see mobile phones cell towers see base stations cells 149–53 CFL (compact fluorescent) globes 170, 287–8 chemical sensitivity 168, 209, 215 chemicals 130–1, 168, 186, 201, 215–16, 230, 275–6, 280, 288, 325 Cherry, Neil 77, 108, 187–8, 239–40, 244 children ix, 33, 36, 39, 61, 68–9, 71, 97, 139, 158, 194, 201, 220, 277, 294, 298, 302, 313, 331, 335, 339 See also childhood leukemia, mobile phones, computers clock radio see digital clock dirty electricity from 278–9 clothes dryers 274 clothing 274–5 Code for the Deployment of Mobile Phone Network Infrastructure 110 Coghill, Roger 33, 195 Colbert, Claudette 316 computers 125–7, 259, 275, 278, 298, 300, 308, 310 addiction to 142–3 chemicals and 130–1 children and 127–8, 277 health and 9, 128–32, 134–6, 160, 162, 163, 183, 207, 208–10, 216, 217, 220, 275, 278 laptops 127, 133, 134, 135, 138, 140, 202, 220, 256, 265, 275, 276, 300 reducing exposure to 36, 132–3, 136–42, 216, 218, 266, 271–2, 275–6, 281, 311 wireless connections 133–42, 253, 258, 272, 302, 332

Index  —  375 continuous waves 229–30, 231 Cooper, Gary 315, 316 Copenhagen Resolution 327–8 cordless phones 56, 253, 276, 344 and brain tumours 63–4 reducing exposure to 139, 276, 286, 294, 331, 332–3 see also DECT corona 15 corona ions 185, 202 Davanipour, Zoreh 159, 183, 188–90, 297 DECT 56, 63–4, 138, 140–1, 255, 276, 277, 294, 338, 340 defibrillators 56, 197–8, 269, 277 dementia 84, 191 depression 3, 4, 5, 10, 31, 48, 55, 67, 100, 101, 102, 105, 111, 129, 158, 159, 165, 168, 169, 199, 202, 203, 204, 205, 212, 263 DHS (California Department of Health Services) 30, 187 design 305–14 diabetes 23, 48, 104, 158, 169, 198– 201, 202, 203 diet 278 digital systems 18, 121–22, 204, 229, 240, 299, 352 see also DECT and GSM digital clock 6, 272, 278, 280, 300 direct current 19, 189, 252 dirty electricity viii, 18, 24, 246 effects of 48, 199, 258 reducing exposure to 278–9, 312, 325 appliances that generate 281, 287, 299–300 dishwashers 125, 298 fields from 285 reducing exposure to 279, 286, 311 dizziness 92, 102, 104, 106, 129, 135, 137, 196, 208, 212, 220 DNA see genes Doll, Sir Richard 27, 176, 317 dopamine 165 Draper, Gerald 28 DVD players 23, 301 ear problems 213

earthing 6, 15, 20, 202, 273, 275, 295, 352, 218, 307, 308 earth stake 6, 8, 25 to water pipes 7, 25, 46, 48, 302, 309 ECOLOG Institute 65, 104, 178 electric blankets and breast cancer 182 and melatonin levels 159 and miscarriage 193, 194, 279 reducing exposure to 272, 279–80 and SIDS 196 electric fields characteristics 14–15, 16, 352 exposure to 255, 271, 286, 287 health effects of 8–9, 33, 158, 202, 216 reducing exposure to 45, 272, 295, 297 standards 32 electric ovens fields 6, 285 reducing exposure to 280, 311 electric shavers 280 electric tools 280–1 electromagnetic fields vii, 4, 5 electromagnetic hypersensitivity 38, 101, 129, 207–21, 287, 288, 298, 330, 333, 334, 335 electronic pest control 281 electrons 19, 25, 147, 152, 193 endocrine system see hormones Environment Protection Agency (US) 187 epilepsy 106, 139, 329, 335 equipment 310 European Environment Agency 69, 88–9 European Parliament 40, 69, 88, 90, 115, 138, 220, 240, 342 eye problems 83, 131, 208, 213 fatigue 5, 8, 139, 211, 338 and base stations 99, 100, 102, 104, 106, 212, 239 and computers 8–9, 129, 208 as a symptom of electromagnetic hypersensitivity 208, 211, 212, 221 and mobile phones 92 Elöverkänsligas Riksförbund (FEB) 217

376  —  The Force foetuses 69, 87, 232 Feychting, Maria 175, 177 fibre optics 114, 324, 333 fibromyalgia 211 Floderus, Birgitta 176, 178–9 free radicals see oxidation Freiburger Appeal 335–8 French, Peter 152–3, 163, 201, 227 frequency 13, 75, 240, 294 biological effects of 155, 156, 210, 225–6, 231, 232 explanation of 13, 16 and modulation 17, 75, 225, 231, 232 and technologies 13, 18, 56, 117, 121, 131, 134, 141, 240, 269. 272, 273, 275, 289 fridges see refrigerators fuse box 25 gaming consoles 282 gastrointestinal tract 105, 161, 163, 168, 213, 214, 221, 239 genes 57, 150, 153–8, 227, 353 and DNA damage 65, 77, 105, 136, 147, 148, 152, 160, 185, 193, 225, 228, 229, 237, 239, 241, 245, 333 Gilbert, Fred 136 global positioning systems (GPS) 282 glutamate 152 grounding see earthing hair dryers 282, 298, 299 Hallberg, Örjan 102, 183–4, 203–4, 211, 323 Hardell, Lennart 62, 68, 215, 276, 291 Havas, Magda 320, 348 and base stations 98 and dirty electricity 48, 198 and wi-fi 142 headaches 7, 48, 92, 99, 100, 102, 104, 111, 122, 129, 130, 135, 137, 139, 141, 159, 168, 208, 213, 216, 219, 220, 338 see also migraines heart 163, 195–8, 204, 214, 290, 331 disease 169, 197, 338 problems 83, 101, 105, 122, 139,

212, 221 heart rate variability 69, 196–7, 338 heat-shock proteins 152–3, 168, 185, 227 heaters 282–3 hot-water 5, 283, 307 underfloor 283 Henshaw, Denis 138, 185–6, 202, 217 histamine 162, 163, 214 Hocking, Bruce 120 hormones 57, 158–61, 168, 179 endocrine cancers 178–9 hot-water heaters 283 Hyland, Gerard 54, 226, 233, 240–1, 276 immunity 5, 65, 105, 107, 108, 119, 137, 152, 159, 161–4, 168, 179, 202, 208, 214, 216, 239, 339 induction cooktops 284, 286 infertility 69, 191–3, 195 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 31, 68, 74 insulin 158, 198–201 see also diabetes interior design 309–10 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 59, 190, 257 monograph 27, 33, 42, 175, 187, 245 International Association of Fire Fighters 111 International Commission on NonIonizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) 26, 236 guidelines 31–3, 38, 39, 40, 42, 73–6,78, 89,107, 110, 112, 113, 114, 258 calls for revisions 90, 330, 332 Interphone study 59–61 ionising radiation 12–13, 153 Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association (IDEA) 69, 86 iron and DNA 157–8, 185 irons 284 Jewell, Tony 87 Joines, W. 103 Johansson, Olle 102, 161–2, 183–4, 203, 208, 209, 213–14, 239, 241

Index  —  377 Kabuto, Michinori 28 Khurana, Vini 58, 61, 99, 180, 235 kitchen appliances 284–6 Lai, Henry 76, 77, 154–7, 166, 227–8, 237, 241, 245 Lakehead University 136 landline telephone 53, 114, 208, 286, 307, 308 laptops see computers learning 76, 84, 104, 108, 139, 159, 160, 166–7, 169, 333, 337 Leeper, Ed 27, 176, 193 leukaemia vii, 3, 186, 338 adult leukaemia 34, 121, 176–8, 179, 300 childhood leukaemia 7, 8, 26–30, 36, 39, 120–1, 175–6, 187, 245, 254, 280 link to electric fields 33 health protection standards and 33, 34, 246 radiofrequency exposure and 118, 120–1, 239 light sensitivity 131, 208, 213, 216 lights compact fluorescent (CFL) 278, 286–7 dimmer switches 283, 295 fluorescent 130, 183, 193, 209, 278, 286–8, 311 halogen 287–8, 300, 311 London Resolution 328–9 Löscher, Wolfgang 105 Lou Gehrig’s disease (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) 30, 187, 190 low-impact facilities 96 lymphocytes 157, 161, 163 lymphomas 33, 34, 164, 176, 179, 230, 242 McGlade, Jacqui 88–9 magnetic fields characteristics of 14–15, 23 and health 5, 27, 33, 175–6, 183, 187, 245 measuring 252 naturally occurring 11, 148–9 occupational exposure to 256–63

