Friday, December 5, 2008

EMF and children...Scientists say take precautions

I publish the following in full not only for what it says that is new, but also to help the reader to withstand the pressure from the Telecommunication companies. Pressure for example that has resulted in a large percentage of children having mobiles.

Beware if you are pregnant your child may be damaged.

Men, if you wish one day to have a child, note that sperm count is reduced when you are working in a high e smog office.

Teenagers have their own kind of "offices" Instruct your teen agers not to put their lap tops on their laps. Is your teenager (or smaller child) sitting with the lap top on his lap, holding a mobile in his hand connected to a friend who has joined the game being played, while the apartment is invaded by ones own and neighbors wifi and dect phones nearby etc and maybe a mobile sender/receiver mobile mounted inconspicuously on a nearby apartment house, store school or church. (You won't see the disc til you look.)

Remember too, time spent by children in wifi schools, near towers, on street cars and trams and trains with high radiation levels from many people using mobiles at once.

In the north radiation from walking on warming cables (to melt snow in commercial areas)influences your body. It is not easy to notice unless you are aware. This cable radiation can be detected up to the 3rd floor of buildings adjacent to the warming cables.

Add to this or multiply it with the dirty electricity in most home (dirty because the original smooth 50 or 60 cycles have been broken down. Multiple specialized electronic uses have broken down the smooth cycles adding harmonics in the bioactive frequency range). Dirty electricity produces extreme low frequencies that effect all living creature also children.

This exposure can produce serious disease over a period of ten years exposure.. Studies of ten year exposure samples, though the number of people who have lived in e smog intense environments is small show cause for concern about epidemics that can come when many people live in high levels of electromagnetic e smog pollution.

Whatever you can do to reduce the sources of radiation is of value. It is surprising that the multiplying effect of all these sources of pollution receive no attention in the literature and disinformation put out by the power and telecommunication industry and their lobbies. And in fact even tose scientists who study effect tend to examine one effect at a time in order to preserve the orderliness of their data.

I say multiplying effect because in biological systems, as you know from experience, two sicknesses have a multiplying effect. Loss of one leg and then the second is not simply a double effect.

Please do not be discouraged by this note but take the problem seriously and reduce exposure in every way you can. Do not allow your child to have a mobile in spite of his demand ... everyone else has one! Become informed! Take part in Public action. Take courage from what has happened that has reduced smoking in spite of tobacco industry and lobby pressure.

Now take look below...scan it and notice the scientists who take the problem very seriously. They are not in the employ of the industry

Homepage > Resolutions > Benevento Resolution

Benevento Resolution

The International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS) held an international conference entitled “The Precautionary EMF Approach: Rationale, Legislation and Implementation”, hosted by the City of Benevento, Italy, on February 22, 23 & 24, 2006. The meeting was dedicated to W. Ross Adey, M.D. (1922-2004). The scientists at the conference endorsed and extended the 2002 Catania Resolution and resolved that:

1. More evidence has accumulated suggesting that there are adverse health effects from occupational and public exposures to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields, or EMF1, at current exposure levels. What is needed, but not yet realized, 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 tumor 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 Principle2 -- 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 fiber optics and coaxial cables; design cellular phones that meet safer performance specifications, including radiating away from the head; preserve existing land line phone networks; place power lines underground in the vicinity of populated areas, only siting them in residential neighborhoods as a last resort;

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 land line 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 minimize 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 power-line 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.

1 EMF, in this resolution, refers to zero to 300 GHz.
2 The Precautionary Principle 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.
3 International Commission For Electromagnetic Safety.

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.


Fiorella Belpoggi, European Foundation for Oncology & Environmental Sciences, B.Ramazzini, Bologna, Italy

Carl F. Blackman, President, Bioelectromagnetics Society (1990-91), Raleigh, NC, USA

Martin Blank, Department of Physiology, Columbia University, New York, USA

Natalia Bobkova, Institute of Cell Biophysics, Pushchino, Moscow Region
Francesco Boella, National Inst. Prevention & Worker Safety, Venice, Italy

Zhaojin Cao, National Institute Environmental Health, Chinese Center for Disease Control, China

Sandro D’Allessandro, Physician, Mayor of Benevento, Italy, (2001-2006)

Enrico D’Emilia, National Institute for Prevention and Worker Safety, Monteporzio, Italy

