"You may not be able to see electropollution, but your body responds to it as though it were a cloud of toxic chemicals."
--Ann Louse Gittleman, author of Zapped: Why Your Cell Phone Shouldn't Be Your Alarm Clock and 1,268 Ways to Outsmart the Hazards of Electronic Pollution
The latest form of environmental pollution -- and one that industry, government and wireless consumers don't like to acknowledge -- may be the most devastating threat to health yet: electromagnetic fields (EMFs). A few years ago, I was so concerned that I took a certification course in the detection and harmful effects of EMFs. What it taught me, above all, was how much the scientific community is learning daily, and how little we in the medical profession knew. This area was both frightening and daunting in its scope. I'm grateful that following Devra Davis's Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation we now have Zapped to educate the public on this serious issue.
The UK's BioInitiative Report of July 2007 (updated in 2009) describes hundreds of studies that link EMF exposure to Alzheimer's disease, ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease), brain fog, cardiovascular disease, miscarriage, infertility, insomnia, learning impairment, as well as anxiety and depression. Wireless technologies -- like cell and cordless phones -- produce microwaves that increase the permeability of the blood-brain barrier, leading to changes in brain chemistry. Even low-level EMFs can cause brain cells to leak.
That's not all: Although actual tissue heating does not occur, EMFs also cause breaks in DNA, speed up cell division, disrupting the orderly process of chromosome matching and detaching, and activate stress protein or heat shock proteins. And as Anne Louise Gittleman writes in Zapped:
Most disturbing of all, the Swedish National Institute for Working Life found that people using cell phones for 2,000 hours -- a total most of us could easily rack up over the years -- had a 240 percent increased risk for malignant brain tumors on the side of the head where they usually held their phone.
So, what do we do to avoid these dangers? I'm relieved that Gittleman, my friend and colleague and author of over 30 bestselling books, has tackled this topic. We'll learn that most of us don't need to give up all the digital and electronic gadgets that make life so much easier. To protect ourselves, we first need to recognize the risks and then make smart choices in how we use all the available technological wonders.
Why Are EMFs So Dangerous?
What most people don't realize is the human body is naturally electrified. From the organic computer that is your brain, which sends out sensory messages like hunger and pain, to the energy that pumps your heart and makes your muscles contract, electricity powers your body. This innate electromagnetism within you is so critical to your daily functioning that modern medicine uses it in diagnostic testing (including electrocardiograms and MRIs) and, increasingly, to heal.
The "body electric" is an exquisitely tuned and sensitive creation, but unfortunately, human beings (and animals) respond favorably to only a very small range of electromagnetic frequencies. And there's a big difference between the body's natural electricity and the man-made electromagnetic frequencies that surround us 24/7 today. According to New York Times reporter B. Blake Levitt in Public Health SOS:
Most living things are fantastically sensitive to vanishingly small EMF exposures. Living cells interpret such exposures as part of our normal cellular activities (think heartbeats, brainwaves, cell division itself, etc.) The problem is, man-made electromagnetic exposures aren't "normal." They are artifacts, with unusual intensities, signaling characteristics, pulsing patterns, and wave forms. And they can misdirect cells in myriad ways.
Some of this radiation -- extremely low frequency (ELF) radiation in power lines, the radio frequency (RF)/microwave range where all things wireless live, intermediate frequencies ("dirty electricity" or freaky frequencies linked to sick building syndrome), and the highest frequencies (gamma and X-rays) -- is more damaging than natural frequencies to which humans (and animals) have adapted over millennia. Today, most Americans are constantly exposed to artificial frequencies, given the rapidly escalating pace of microwave and wireless expansion.
The bottom line is that electropollution -- from cell towers, computers, cordless and mobile phones, PDAs, Wi-Fi, even the electrical appliances and wiring in our homes, offices and public buildings -- continuously disturbs the sympathetic nervous system. This, in turn, elevates the body's fight-and-flight response, raising levels of the stress hormone cortisol. Fluctuations in cortisol lead to a wide range of health concerns ranging from belly fat and thinning skin to accelerated aging, blood sugar imbalance, cardiovascular problems, erratic sleep patterns and mood disturbances. Dr. Stephen Sinatra elaborates on this issue in his new book, Earthing.
