Subject: GSM article (fwd)
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 084932 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
Hi everybody:
I am forwarding a really outstanding paper by Alasdair Philips
of the U.K. _Powerwatch_. I recommend that all who have an interest
in the cell-phone issue (either the handset or the antennas) copy
and save the following....
Cheerio.....
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
rbeavers@llion.org..............http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html
................................It is better to light a single candle ...
than to curse the darkness...............................................
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 01:33:33
From: Alasdair Philips
To: National Ecology Commission
Cc: WHYN AM 560 ,
"Roy L. Beavers"
Subject: GSM article
You may freely use / copy / distribute this with my name on it.
Mobile Phone Adverse Health Concerns
When I was a child, back in the early 1950s, I was bought a new pair of
shoes. The manufacturer had just introduced a wonderful new pedascope
machine to check how well your shoes fitted your feet. Even today, I
clearly remember the wonder at being able to wiggle my toes and see them
move inside my shoes. The machine used X-rays at quite a high level to
give real-time images on a simple screen. It was ten years before Dr Alice
Stewart produced research which showed that there was no safe level of
X-rays, and even then few listened. In fact she was almost outcast from
the medical establishment, and it was about another twenty years before the
real danger from medical X-rays was acknowledged. Now, in the late 1990s
the U.K. National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) is trying to
persuade hospitals to minimise patient X-ray exposure, and leading Medical
Research Council researchers admit that there is no “completely safe” level
of ionising radiation. The 1998 Royal College of Radiologists guidelines
sets out the current rationale for restricting X-ray doses.
Asbestos has been strictly controlled since 1970, and the use of most
dangerous types banned. Despite this, deaths from mesothelioma (an
asbestos induced cancer of the pleura/lungs) are rising consistently and
the U.K. death rate is not expected to peak until about 2020. The time
between the first exposure and death is now accepted as often being between
20 and 50 years. Most environmental cancers in adults take longer than ten
years from initiation to detection. The eating of BSE infected meat
possibly causing CJD many years later is another example.
Mobile phones
Mobile phones emit microwaves. If microwave or pulsed low frequency
electromagnetic fields (EMFs) do turn out to be carcinogenic, even if we
backdate it five years, we should not be expecting to see much in the way
of induced cancers for another ten years. In the meantime we discover that
almost all the major phone manufacturers are quietly and prudently
patenting EMF reducing cases and aerials.
Despite the impression that mobile-phone companies give in their
literature, little work has been done on long term human health
implications of mobile-phone use. Current mobile-phone users are acting as
involuntary, and often unsuspecting, test subjects. Past research into
microwave radiation effects on health, including recent cell-phone studies,
certainly give cause for concern. Even Dr John Stather, the Assistant
Director of the NRPB stated: “Until recently we believed any harmful
effects from microwaves were due to their heating effects, which would be
negligible at the low powers used by mobile phones. Now there might be
another effect at work and we are much less certain.” (Sunday Times 21
September 1997)
Public awareness
Public awareness of possible dangers was probably triggered originally by
the Reynard brain tumour case in 1992. About eight lawsuits alleging that
cellular phones caused brain tumours have been filed in the USA. Although
no cases has so far succeeded they have set the stage and raised safety
questions in many people’s minds. It has raised old spectres such as the
thalidomide tragedy - the result of a product being used widely before
adequate long term research had been carried out. The first part of a
major new study of 11,000 mobile phone users was released on 14th May 1998
[1] and although ignored by main BBC News programmes, it was given front
page banner headlines by the Daily Express on Friday 15th May. This showed
little difference for heating, fatigue and headache effects between NMT
analogue and GSM digital phones, but did highlight a three to six-fold
increase in fatigue and headaches for heavy mobile handset users and up to
a 48-fold increase in the sensation of heat on the user’s ear, face or
head. The first of the study’s more detailed findings were shown at the
Biolelectromagnetics Society (BEMS) Annual Meeting in Florida in June 1998
and showed significantly more concentration and memory loss symptoms in
regular users of the GSM digital phone handsets.
Only a week earlier news had been reported that on Tuesday 5th May the
Cwmbran Magistrates Court issued a Summons under section 10 of the UK
Consumer Protection Act, 1987 for Roger Coghill to bring a private criminal
action against a retail distributor of Orange and Motorola mobile phones.
The Magistrate ruled that there was enough scientific evidence (before the
new ‘Mild’ evidence mentioned above) to issue a Summons and allow the case
to go forward. His action claims that the distributors failed to affix
required labels to their handsets warning of possible health risks to users
from prolonged conversations as is required by the 1987 CP Act as there is
now reasonable evidence of handset use causing possible adverse health
effects. He has now filed an updated claim and the pre-trial review is
scheduled to be heard on 2nd September 1998. [2]
A research letter published in the Lancet [3] by a German team showed a
statistically significant increase on blood pressure in people who used a
GSM phone for 30 minutes. Although the rise was only about 5% it showed an
important biological effect and received national media attention.
Exposure levels
Despite what some mobile phone companies are saying, mobile phones do
radiate microwaves similar to those used in a microwave oven to cook food.
Between 20% and 80% of the energy is absorbed by the user’s head. The
percentage absorbed depends on the design of the phone, type of aerial or
antenna (the stubby ones which you can not extend are worse for pushing
energy into the user’s head), and how far it is to the nearest base-station
mast.
Thermal exposure results in a measurable and significant rise in body
tissue temperature and is the basis for cooking food in microwave ovens.
When maximum levels were set in the 1950s, they were based on field levels
the human body could withstand without causing a 1°C rise in body
temperature. The possibility of non-thermal effects was discounted. Most
national and international bodies (including the UK National Radiological
Protection Board) set a rise of 1°C (6 minutes average for local exposure,
15 mins. for whole body) as the maximum permissible long-term temperature
rise, although some chose to set the figure lower than this, between 0.2°C
and 1°C.
Non-thermal exposure means that no energy is transferred which could cause
a measurable temperature rise. Athermal means that although some heating
energy is transferred, the blood etc. will transfer the heat away from the
tissue such that the overall temperature rise is limited to below that
classified for thermal exposure.
Despite considerable evidence in published scientific literature for
biological effects of electro-magnetic radiation in the RF/MW range of the
spectrum at specific absorption rates (SARs) far too low to produce a
heating response, this still continues to be the case. However, the
conclusions section of the NRPB "Doll Report", on non-ionising radiation
effects, states: "Animal studies conducted at frequencies above about
100kHz have provided some evidence for effects on tumour incidence...". [4]
Cancer implications
Although brain tumour cases have been rising fairly steadily over the last
fifteen years, these are not the most likely outcome of high levels of
mobile communications handset use. In 1998 a study reported that brain
tumour incidence was rising in Western Australia and questioned whether
mobile phone use might be responsible [5]. However, if there are long term
large-scale cancer implications, then it is more likely that they will be
adult myeloid leukaemias and multiple melanomas. Back in the early 1980s
Sam Milham reported excess leukaemias among amateur radio operators, with
deaths from acute and chronic myeloid leukaemias nearly three times higher
than expected. We do know of a number of digital (GSM) phone users who
have developed Hodgkin’s Disease in the lymph glands in their neck on the
side where they normally used their phones for a couple of hours each day [6].
In 1980, Dr John Holt had a letter published [7]. This showed that between
1951-59, 50% of patients with CML in Queensland survived for 55 months
following diagnosis. In 1960 and 1961 three large TV broadcast stations
were commissioned in the area. In the period 1963-67, 50% of patients with
CML only survived for 21 months. This dramatic change could not be
explained by any medical personnel, protocol or therapy changes.
In the mid-1980s Stanislaw Szmigielski reported that Polish military
personnel exposed to RF energy showed elevated leukaemia levels. He has
just published a 1996 update [8]. This is a study of all Polish military
personnel for 15 years (1971-85), approximately 128,000 people each year.
Of these about 3700 (3%) were considered to be occupationally exposed to
radio-frequency and / or microwave radiation.
The largest increases were found for chronic myelocytic leukaemia (CML),
with an astounding increase (Odds Ratio) of 13.9 (95% CI 6.72-22.12,
p<0.001), acute myeloblastic leukaemia (AML) with an OR of 8.62 (95% CI
3.54-13.67, p<0.001), and non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas with an OR of 5.82 (95%
CI 3.54-13.67, p<0.001).
In 1996 Lai & Singh showed single and double DNA strand breaks in brain
cells of rats exposed to 2.45GHz SARs of 1.2 W/Kg (comparable with levels
in the heads of mobile phone users), giving rise to real concerns. [9]
If someone is completely healthy, and has a strong immune system, then
mobile-phone use may well not give them long-term health problems. Some
people can smoke twenty cigarettes per day for fifty years and not develop
lung cancer, and yet the dangers of smoking are now generally accepted,
even by the manufacturers. It has been repeatedly shown that a few minutes
exposure to cell phone type radiation can transform a 5% active cancer into
a 95% active cancer for the duration of the exposure and for a short time
afterwards. [10]
A team of scientists funded by the Australian communications giant,
Telstra, to investigate claimed links between cellular phones and cancer
has turned up probably the most significant finding of adverse health
effects yet. The study looked at 200 mice, half exposed and half not, to
pulsed digital phone radiation. The work was conducted at the Royal
Adelaide Hospital by Dr Michael Repacholi, Professor Tony Basten, Dr Alan
Harris and statistician Val Gebski, and it revealed a highly-significant
doubling of cancer rates in the exposed group. [11]
The mice were subject to GSM-type pulsed microwaves at a power-density
roughly equal to a cell-phone transmitting for two thirty minute periods
each day; this was a pulsed transmission as from a digital cell-phone
handset. Using NRPB figures most GSM digital cell-phones will be putting
between 10 and 30 times more radiation into the user’s head than the
Repacholi mice were subject to! [12]
If there are cancer connections with the use of mobile phones, they are
most likely to be expressed in adult leukaemias which typically take
between 10 and 30 years to appear and be diagnosed. It is therefore
unlikely that the trend will start to be seen for at least another five
years, although the harm is being done now.
Short term exposure of rats is no answer. Cancer is being increasingly
recognised as an organisational systems problem, and no short term speeded
up animal experiments are likely to give the same results as extended
period chronic exposure to the human bio-system.
Initial (shorter term) problems with very important health and work
efficiency implications
We now receive frequent calls from regular mobile-phone users reporting
headaches, loss of concentration, skin tingling or burning or twitching,
eye ‘tics’, very poor short-term memory, buzzing in their head at night,
and other less common effects. Headaches often come first and/or skin
effects. Then concentration and short-term memory tends to deteriorate.
At first it can be missing the turning off a motorway that you intended to
take. Then it is forgetting appointments. It usually firstly affects
learning or remembering NEW facts, similar to early signs of dementia.
Things you learnt long ago are still usually there, but new things just
don’t seem to go in to your memory any more. Users also report excessive
tiredness. Many reports are from engineers who used their phones
extensively and were very sceptical of EMF adverse health effects until
they started to experience them.
The symptoms bear a close resemblance to those in a study of a Latvian
pulsed radio location station which emits 24 short VHF pulses of 154 -
162MHz each second. In a study of 966 children aged 9-18 years old, motor
function, memory and attention were significantly worse in the exposed
group. Children living in front of the station had less developed memory
and attention, their reaction time was slower and their neuromuscular
endurance was decreased. The RMS field levels at their houses were low,
typically only 1V/m, and a maximum level of 6V/m or 10mW/cm2. [13] In a
study near the Latvian radio station, differences in micronucleii levels in
peripheral erythrocytes were found to be statistically significant in the
exposed and control groups. This is possible evidence of genetic changes
caused by non-thermal levels of pulsed radio-frequency radiation.[14]
Reports linking RF energy with asthenias had been reported by Charlotte
Silverman back in 1973, and again in 1980, as what she called “radio wave
sickness”. [15]
Maximum exposure levels
At cellular telephone frequency bands of 900MHz and 1.8GHz, the current
U.K. NRPB investigation levels raised the U.K. permitted levels to 10 Watts
per Kg in the head. The 1991 USA ANSI/IEEE C95.1 guidelines set the SAR at
1.6 W/Kg, and the CENELEC pre-standard states 2 W/Kg for the public. GSM
Cellular-phones can deliver well over 2 W/Kg into head tissue during their
output pulses, but they are said to comply because the average power is
only about one-eighth of the pulse power (GSM & PCN digital phones), as up
to eight calls share one channel using Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA)
with each handset pulsing in one of eight time slots.
Unlike the earlier analogue phones, the digital GSM ones emit a series of
short pulses at a basic repetition rate of 217Hz. Pulsed microwaves have
been shown to be more biologically active than continuous radiation of the
same frequency and power level. Take an operating digital GSM mobile-phone
near an ordinary medium wave radio and you will hear a buzzing noise.
These pulses are also picked up and detected by the cells inside the user’s
and other nearby people’s heads. In fact, up to 80% of the transmitted
power can be absorbed by the user’s head, which means that their brain
cells are being “hit” by these radiation pulses two hundred and seventeen
times every second.
In addition, GSM digital phones and the new DECT cordless phones also both
put high levels (several microtesla) of low frequency magnetic fields into
the user’s head. These may be more responsible for the dementia (memory)
effects than the pulsed microwaves. The newer American Code Domain
Multiple Access (CDMA) system works differently and doesn’t emit the
sharp-edged low frequency magnetic pulses. The digital RF signal more
resembles a noisy analogue signal and is also likely to be less bio-active.
There is increasing pressure for Europe to replace the TDMA GSM system
with a “third generation” CDMA system within the next ten years.
The NRPB, and others, average the power from a digital phone over 1 second,
and so divide the pulse power by eight. They correctly argue that the
tissue has time to cool down between pulses, and then go on to deduce that
no damage will therefore take place. This is similar to saying that
placing a hammer on a “cell” (an egg, for example) exerting a small steady
force, will produce the same effect as hitting the egg, using eight times
the force briefly once a second. As most practical engineers know, when
trying to loosen a stuck nut and bolt, the effect of constant pressure on
the spanner is FAR LESS than when tapping the spanner with a hammer.
In 1993, as the NRPB raised its permitted microwave levels, two military
research bases in the USA reduced their permitted levels of radio frequency
exposure (30 MHz to 100 GHz) from 100 W/m2 (10 mW//cm2) down to 1 W/m2 (0.1
mW/cm2 or 100 µW/cm2 ). This is because they acknowledged that there is now
an overwhelming body of published evidence for the existence of non-thermal
biological effects of high-frequency radiation. [16]
Some non-thermal effects
Important non-thermal biological effects have been demonstrated which could
account for the development of cancer, asthma and the lowering of male
fertility. Cell membranes carry charge and surface receptors (usually
proteins) are highly charged. Signals are transduced into the cell interior
where growth, development and cell division are regulated by processes
which involve ions. These features have been shown to alter their behaviour
in the presence of imposed external electromagnetic fields. Documented
changes include alteration of the permeability of the cell membrane,
alteration of the signal transduction processes which regulate cell
behaviour and involve calcium ions, ornithine decarboxylase, protein kinase
C and cAMP. One study has indicated that microwaves can alter DNA
synthesis, enzyme activity, ion transport, cell proliferation and the cell
cycle [17]. 0
Low frequencies (generated by the pulsed nature of GSM cell-phone signals -
217, 32 & 2 Hz) have been previously shown to lower lymphocytes ability to
‘mark’ cancer cells and to depress the ability of other lymphocytes to
destroy the ‘marked’ aberrant cells. Low level microwaves have also been
shown to alter both the immune response [18] and EEG activity [19] in
rabbits. Microwaves at only 1 mW/cm2 (one-tenth of the NRPB Guidance level)
have been shown to affect cAMP-independent kinase activity [20], and
calcium ion (Ca2+) efflux from chick cerebral hemispheres [21]. Continuous
digital GSM phone operation near fertilised chicken eggs kill most of the
embryos [22].
Cancerous tissue has increased conductivity compared with normal tissue.