Emilio Del Giuduice, National Institute for Nuclear Physics, Milan, Italy

Antonella De Ninno,Italian National Agency For Energy, Environment & Technology, Frascati, Italy

Alvaro A. De Salles, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil

Livio Giuliani,East Veneto&South Triol, National Inst. Prevention & Worker Safety, Camerino University

Yury Grigoryev, Institute of Biophysics; Chairman, Russian National Committee NIERP

Settimo Grimaldi, Inst. Neurobiology & Molecular Medicine, National Research, Rome, Italy

Lennart Hardell, Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden

Magda Havas, Environmental & Resource Studies, Trent University, Ontario, Canada

Gerard Hyland, Warwick University, UK; International Inst. Biophysics, Germany; EM Radiation Trust, UK

Olle Johansson,Experimental Dermatology Unit, Neuroscience Department, Karolinska Institute, Sweden

Henry C. Lai, Department of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, USA

Mario Ledda, Inst. Neurobiology & Molecular Medicine, National Council for Research, Rome, Italy

Yi-Ping Lin, Center of Health Risk Assessment & Policy, National Taiwan University, Taiwan

Antonella Lisi, Inst. Neurobiology & Molecular Medicine, National Research Council, Rome, Italy

Fiorenzo Marinelli, Institute of Immunocytology, National Research Council, Bologna, Italy

Elihu Richter, Head, Occupational & Environmental Medicine, Hebrew University-Hadassah, Israel

Emanuela Rosola, Inst. Neurobiology & Molecular Medicine, National ResearchCouncil, Rome, Italy

Leif Salford, Chairman, Department of Neurosurgery, Lund University, Sweden

Nesrin Seyhan, Head, Department of Biophysics; Director, Gazi NIRP Center, Ankara, Turkey

Morando Soffritti, Scientific Director, European Foundation for Oncology & Environmental Sciences, B. Ramazzini, Bologna, Italy

Stanislaw Szmigielski, Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Warsaw, Poland

Mikhail Zhadin, Institute of Cell Biophysics, Pushchino, Moscow Region.

Date of Release: September 19, 2006. For more information, contact Elizabeth Kelley, Managing Secretariat, International Commission For Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS), Montepulciano, Italy. Email:

Additional signers to the Benevento Resolution:

Igor Y. Belyaev, Dept. Genetics, Microbiology and Toxicology, Arrhenius Laboratories for Natural Sciences, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

William J. Bruno, Ph.D., Theoretical Biophysics, awarded by Department of Physics, University of California at Berkeley, USA

Mauro Cristaldi, Dip, B.A.U. Universita degli Studi "La Sapienza", Roma, Italia

Suleyman Dasdag, Biophysics Department of Medical School, Dicle University, Diyarbakir,Turkey

Sandy Doull, Consultant, Noel Arnold & Associates, Box Hill VIC, Australia

Christos D. Georgiou, Assoc. Professor of Biochemistry, Department of Biology, University of Patras, Greece

Reba Goodman, Prof. Emeritus, Clinical Pathology, Columbia University, New York, New York USA

Luisa Anna Ieradi, Istituto per lo Studio degli Ecosistemi C.N.R., Roma, Italia

Michael Kundi, Head,Institute Environmental Health, Medical University of Vienna, Austria

Angelo Gino Levis, Professor Emeritus, Environmental Oncology, Padua University, Italy

Lukas H. Margaritis, Professor of Cell Biology and Radiobiology, Athens University, Athens, Greece

Vera Markovic, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University of Nis, Serbia

Gerd Oberfeld, Federal Salzburg Government. National Medical Management, Public Health Hygiene and Environmental Health, Salzburg, Austria

Jerry L. Phillips, Professor, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs

Zamir Shalita, Consultant on Electromagnetic Hazards, Ramat Gan, Israel

E. Stanton Maxey, M.D. retired surgeon, Fayetteville Arkansas

Ion Udroiu, Dip. B.A.U., Università degli Studi "La Sapienza", Roma, Italia

Mehmet Zeyrek, Prof., Physics Department, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

Stelios A Zinelis M.D., Vice President, Hellenic Cancer Society, Cefallonia, Greece

Anna Zucchero, MD, Internal Medicine Department. Venice-Mestre Hospital, Venice, Italy

Additional signers who are qualified but have not published EMF papers or published prior to 2000.