Your body responds to EMFs as though they were public enemy number-one, triggering what two-time Nobel Prize nominee Robert Becker, M.D., in his 1998 book The Body Electric, called "subliminal stress." While intellectually you don't recognize this kind of stealth stress the way you would overwork or being stuck in traffic when you're late for an important appointment, your body's internal antennae pick up on it in several ways, according the late scientist, Dr. W. R. Adey, from Loma Linda University:
Recent research by Magda Havas, Ph.D., associate professor of Environmental and Resource Studies at Trent University in Canada, shows that dirty electricity -- EMFs in electrical wiring -- can raise blood sugar levels in diabetics and people at risk for diabetes. "Exposure to electromagnetic pollution in its various forms may account for higher plasma glucose levels and contribute to the misdiagnosis of diabetes," she writes. Dr. Havas' website is a goldmine of information on the entire topic of EMF pollution, as is Dr. Mercola's EMF site!
Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity
There are "canaries in the coal mine" -- hypersensitive individuals who are severely weakened by EMFs, and find themselves marginalized by the medical profession and society in general. Some must live in areas far from cell towers, Wi-Fi and the like. On a cellular level, these individuals have measurable damage to the mitochondria, the energy factories in each cell, and require reparative nutrients, for starters. I recently heard from a concerned family member of a man who had been exposed over time to a cell tower beaming through his office window. Quite ill, he was nonetheless unwilling to move his office location as I suggested, and I didn't hear from them again. Ignoring the messenger, however, doesn't solve the problem.
Zap-Proof Your Children
Today, an estimated 31 millions kids are on their cell phones close to four hours a day. Mobile phone companies are even marketing phones to preschoolers. Gittleman writes:
The trouble is, kids absorb 50 percent more electropollution than adults. One study finds that a cell phone call lasting only two minutes can cause brain hyperactivity that lasts up to an hour in children. Because their skulls are smaller and thinner than adults, EMFs penetrate much deeper into children's brains. Kids' brains are also more conductive due to their higher water and ion concentration.
The Toronto Board of Health recommends that children under eight use cell phone only for emergencies and that teens limit calls to under 10 minutes. If your kids have cell phones, encourage them to use the same smart tips you do.
Smart Use of Technology
The good news is most of us don't have to give up our smartphones if we use them wisely. Here are some of the many tips Gittleman highlights in Zapped:
Most important of all, restrict cell and cordless phone use during pregnancy. Heavy phone use then has been linked to increased risk of miscarriage and birth defects. And a 2008 survey of more than 13,000 children found that those whose mothers used a cell phone during pregnancy were more likely to have behavior problems like hyperactivity and trouble controlling their emotions.
Don't rely on the many stick-on devices available for your cell phone or computer that claim to protect you. Most are sold via network marketing, and I have yet to see the level of scientific proof that could convince me. You'll likely see comments to this blog, advertising them. Caveat emptor!
Even if you go back to wired technologies at home, Wi-Fi is expanding rapidly into schools and other public buildings. If the telecommunications industry has its way, we will all be bathed in a sea of artificial radiation from nonstop EMF exposure.
Due to their lobbying efforts, Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 makes state and local governments powerless to prohibit cell towers and wireless antennas based on "environmental (i.e., human) health concerns." Write your congressmen and senators to change this legislation and to require the FCC to reduce exposure guidelines for EMFs.
Don't wait for the government to protect you, though. Get your copy of Zapped and take action!
Follow Hyla Cass, M.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/hylacassmd
David Katz, M.D.: Cell Phones And Brain Cells: Where The Two Meet
Devra Davis, Ph.D.: Cell Phone Radiation: Is It Dangerous?
Dr. Cara Natterson: The Cell Phone Brain Cancer Debate
Stanton Peele: Addiction: How Its Meaning Is Shifting as We Speak
Study: Cell Phones Could Be More Dangerous Than Cigarettes ...