reducing exposure to 5–7, 36, 37, 39, 49, 133, 264–303, 306–15 limits for 32, 42 management of 312 mast cells 152, 161, 162–3, 201, 214 measuring exposure 252–3 mechanism 29, 239, 244, 246, 334 melanomas 5, 121, 178, 179, 183–4, 288, 295 melatonin 151, 159–61, 170, 182–3, 185, 189, 195, 229, 257, 294, 354 memory 76, 84, 92, 102, 107, 119, 129, 141, 159, 165, 166–7, 168–9, 212, 230, 263 meter box 5, 6, 7, 15, 25, 31, 352 reducing exposure to 35, 170, 271, 282, 288, 305, 307, 309 microwave hearing 57, 107, 213 microwave ovens 13, 54, 134, 141, 154, 166 reducing exposure to 282, 311 transformers 300 migraines 104, 139, 338 Milham, Sam and dirty electricity viii research into health 23, 27, 47–8, 176, 182, 203, 228, 300 studies on cars 273 miscarriages 5, 30, 129, 187, 193–4, 239, 266, 279 mobile phones addiction to 55 and brain tumours 58–62 children’s use of 66–70 and driving 70 interference with electronic equipment from 56 international precautions for 79–91 and personality 67 and ‘protective’ devices 72, 292–3 and radiation 54–5 reducing exposure to 289–92 and specific absorption rate (SAR) 71–2, 88, 355 standards for 73–8 mobile phone towers see base stations modulation see frequency Moreland City Council 310 Morgan, Lloyd vii–ix, 53, 60, 68, 72

378  —  The Force National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) 24, 39, 154, 187 nausea 92, 101, 104, 106, 129, 135, 212, 213, 219, 220 Navarro, Enrique 100 neurotransmitters 67, 76, 151, 165–6 neutral current 24, 37, 45, 46, 308, 309, 310, 311 night lights 293 non-ionising radiation 13, 153, 330–2 NSW Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations 109 numbness 104, 129, 208, 219 Oberfeld, Gerd 64, 100, 101, 141, 211 occupations and EMF/EMR exposures 255–67 reducing exposure to 267–302 offices 308–9 ornithine decarboxylase (ODC) 65, 151, 225 osteoporosis 160 oxidation 151, 157, 159, 185, 193, 277 pacemakers 56, 57, 81, 197–8, 269, 277, 343 pain 92, 104, 122, 162–3, 165, 168, 207, 212, 213, 214, 219, 239, 286, 338 and computers 9, 129, 208 Parkinson’s disease 165, 191 parotid gland tumours 10, 180 photocopiers reducing exposure to 294, 311 static electricity from 298 planes see aeroplanes planning 305–14 polarisation 160–1, 228–9, 231, 355 Porto Alegre Resolution 329–31 power 201, 226–7, 231 and base stations 93, 94, 98, 107, 108, 240 and broadcast transmitters 118, 121 and mobile and cordless phones 55, 56, 71, 72, 73, 80, 81, 84, 86, 88, 90, 204, 265, 272, 273, 276, 291, 292

power points 294 powerlines exposure to 43–9 guidelines and standards 31–3 and health 25–31 and international recommendations 35–42 and networks 23–5 reducing exposure to 294 underground 15, 24, 35, 45, 50, 137, 295, 306, 336 precautions for 34, 65, 190, 254, 268–303, 306–315 for base stations 105, 108, 109–15 for computers 132–3, 136–42 for electromagnetic hypersensitivity 217–20 for electromagnetic fields 35–41 for mobile phones 61, 69–73, 79–91, 197 and standards 76 and workers 264–8 prudent avoidance 34–5, 36, 38, 109, 265, 337 see also precautions Progressive Librarians Guild 137 property values and powerlines 49–50 and base stations 116–7 ‘protective’ devices 72, 84, 292–3 protein kinases 65, 151 pulsed signals 19, 54, 63, 76, 96, 104, 158, 166, 229, 231, 240, 264, 338, 341, 343, 344, 345 radar guns 295 REFLEX study 156 refrigerators 6, 23, 118 fields from 285 reducing exposure to 170, 286, 296, 307, 311, 325 regional planning 312–3 remote controls 296 Repacholi, Michael 164, 235 resonance 226, 355 Royal North Shore Hospital 79, 265 Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection 69, 83–4