Andrew Goldsworthy, Lecturer in Biology (retired), Imperial College London.

Sarah J. Starkey, PhD, Neuroscience, University of London, London, United Kingdom


September 2002

The Scientists at the International Conference

“State of the Research on Electromagnetic Fields – Scientific and Legal Issues”, organized by ISPESL*, the University of Vienna and the City of Catania, held in Catania (Italy) on September 13th – 14th, 2002, agree to the following:

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.

Fiorella Belpoggi, Fondazione Ramazzini, Bologna, Italy

Carl F. Blackman, President of the Bioelectromagnetics Society (1990-1991), Raleigh, USA

Martin Blank, Department of Physiology, Columbia University, New York, USA

Emilio Del Giudice, Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Milano, Italy

Livio Giuliani, Camerino University - ISPESL*, Venezia, Italy

Settimio Grimaldi, CNR-Istituto di Neurobiologia e Medicina Molecolare, Roma, Italy

Lennart Hardell, Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden

Michael Kundi, Institute of Environmental Health, University of Vienna, Austria

Henry Lai, Department of Bioengineering, University of Washington, USA

Abraham R. Liboff, Department of Physics, Oakland University, USA

Wolfgang Löscher, Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmacy, School of Veterinary Medicine, Hannover, Germany

Kjell Hansson Mild, President of the Bioelectromagnetics Society (1996-1997), National Institute of Working Life, Umea, Sweden

Wilhelm Mosgöller, Institute for Cancer Research, University of Vienna, Austria

Elihu D. Richter, Head, Unit of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, School of Public Health, Hebrew University-Hadassah, Jerusalem, Israel.

Umberto Scapagnini, Neuropharmacology, University of Catania, Italy, Member of the Research Comm. of the European Parliament

Stanislaw Szmigielski, Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Warsaw, Poland

* = Istituto Superiore per la Prevenzione e la Sicurezza del Lavoro, Italy (National Institute for Prevention and Work Safety, Italy)

Powered by Google

Saturday, November 15, 2008

Biological Measurement and SAR

Professor Carl Blackman is a man I admire. His chapter in The Bioinitiative Report ahows his deep thoughtfulness and ability to understand the nature of the mechanisms by which EMF damages children and all living systems whose control systems depend on frequencies similar to the EMF mechanically generated frequencies.

Prof. Blackman states:

"The sensitivity of today's state-of-the-art measuring equipment is still considerably inferior to that of living cells (a difference of 109, i.e. a factor of one billion)."

As far back as 1991, Prof. Carl Blackman (USA) a contributor to the Bioinitiative report asked that results obtained on “biological models” be acknowledged since they are the only ones that are sensitive enough to demonstrate the harmful effects of ELF

(editor... ELF frequencies are a part of the EMF spectrum of frequencies)

Friday, November 14, 2008

As Low As Reasonably Achievable

The Interphone Study reported by Bruce Armstrong is an international well documented study of EMF effects. As I understand the response It is considered by non industry scientists to be an effort to reduce public attention to the problem of e smog etc contamination.For example they have averaged out test results on all telephone users regardless of the length of time they have used mobiles. This dilutes the effects that come from longer (versus shorter) use. But here is one report of the results:

Bruce Armstrong advocates ALARA, especially for children and cell phone use" was written on the November 13, 2008 at 7:21 pm on "EMFacts Consultancy".

The following is a preliminary report from Sarah Benson, who attended
the ACRBR seminar 'Unplugged and Uncertain' on 12 November.

Dear All

Yesterday I attended the Australian Centre for RF Bioeffects
Research's seminar 'Unplugged and Uncertain' at Swinburne University
in Melbourne. This seminar was attended by about 100 industry,
community and media people.

Professor Bruce Armstrong, head of Sydney University's School of
Public Health and cancer expert, presented the Interphone results as
they exist so far. The details of the various types of tumour and the
survey results and methodology went over my head, but he concluded
that due to the overall raised rates of glioma tumour incidence he was
advocating that the ALARA principle (As Low As Reasonably Achievable)
be implemeted, especially when it comes to children. He also said
that more research was needed.

This is the first time in Australia that someone in a position of such
authority has come out and made such a strong statement - and he
repeated it several times.

The forum also covered other areas, such as domestic radiation levels
and teh ELF issues. Electrosensitivity was raised by one questionner,
and answered in full by the panel.

sent out by which is a very good source of e smog news and public reactions to mobiles towers etc and the legal challenges that are being actively pursued by public groups

Below you will find more details

Monday, September 8, 2008

Risk to Children, Pregnant from Mobiles Concerns European Parliament

Dear all,
Just recently, Members of the European Parliament (MEP) critized the European Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010 for not being more precise about how to implement prevention strategies, especially for vulnerable population groups, and how to actually reduce disease. Among other topics, they were especially concerned about the obselete exposure limits for electromagnetic fields:
"They are greatly concerned at the Bio-Initiative international report on electromagnetic fields, which highlights the health risks posed by emissions from mobile-telephony devices such as mobile telephones, UMTS, Wifi, Wimax and Bluetooth, and also DECT landline telephones. It notes that the limits on exposure to electromagnetic fields which have been set for the general public are obsolete. They do not take account of developments in information and communication technologies or vulnerable groups, such as pregnant women, newborn babies and children." (28 Aug 2008)

In the German press release of the same plenary session, it is also noted that 522 MEPs supported this report and only 16 were against.

Best regards,
Katharina Gustavs
Building Biology Environmental Consultant (IBN), Canada

Wednesday, August 13, 2008



POWER LINES INTRODUCE FOREIGN CURRENTS INTO YOUR BODY ...a powerful artist will give you a shock...electric enough to awaken your inner intuition.

Consider what is presented on the site below. It is dramatic
At least consider how your children can be protected from radiation.

Saturday, August 9, 2008

How to reduce cell phone radiation

If you must choose to use a cell phone, use the speaker phone function whenever possible.
Keep the phone awa from any body part.
Do not keep the phone on your belt or in your pocket even when you’re not using it, as the radiation WILL penetrate your body wherever the phone is near.
Instead, stow it away in a purse, backpack, or your car’s glove compartment.
Shorten calls.
Do not use the phone when children are near. Consider cell phone use as kind of smoking...with invisible smoke. Children near are being radiated their bodies absorb more and they are much more vulnerable to long term exposure.

For times when a speakerphone isn’t practical, use an air-tube headset, rather than a on your displayonwireless Bluetooth.

Look at the vertical lines at the top of your phone screen. More lines means better connection to the naerest tower. Notice when there is a weak signal.FREQUENT USE OF CELL PHONES WHEN YOU HAVE A WEAK SIGNAL CARRIES GREATER RISK AS THE AMOUNT OF RADIATION PRODUCED BY YOUR TELEPHONE IS HIGHER WHICH INCREASES YOUR AND YOUR CHILDREN'S EXPOSURE

Talking outdoors or in open spaces or near a window where more vertical lines show on your display can improve the connection from your cell phone to your nearest cell phone tower.

If you live in a rural area where the nearest tower is far away, you are constantly exposed to greater amounts of radiation from your cell phone than city and urban users. Use a landline whenever feasible! Keep your phone off as it radiates when it is on. Use your mobile only for emergencies. At least keep it off most of the day and in the evening make short calls. Since it is the time the phone is on that is impportant this reduces exposure considerably.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Children's Sensitivity to EMF pollution


Quote From Microwave NewsJuly 22 2008

The brains of young children absorb twice as much as RF energy from a cell phone as those of adults, according to a set of new calculations carried out by Joe Wiart's research group at France Telecom in the suburbs of Paris.

"[Our] analysis confirms that peripheral brain tissues of children seem to be higher exposed than the peripheral brain tissue of adults," Wiart concludes in a paper that appears in the July 7 issue of Physics in Medicine and Biology. "Children are not simply small adults." Wiart explained in an interview with Microwave News. "Their skin and their skulls are thinner than those of adults, and their ears are smaller too," he said. "Given these differences, the higher SAR for children is not surprising,"

These new findings apply to children who are eight years old or younger. Above the age of eight, the SARs in children are much like those of adults, according to Wiart.

"I agree with Joe," said Niels Kuster, the director of the IT'IS Foundation in Zurich. A team led by Kuster and Andreas Christ recently completed a project for the German Federal Office of Radiation Protection (BfS), which like Wiart, found that regions of the brains of young children can have exposures that are twice those of adults —or even higher.

Even more striking, Kuster and Christ concluded that the "exposure of the bone marrow of children can exceed that of adults by about a factor of ten." They also report that children's eyes are more highly exposed that those of adults.

Whether or not children are at a greater health risk than adults has been debated since at least the year 2000, when a U.K. panel chaired by Sir William Stewart advised that parents limit their children's use of mobile phones. Since then, other government groups, especially those in France and Germany, have issued similar precautionary recommendations.

The mobile phone industry has long disputed the possibility that children are at any greater risk. For instance, earlier this year after the French Ministry of Health reiterated concerns over children's use of cell phones, the MMF, an industry lobby group, issued an advisory stating that cell phones do not present health risks to any users "regardless of age."

The MMF has relied heavily on statements issued by the WHO's EMF Project in Geneva, and the Health Council of the Netherlands. For instance, in a paper published in 2004, the Health Council concluded that: "There is no convincing scientific data to assume a difference in the absorption of electromagnetic energy in heads of children and adults."

July 3… Exposures to ambient magnetic fields may affect the quality of human sperm and may well explain its well-documented decline over the last few decades. De-Kun Li, an epidemiologist at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, CA, has found that daily exposures of only 1.6mG or higher for at least two-and-a-half hours were associated with significantly poorer semen quality. Men who were exposed to over 1.6mG for over six hours a day were four times more likely to have substandard sperm.

"The longer you are exposed, the higher the risk," Li told Microwave News. He presented these new findings last week at the annual meeting of the Society for Epidemiologic Research, held in Chicago. He has submitted them for publication.

"If it holds up, this would be very important because magnetic field exposures are ubiquitous," Li said. "We know that sperm quality has been going down for a long time with the largest declines in urban areas. That would be consistent with EMF exposures which are highest in cities."

The quality of the semen was assessed according to WHO criteria for motility and morphology —that is, the ability of sperm to "swim" (to the egg) and their shape. "Sperm quality could turn out to be a sensitive endpoint to study the biological effects of EMFs," Li said.

Li is one of the few to explore new ways of defining what is a biologically significant dose of EMFs. An important implication of his new study is that while he might classify a man as being in a "high" exposure group, that same man could still have a time-weighted, 24-hour average exposure of less than 1mG, which would put him in the "unexposed" group in most past studies. Such a misclassification would reduce the chances of seeing this effect.

In a study published in 2002, Li showed that women exposed above a certain threshold (16mG) had higher rates of miscarriages (see MWN, J/F02, p.1). At the time, many considered that this new concept of EMF dose was worth pursuing. But, in fact, no one did —at least no one has yet published a follow-up study. "In that earlier study we saw higher miscarriage risks among women who had an exposure of more than 16mG at least once a day," Li said, "in our new study, men had poorer sperm quality if they were exposed to a much lower field but it had to be for at least 10% of the day."

The power-frequency fields implicated in this new study are extremely weak. They are approximately 1,000 times lower than the current ICNIRP guidelines and some three times lower than what many see as the threshold for increasing the risk of childhood leukemia (3-4mG). According to a large-scale survey carried out a decade ago, close to 15% of the U.S. population is exposed to an average of more than 2mG over a 24-hour period (see MWN, M/J98, p.4).

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Can our body's internet be spammed?

This is just to remind you that you that you already know a great deal about your own and other peoples' energy and information fields which I shall call their internet

Our healthy bio information/energy internet and the information it carries can makes us glow with health.

When it is compromised we may feel cold, clammy, depressed or neutral (zero) and out of relationship with the many supporting energy fields around us. We are more vulnerable.

Our human biological internet is not just mystery.

Life maintenance depends on the information/energy/command exchanges between our cells.

Consider the electrical/information/command impulses in our nerves... and in many other intricate electromagnetic/information flows that are also essential to coordinating the billions of complex elements in our body so there is health.

These body internet information flows are more in the nature of delicately addressed significant email than in the nature of meaningless spam.

A human is not a closed 'thing'. It is alive and openly changing in relation to its its internal and surrounding ecology at all times. Its vitality depends on successfully maintaining its energy and information flow: its internal and external multidimensional and multimedia chatting

Extreme low frequency energies from our man made electromagnetic/information pollution, like spam, add noise to our health maintaining information systems.

E smog, the sum of all our man made electromagnetic exposure, creates spam like pollution in our body's internet.

Spam pollution is able to sneak in because it finds addresses and messages sufficiently similar to our body's intended message structure and creates noise. Too much noise and we are weakened, even sick.