Cell Phones / Mobile Phones, Cancers and Brain tumors - What Is ...
How Dangerous Is Cell Phone Radiation?
O'Brien: Why cell phones may be more dangerous than we think
Dr. Rosch goes on to talk about "an increasing sea of radiation from exposure" today, and he adds that a two-minute call can alter brain function in a child [whose skull is smaller and thinner than adults] for an hour," which is why other countries ban the sale of cell phone or discourage their use before age 18. Sounds like good advice to me.
Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF)
We need to be responsible to create new biologically-based guidelines for human exposure limits
to electromagnetic radiation so that each life and each forthcoming life of all future generations is preserved as precious and has the right to life protected, free of all harm.
"Primum non nocere."
"First, do no harm."
Peace, Love & Light,
Dianne Knight, B. A.
http://www.stayonthetruth.com/
To Dr. Cass's Readers: Dr. Magda Havas and Camilla Rees, as well as the scientists they have written about in their posts, are all highly respected and experienced researchers and experts in this emerging field. I have been working as a healthy home and building environmental consultant for over 20 years, and reducing EMF exposure has long been a focus of my work, as well as my team's. Doctors and health practitioners refer their patients to us who are suffering from EMF sensitivity, or who want to eliminate stressors to their immune systems because they are trying to heal from serious illnesses. Regarding cell towers and antennas, in many cases, it is possible to measurably shield for outside sources of radio frequency (RF) EMFs. An RF inspection by a highly experienced, seasoned expert is the first step to reducing exposure from sources both inside and outside the building. Our staff can refer you to highly experienced EMF inspectors who specialize in RF testing, and possible remediation solutions for all wireless concerns, as well as testing remediation for EMFs from household wiring and appliances. We also consult on remodels and new construction, including safer wiring and wireless. www.marycordaro.com
The research in the article is shoddy and unscientific, and the tone is alarmist.
It seems appropriate to note that that both Dr. Cass and you, Mary, are promoting for-profit businesses in connection with this issue, and therefore stand to profit from what you would no doubt call "raising awareness" (I call it fear-mongering).
I have lodged a complaint with the Huffington Post over the content of this article, and I hope to see some kind of retraction published.
Please provide a citation for this claim. Because in fact the US EMF regulations are quite strict. You can learn more about them here: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/background.html
OK then. How do you respond to the FDA:
"The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says that available scientific evidence—including World Health Organization (WHO) findings4 released May 17, 2010—shows no increased health risk due to radiofrequency (RF) energy, a form of electromagnetic radiation that is emitted by cell phones."
Source: http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm212273.htm
http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/cell-phones-the-new-cigarettes-gq-thinks-so/
Camilla Rees
Co-author, "Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution" and Founder
Campaign for Radiation Free Schools (Facebook)
Can you please point to any studies, similar to what was produced showing increased risk of lung cancer from smoking, that show that cellphone usage leads to increased risk of any human disease? And please try to keep your responses limited to PubMed or other peer-reviewed articles. Quotations from someone's book don't actually count.
Smoking causes a 10-20 increase in risk of lung cancer. Any data comparable to that with cell phones? The evidence used to support a cellphone/disease link is even weak in animal models (i.e. frequencies/energies used are far stronger than what would actually occur from a cellphone). The evidence supporting a lung cancer/smoking link was quite strong even from the beginning of epidemiological study.
We are increasingly exposed to electrosmog and some people are becoming sick. Anyone who reads the scientific literature will not dispute these facts.
Electromagnetic energy can adversely affect electronic equipment and the messages they generate. This is called electromagnetic inference (EMI) and is well known to physicist and engineers. That is why the government licenses the frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum for radio communication and that is one reason we plug our computers into surge suppressors, to protect the message and the equipment.
Why is it so hard for some to believe that what happens to sensitive electronic equipment can also happen to the human body? We are electromagnetic beings. Our nervous system communicates via electromagnetic frequencies and these messages can also be distorted by electromagnetic energy. This is a form of biological electromagnetic interferences (BEMI) although it is commonly referred to as electrohypersensitivity (EHS). Some people have become so sensitive they cannot be in the same room with someone using a cell phone without becoming ill.