Index  —  379 Salford, Leif 105, 167 Salzburg Resolution 338 Santini, Roger 99, 100, 108, 112 satellite dishes 296 sensitive areas 35, 40, 97, 110, 114, 308, 314, 333, 346 and sensitive use 40, 42 serotonin 165, 195 sewing machines 188–9, 297 shielding 79, 217, 218, 264, 266, 292, 293–4, 295, 298, 312, 314–5 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) 195 signal transduction 150 sine wave 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 29, 48, 156, 232, 299 sinusitis 104, 129, 208 skin problems 48, 105, 106, 139, 163 and computers 8, 128, 207, 208–9, 212, 216, 275 Skrunda radio station 119 sleep 148, 159, 165, 168–70 exposure during 7, 43, 160, 165, 174, 184 and health 33, 183, 195, 199, 271 and mobile phones ix, 56, 66, 83, 91 difficulties 3, 4, 5, 9, 31, 58, 65, 84, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 107, 108, 111, 122, 168, 212, 213, 239, 263, 338 reducing exposure to 38, 271–2, 274, 278, 279–80, 294, 299, 307, 308, 339 Slesin, Louis 235, 237 smart meters 297–8 Sobel, Eugene 159, 183, 188–90, 271, 297 sperm 69, 103, 192–3 specific absorption rate (SAR) see mobile phones Stakeholder Advisory Group on ELF EMFs (SAGE) 39 standards viii, 3, 30, 263, 270, 332 for computers 132 for electromagnetic fields 31–3, 36, 37, 41, 246 inadequacy of 34, 63, 65, 75–7, 87, 89, 96, 134, 137, 142, 153, 167, 171, 175, 205, 225, 234, 243,

246, 323, 324, 325, 329, 332, 333, 334, 340 for ‘protective’ devices 72, 79 for radiofrequency radiation 19, 54, 55, 57, 63, 73–4, 77–8, 107–9 static electricity 19–20, 298, 355 reduction of 170, 275, 282, 298 stereos 298 Stewart, Sir William 85, 115, 137 ‘Stewart report’ 85, 86, 115 stress 3, 43, 65, 73, 77, 101, 136, 152–3, 157, 158–9, 165, 169, 201, 228, 303, 339 substations 24, 35, 41, 45–7, 50, 310, 311, 314 Sutherland Shire Council 109 Swedish Confederation of Professional Employees see TCO Sykes, Pam 241 synthetic fibres 20, 170, 202, 274, 281, 298 TCO 132, 216, 275 television 271, 297, 298, 307 and dirty electricity 278 television transmitters 117–22 digital transmissions 121–2 and health 117–2, 162 reducing exposure to 289–90 telephone see mobile phones, cordless phones, landline telephones Teo, Charles 61 TETRA 257 thrystors 18, 29, 299 tiredness see fatigue tobacco industry 317–20 trains 25, 261, 299 and mobile phones 70, 83, 91 transformers 25,45–8, 300 fields from 36, 38, 255, 256, 279, 282, 287, 288, 310 and health 163, 228 reducing exposure to 170, 272, 307, 311, 312, 314 transients 17, 18, 232, 246, 312 tumours Merkel Cell tumour 9 parotid gland 10, 180

380  —  The Force underfloor heaters 282–3 unions 35, 264, 266, 315, ACTU 265–6, 36, 133 Public and Commercial Services Union 85, 265 Swedish Trade Union Confederation 266 Swedish Union of Clerical and Technical Employees in Industry (SIF) 128–9, 132 University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute 87, 265 vacuum cleaners 300–1 Van der Waals 171 Vatican transmitter 118–9 Venice Resolution 331–2 video players 300 Vienna Resolution 338–40 Villeneuve, Paul 33 viruses 157, 164, 202 voltage 13–15, 283, 352 and powerlines 44 and transformers and substations 24, 46–8, 300, 310, 355, 356

walkie-talkies 300 washing machines 6, 301 watches 301 water 170–1 water pipes 7–8, 25,46,48, 301, 308 reducing exposure to 281, 301–2, 308, 309–10 welding 177, 256, 258 Wertheimer, Nancy 26–7, 175, 176, 193, 302 wi-fi 133–42, 162, 331, 333, 336 wiring 15, 25, 35, 46 exposure from 9, 43–4, 281, 298 leukaemia 26, 28–9 reducing exposure to 7–8, 48–9, 217, 277, 286, 307–9, 310 WLAN 64, 133–4, 138, 140–1 Wolf, Ronni and Danny 100 World Health Organization (WHO) 26, 29, 41, 69, 74, 78, 80, 90, 186, 220–1, 223, 234–5, 236, 345 WPAN 134, 272 Zaffanella, Luciano 254