This can reduce our ability to feel well and be well.

The public somehow seems to be afraid of the Microwave pollution but it does'nt make sense. A good metaphor can have the power in creating understanding. If you like this one please use it. It makes it easier to grasp that the E smog problem is not only being cooked by high microwave energies, but also being spammed by small bioactive noisy energies that imitate our bodies living information structure

As A medical doctor with training in neurology and man machine interfaces I suggest there is truth in this metaphor.

Warren Brodey M.D.

Quotes from the Bioinitiative Report

Brief Quotes from the Bioinitiative Report

A scientific study of more than 2000 research reports on the biological effects of Extreme Low Frequency and Radio Frequency Radiation

Editor…color emphasis is added for quicker reading

The clear consensus of the BioInitiative Working Group members is that the existing public safety limits are inadequate for both Extreme Low Frequency (ELF) Radiation and Radio Frequency (RF) radiation.

There may be no lower limit at which exposures do not affect us. Until we know if there is a lower limit below which bioeffects and adverse health impacts do not occur, it is unwise from a public health perspective to continue “business-as-usual” deploying new technologies that increase ELF and RF exposures, particularly involuntary exposures

It appears it is the INFORMATION conveyed by electromagnetic radiation (rather than (Heat) that causes biological changes - some of these biological changes may lead to loss of wellbeing, disease and even death.

There may be no lower limit at which exposures do not affect us. Until we know if there is a lower limit below which bioeffects and adverse health impacts do not occur, it is unwise from a public health perspective to continue “business-as-usual” deploying new technologies that increase ELF and RF exposures, particularly involuntary exposures

There is little doubt that exposure to ELF causes childhood leukemia. There is some evidence that other childhood cancers may be related to ELF exposure but not enough studies have been done.

Children who have leukemia and are in recovery have poorer survival rates if their
ELF exposure at home (or where they are recovering) is between 1mG and 2 mG in one study; over 3 mG in another study.

New ELF public exposure limits are warranted at this time, given the existing scientific evidence and need for public health policy intervention and prevention.

People who have used a cell phone for ten years or more have higher rates of malignant brain tumor and acoustic neuromas. It is worse if the cell phone has been used primarily on one side of the head.

People who have used a cordless phone for ten years or more have higher rates of malignant brain tumor and acoustic neuromas. It is worse if the cordless phone has been used primarily on one side of the head

The current standard for exposure to the emissions of cell phones and cordless phones is not safe considering studies reporting long-term brain tumor and acoustic neuroma risks

The evidence from studies on women in the workplace rather strongly suggests that ELF is a risk factor for breast cancer for women with long-term exposures of 10 mG and higher.

Given the very high lifetime risks for developing breast cancer, and the critical importance of prevention; ELF exposures should be reduced for all people who are in high ELF environments for prolonged periods of time.

Studies of human breast cancer cells and some animal studies show that ELF is likely to be a risk factor for breast cancer.

There is supporting evidence for a link between breast cancer and exposure to ELF that comes from cell and animal studies, as well as studies of human breast cancers.

Alzheimer’s disease is a disease of the nervous system. There is strong evidence that long term exposure to ELF is a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease.

There is little doubt that electromagnetic fields emitted by cell phones and cell phone use affect electrical activity of the brain.

Changes in the way in which the brain and nervous system react depend very much on the specific exposures.

The consequence of prolonged exposures to children, whose nervous systems continue to develop until late adolescence, is unknown at this time. This could have serious implications to adult health and functioning in society if years of exposure of the young to both ELF and RF result in diminished capacity for thinking, judgment, memory, learning, and control over behavior. Most studies only look at short-term effects, so the long-term consequences of exposures are not known.

The effects of long-term exposure to wireless technologies including emissions from cell phones and other personal devices, and from whole-body exposure to RF transmissions from cell towers and antennas is simply not known yet with certainty. However, the body of evidence at hand suggests that bioeffects and health impacts can and do occur at exquisitely low exposure levels: levels that can be thousands of times below public safety limits.

Both ELF and RF exposures can be considered genotoxic (will damage DNA) under certain conditions of exposure, including exposure levels that are lower than existing safety limits.

Very low-level ELF and RF exposures can cause cells to produce stress proteins, meaning that the cell recognizes ELF and RF exposures as harmful. This is another important way in which scientists have documented that ELF and RF exposures can be harmful, and it happens at levels far below the existing public safety standards.

There is substantial evidence that ELF and RF can cause inflammatory reactions, allergy reactions and change normal immune function at levels allowed by current public safety standards.

Oxidative stress through the action of free radical damage to DNA is a plausible biological mechanism for cancer and diseases that involve damage from ELF to the central nervous system.

Medical conditions are successfully treated using EMFs at levels below current public safety standards, proving another way that the body recognizes and responds to low-intensity EMF signals. Otherwise, these medical treatments could not work. The FDA has approved EMFs medical treatment devices, so is clearly aware of this paradox

No one would recommend that drugs used in medical treatments and prevention of disease be randomly given to the public, especially to children. Yet, random and involuntary exposures to EMFs occur all the time in daily life.


• We cannot afford ‘business as usual” any longer. It is time that planning for new power lines and for new homes, schools and other habitable spaces around them is done with routine provision for low-ELF environments . The business-as-usual deployment of new wireless technologies is likely to be risky and harder to change if society does not make some educated decisions about limits soon. Research must continue to define what levels of RF related to new wireless technologies are acceptable; but more research should not prevent or delay substantive changes today that might save money, lives and societal disruption tomorrow.

• New regulatory limits for ELF are warranted. ELF limits should be set below those exposure levels that have been linked in childhood leukemia studies to increased risk of disease, plus an additional safety factor. It is no longer acceptable to build new power lines and electrical facilities that place people in ELF environments that have been determined to be risky (at levels generally at 2 mG and above).

Monday, February 11, 2008

Pregnant Mothers, Can Reduce E Smog Radiation

After reviewing more than 2000 research reports the Bioinitiative Group of scientists advise reducing E smog pollution from mobile phone and WiFi and other sources during pregnancy. There is a general agreement about this. It is accepted that in addition to the present evidence protection of the pregnant and new born is beyond question. Only those sites regulated by the telecommunication industry deny this. Though mainly they avoid bringing this question into view. And even they are advising caution. The European Environmental agency advises caution openly, the American Environmental Protection Agency EPA does as well, but only when asked.

Caution is necessary. DNA strands are broken and cell membranes weakened when radiated by small amounts of microwave radiation far less than the allowed level which is based on average people. The child in the uterus is growing rapidly and its cells are mosdt vulnerable when they are multiplying and specializing to create a healthy well formed infant.

Electromagnetic fields, particularly their magnetic component go through brick walls and certainly can affect the baby inside. It is important to realize that we must take into account radiation especially extreme low frequency radiation that is accepted by present allowed standards. These standards were created before WIFI, mobiles(cell phones) computers were multiplying . And their fields overlapping each other to create the dense though invisible soup of radiation we call e smog.

You have a choice to make. It is important for your child. Most mothers reduce alcohol intake, and smoking since it is proven to affect their child’s future. Reducing microwave exposure is also necessary. (see the Bioinitiative Report at As with drinking and smoking during pregnancy the effects on your child can come later in life.

The telecommunication lobby has placed ‘neutral’ sites on the web that will assure you that radiation from phones, wifi, wireless, home phones etc., has not been proven harmful. Before legal action against the tobacco industry cigarette smoking was as common as cell phone talking. If so many smoke, who can change that? “All the others do it why can’t I”, say our children. Powerful public campaigns have reduced smoking! Labeling mobiles as dangerous to pregnant mothers and children will help and is now being considered by govenrment authorities

I write this because I have studied this microwave problem for many years. I am a medical doctor now retired. I have worked at MIT, NASA, and been a Assistant Clinical Professor at Georgetown University.

I am concerned! It is wrong that people are not warned so they know the risks and can make informed choices. You can reduce the risk to your unborn child.

Preparing your home for the baby begins when you learn you are pregnant. Then the baby’s cells are multiplying fastest and the DNA is most vulnerable. In life we con only do the best we can. We need to consider what we can do to reduce radiation risk.. It is not possible in our civilization to reduce it completely but here are a few suggestions.

(1) To reduce mobile use.

Send a group notice to all those on your address list giving them your home phone/office numbers. Put on your mobile your hard line number and automatically forward the calls to your wired phone. Do not use home phones that are not wired, they are worse than mobiles. It is a worthwhile investment!

(2) Get rid of WiFi if you have it. Wire up your computer, fax, printer. The cables are not expensive, if you can use glass fiber cables that are easily installed and hidden.