Dr Cass provides good advice on how to use this technology wisely. We no longer use x-rays in shoe stores to fit children's shoes and we should not be holding microwave transmitters in our hands (iPad), next to our head (mobile phones), or on our lap (WiFi computers).
The choice is yours for the time being. Limit your exposure now because if you become sensitive you will have no choice.
I'm sure you have some documentation of this, right? Surely someone has grabbed these people and actually studied them to show that they are getting sick because of a cellphone. An anecdote is not evidence and the plural of anecdotes is not data.
"We no longer use x-rays in shoe stores to fit children's shoes and we should not be holding microwave transmitters in our hands (iPad), next to our head (mobile phones), or on our lap (WiFi computers)."
False comparison. X-rays are harmful precisely because of the energy content of the electromagnetic waves. The energy output via and Ipad, cellphone, or WiFi is not even in the same ball park. Ask a physicist.
So if you really want to be freaked out about electromagnetic fields, start by getting rid of all the electricity in your house...
http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/program-san-fran-cc/
It is called "Cell phones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern, Science, Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone". Also read the Journal of Pathophysiology March 2009 edition which has over 10 articles reporting the known biological effects from electromagnetic fields. Also, listen to interviews with leading experts at www.ElectromagneticHealth.org
Please read the science before making judgements. Thanks!
"Ten years ago a group in Denmark published a beautiful epidemiological study of cell phones and brain cancer in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute: Johansen C.Boice JD Jr, McLaughlin JK, Olsen JH. Cellular telephones and cancer a nationwide Cohort study in Denmark. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:2037. The study was based entirely on existing public records: the Danish Cancer Registry, mobile phone charges, death records, subscriptions, etc. There was no correlation between cell phone use and the incidence of brain cancer. It was nice to have that fact confirmed, but it was not a surprise. I was invited to write an editorial on how scientists should respond to the cell phone/brain cancer question, for the same issue of JNCI JNCI, Vol. 93, No. 3, 166-167, February 7, 2001. Cancer agents act by creating mutant strands of DNA. In the case of electromagnetic radiation, there is a sharp threshold for this process at the extreme blue end of the visible spectrum. Albert Einstein explained this with the photoelectric effect in 1905, for which he received the Nobel Prize in 1921. Cell phones operate at a frequency about 1 million times lower than the ultraviolet threshold and hence cannot be a cause of cancer. It's not the intensity of radiation that makes it a cancer agent, but the frequency. "
"Although research is ongoing, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says that available scientific evidence—including World Health Organization (WHO) findings released May 17, 2010—shows no increased health risk due to radiofrequency (RF) energy, a form of electromagnetic radiation that is emitted by cell phones."
Source: http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm212273.htm
Camilla Rees
Co-author, "Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution"
Gregory Goldmacher, MD, PhD
No one will argue that EMF's cannot affect the body. They obviously can otherwise we wouldn't get sunburns and skin cancer, nor be able to produce Vitamin D. However, the question is, can the EMF generated by a cellphone affect the body?
As Mr. Goldmacher correctly points out above, the evidence that EMF fields with strength within the range of a cellphone can cause cancer is extremely weak and is certainly not supported by any epidemiological data showing a link to human disease.
Camilla Rees
Co-author of Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution
One must also remember that in science you can't simply dismiss data because of who funded it. You can argue that there is a bias that may cloud the interpretation of what the data means or the conclusions that are drawn, but unless you can also provide evidence of poor methodology or data falsification one cannot entirely dismiss a study (unless of course one is a science denialist).
I'm sure this close contact communication is especially useful for our soldiers returning from long deployments while learning to adapt to this crazy society that do not seem care or to be aware of their hazardess and dangerous duty, multiple tours away from family for years, and returning with War Injuries that may take years to recover. I am hopeful that this technology doesn't cause more harm to our Wounded Warriors and their families.
Camilla Rees
Co-author of "Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution"