ElectromagneticHealth.org Details
Health Damages from Cell Phones and EMF
"Sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation is the emerging
health problem of the 21st century. It is imperative health practitioners,
governments, schools and parents learn more about it. The human
health stakes are significant."
- William Rea, MD
"Cells in the body react to EMFs as potentially harmful,
just like to other environmental toxins, including heavy metals
and toxic chemicals. The DNA in living cells recognizes electromagnetic
fields at very low levels of exposure; and produces a biochemical
stress response. The scientific evidence tells us that our safety
standards are inadequate, and that we must protect ourselves from
exposure to EMF due to power lines, cell phones and the like,
or risk the known consequences. The science is very strong and
we should sit up and pay attention."
- Martin Blank, PhD
"It is evident that various biological alterations, including
immune system modulation, are present in electrohypersensitive
persons. There must be an end to the pervasive nonchalance, indifference
and lack of heartfelt respect for the plight of these persons.
It is clear something serious has happened and is happening. Every
aspect of electrohypersensitive peoples’ lives, including
the ability to work productively in society, have healthy relations
and find safe, permanent housing, is at stake. The basics of life
are becoming increasingly inaccessible to a growing percentage
of the world’s population. I strongly advise all governments
to take the issue of electromagnetic health hazards seriously
and to take action while there is still time. There is too great
a risk that the ever increasing RF-based communications technologies
represent a real danger to humans, especially because of their
exponential, ongoing and unchecked growth. Governments should
act decisively to protect public health by changing the exposure
standards to be biologically-based, communicating the results
of the independent science on this topic and aggressively researching
links with a multitude of associated medical conditions."
- Olle Johansson, Ph.D.
"Electromagnetic fields are packets of energy that does not
have any mass, and visible light is what we know best. X-rays
are also electromagnetic fields, but they are more energetic than
visible light. Our concern is for those electromagnetic fields
that are less energetic than visible light, including those that
are associated with electricity and those used for communications
and in microwave ovens. The fields associated with electricity
are commonly called “extremely low frequency” fields
(ELF), while those used in communication and microwave ovens are
called “radiofrequency” (RF) fields. Studies of people
have shown that both ELF and RF exposures result in an increased
risk of cancer, and that this occurs at intensities that are too
low to cause tissue heating. Unfortunately, all of our exposure
standards are based on the false assumption that there are no
hazardous effects at intensities that do not cause tissue heating.
Based on the existing science, many public health experts believe
it is possible we will face an epidemic of cancers in the future
resulting from uncontrolled use of cell phones and increased population
exposure to WiFi and other wireless devices. Thus it is important
that all of us, and especially children, restrict our use of cell
phones, limit exposure to background levels of Wi-Fi, and that
government and industry discover ways in which to allow use of
wireless devices without such elevated risk of serious disease.
We need to educate decision-makers that ‘business as usual’
is unacceptable. The importance of this public health issue can
not be underestimated.”
- David Carpenter, MD
“Radio frequency radiation and other forms of electromagnetic
pollution are harmful at orders of magnitude well below existing
guidelines. Science is one of the tools society uses to decide
health policy. In the case of telecommunications equipment, such
as cell phones, wireless networks, cell phone antennas, PDAs,
and portable phones, the science is being ignored. Current guidelines
urgently need to be re-examined by government and reduced to reflect
the state of the science. There is an emerging public health crisis
at hand and time is of the essence.”
- Magda Havas, PhD
"Ambient man-made electromagnetic fields (EMFs), across a
range of frequencies, are a serious environmental issue. Yet most
environmentalists know little about it, perhaps because the subject
has been the purview of physicists and engineers for so long that
biologists have lost touch with electromagnetism’s fundamental
inclusion in the biological paradigm. All living cells and indeed
whole living beings, no matter what genus or species, are dynamic
coherent electrical systems utterly reliant on bioelectricity
for life’s most basic metabolic processes. It turns out that
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 artificial
artifacts, with unusual intensities, signaling characteristics,
pulsing patterns, and wave forms, that don’t exist in nature.
And they can misdirect cells in myriad ways. Every aspect of the
ecosystem may be affected, including all living species from animals,
humans, plants and even microorganisms in water and soil. We are
already seeing problems in sentinel species like birds, bats,
and bees. Wildlife is known to abandon areas when cell towers
are placed. Radiofrequency radiation (RF)—the part of the
electromagnetic spectrum used in all-things-wireless today—is
a known immune system suppressor, among other things. RF is a
form of energetic air pollution and we need to understand it as
such. Humans are not the only species being affected. The health
of our planet may be in jeopardy from this newest environmental
concern—added to all the others. Citizens need to call upon
government to fund appropriate research and to get industry influence
out of the dialogue. We ignore this at our own peril now.”
- B. Blake Levitt
“The key point about electromagnetic pollution that the public
has to realize is that it is not necessary that the intensity
be large for a biological interaction to occur. There is now considerable
evidence that extremely weak signals can have physiological consequences.
These interactive intensities are about 1000 times smaller than
the threshold values formerly estimated by otherwise knowledgeable
theoreticians, who, in their vainglorious approach to science,
rejected all evidence to the contrary as inconsistent with their
magnificent calculations. These faulty estimated thresholds are
yet to be corrected by both regulators and the media.
The overall problem with environmental electromagnetism is much
deeper, not only of concern at power line frequencies, but also
in the radiofrequency range encompassing mobile phones. Here the
public’s continuing exposure to electromagnetic radiation
is largely connected to money. Indeed the tens of billions of
dollars in sales one finds in the cell phone industry makes it
mandatory to corporate leaders that they deny, in knee-jerk fashion,
any indication of hazard.
There may be hope for the future in knowing that weakly intense
electromagnetic interactions can be used for good as well as harm.
The fact that such fields are biologically effective also implies
the likelihood of medical applications, something that is now
taking place. As this happens, I think it will make us more aware
about how our bodies react to electromagnetism, and it should
become even clearer to everyone concerned that there is reason
to be very, very careful about ambient electromagnetic fields.”
- Abraham R. Liboff, PhD
“Radiofrequency radiation human exposure standards for personal
wireless communications devices and for environmental exposure
to wireless transmitters are set by national governments to guide
the use of wireless communications devices and for wireless transmitters.
In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal
Communications Commission set these standards. The Council on
Wireless Technology Impacts considers these exposure standards
to be inadequate as they are based on heating effects and do not
accommodate the low level, cumulative exposure conditions in which
the public now lives. These standards are also designed for acute,
short term exposure conditions and do not acknowledge the medical
evidence pointing to increased risks and actual harm that results
from chronic, intermittent exposure. Federal and State public
heath agencies are not officially addressing what many concerned
scientists and medical doctors now see as an emerging public health
problem. There are no health surveillance or remedial response
systems in place to advise citizens about electromagnetic radiation
exposure (EMR). As wireless technology evolves, ambient background
levels increase, creating electrical pollution conditions which
are becoming ubiquitous and more invasive. We strongly encourage
consumers, manufacturers, utility providers and policymakers to
reduce, eliminate and mitigate EMR exposure conditions and to
support biologically based standards.”
- Libby Kelley, MA