(3) Check out your neighbors WiFi by finding where you can use your computer wireless when your own wireless system is turned off. Notice the area where neighbor WiFi penetrates most and avoid sleeping or sitting there over longer periods of time. When planning where the newborn shall sleep remember to consider lowest possible radiation. Talk to your neighbor who uses WIFI.

When your baby is born avoid wireless baby monitors, they may seem harmless. They pollute the child’s room. When baby sleeps in the parents room keep mobiles in another room. Certainly do not have a DECT wirless phone nearbye. They radiate even when turned off.

(4) All computers also radiate. In your home work space reduce computer exposure as much as you can. Move away from the work station tower. Buying a separate keyboard keeping allows you to distance yourself from laptops radiation

(5)Add to your computer the software program Computer-Clear (www. This does not reduce the radiation but adds a signal in the computers field that specifically helps your immune system resist WIFi and radiation effects from your computer and other sources within 2 meters from your computer. Every reduction is important.

(5) A healthy diet increases your body’s resistance.

(6) Avoid Hot Spots i.e., public places, hotels, libraries, schools where WiFi is installed ‘for customer convenience’ When in a hot spot be sensitive to the radiation many people can feel it. Get out as soon as you can. Your pregnant body has the capacity to identify these fields if you pay attention. Get to know the your signals.

(7) Do what you can to keep out of the range of mobile (cell) transmitters. Learn to identify them. They are often hidden. There are companies who specialize in hiding mobile transmitters! Make games with your children: who can find the most transmitters. They will be less likely to insist on their own cell phone.

(8) In most cities there are groups who can informed you about the local microwave towers and relay stations and help you to prevent their being placed near your home..

(9) Do not use microwave ovens. They change the proteins of the food cooked so they are not only less healthy but can be harmful. When your baby is born avoid wireless baby monitors, they may seem harmless. They pollute the child’s room. Use wired monitors

(10) Keep informed. Join others in expressing concern and taking community action.

The website will provide links and newsletters to keep you up to date. This blog will also contain useful news and you can comment and ask questions.

Saturday, January 19, 2008

The Bioinitiative Report's press release

BioInitiative Report:
A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard
for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF)

Each of the links below opens a PDF file in a new browser window. When you are done with a particular file, closing the window will bring you back to this page.

August 31, 2007 - Serious Public Health Concerns Raised Over Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) from Powerlines and Cell Phones. (pdf) (html)

An international working group of scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals (The BioInitiative Working Group) has released its report on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and health. They document serious scientific concerns about current limits regulating how much EMF is allowable from power lines, cell phones, and many other sources of EMF exposure in daily life.

The report concludes the existing standards for public safety are inadequate to protect public health.

Warren's comment

This report is not spin, it is based on study of at least 2000 scientific reports.

The study gives all these reports and many more a voice loud enough I hope to wake up governments and those who have the power to change the standards governing the exposure of the majority of Earth's human population to radiation pollution.

Just like global warming threatens all life so does too much radiation. The danger has been reported, the need for new standards is accepted by the majority of scientists in this field.

The lobbies are working to protect industry, jobs, their quarterly financial reports. They are concerned about class action since many have no insurance coverage. It has been refused. The asbestos industry is still paying for the disease it produced

Many supporting voters can outweigh a few rich supporting lobbies and the telecom and computer industries' wish to avoid the costs and uncertainties of changing their products so they do not cause illness.

The new collective voice from the science community speaks loudly. Spread the awareness of what is being said...This is the only way to create the necessity that allows governments to create costly change

Full report available at:

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

Brief Quotes and comments Bioinitiative Report

These selected quotes and comments are intended for those whose time is limited
To Be continued

Monday, January 7, 2008

FOX News interviews warren brodey m.d.

An interesting short presentation

US National Security required old EMF standard

Exerpt from e mail from Paul Dayon

"In 1990, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a comprehensive
review of available EMF studies and published a report recommendation that
power line EMRs be classified as a Class B carcinogen -- -a "probable human
carcinogen and joined the ranks of formaldehyde, DDT, dioxins and PCBs. The White
house and the Air Force declared that the report should not be published on
grounds of national security and that it would alarm the public. The report was
put on hold until the administration of the EPA changed the conclusions to say
that there was no proven effect and the EPA has never officially released the report in its final form."