In 1974, Dr. John Holt, the first Medical Director of the Institute of
Radiotherapy and Oncology of Western Australia, and Dr. Nelson were able to
show that the specific effect of RF energy on cancer was to radio-sensitise
a malignancy. Some cancers could have their radio-sensitivity increased by
a factor exceeding 100 times. As non-electrical heating of cancer cells to
41.8°C increased radio-sensitivity by a factor of 2 to 3 and 434 MHz
increased sensitivity by 100 to 150 times at less than 38°C, this is a non
thermal effect. Every cancer demonstrated an increase in sensitivity;
those normally treated with radiotherapy showed a maximum; those not
usually treatable by X-ray therapy were minimal. [23]
Dr Peter French of the Centre for Immunology, St Vincent's Hospital,
Sydney, Australia, has been carrying out experiments on a range of human
and animal cell lines using 835 MHz exposure at 4.9 mW/cm2, 3 times per day
for 7 days. He has shown effects on cell growth, shape, secretion of
histamine and gene transcription. Dr French is the immediate past President
of the Australia and New Zealand Society for Cell Biology. [24]
Microshield Industries launched a new EMF shielding mobile phone case range
in 1996. Even “Industry” tests show that it does typically reduce the power
absorbed by the user’s head by around 20 dBm (i.e. by a factor of around
99%). Many purchasers of these Microshield cases are now expressing
delight at having found a way of using their phones without apparently
experiencing short and medium term adverse side effects. There are now
other firms (eg Nett Ltd) manufacturing shielding devices and even some
manufacturers (eg Hagenuk) producing “low leakage” phones.
Telephone numbers: Microshield: 0181 363 3333, Nett: 01273 732 464
Almost all the major manufacturers have now patented and produced ‘low
radiation into the user’s head’ models!
Base station masts
There is currently growing public concern about the number of base station
masts that are being erected, and the effect these may have on both health
and on property values. The field strengths from masts is low and is
unlikely to be more of a problem than any other form of RF data
communications., however increasing worries are surfacing about all levels
of RF energy, especially when digital signal bursts are transmitted.
When one looks at what few epidemiological studies that have been done to
date on RF/MW(radio frequency electromagnetic energy) human exposure, there
is ample evidence of adverse health effects to warrant concern.
The UK NRPB regularly uses the words “substantiated”, “firm”, and “proven”
evidence regarding the results of epidemiological (i.e. of populations of
people) studies. Epidemiological studies on human populations do not, and
generally can not, look for “proof” or “substantiation” but increases in
incidence of a disease, or relative risk ratios.
Epidemiological studies on tobacco and asbestos did not “prove” that these
carcinogens cause cancer; they do show, however, a significantly increased
risk of developing cancer from exposure. This is not “substantiation”, but
that did not prevent the health authorities from taking corrective action.
It is unfortunate that with electromagnetic radiation, however, industry
and its supporters insist an absolute cause - effect relationship must be
proven before corrective action be taken.
The following recent studies do not “substantiate” anything in relation to
exposure to RF/MW; they are dealing with the increase in incidence of
adverse health effects such as cancer. They are, however, relevant and
should be taken into account when formulating policy:
a) A preliminary study by Dr Bruce Hocking compared cancer rates in three
municipalities within a 4 km radius of Sydney TV towers with rates in
adjacent areas further away. The study found children living within the 4
km radius had a relative risk of 1.6 for leukaemia, compared with the
control group. The RR for mortality was higher at 2.3, and highest at 2.8
for lymphoblastic leukaemia. [25] The calculated power levels were around
0.02 to 8 mW/cm2.
b) In 1987, a similar study identified higher rates of cancer among those
living near the TV and radio broadcast towers in Hawaii. Drs. Anderson and
Henderson of the Hawaii Department of Health found in residential areas
with 12 communication towers, a relative risk for cancer, including
leukaemia, of 1.375 (37.5% increase). [26]
c) A study of cancers around the BBC Sutton Coldfield transmitter mast
(Dolk, et al, 1997) found a statistically significant doubling of adult
leukaemia within 2 km, and a significant decline in risk with distance up
to 10 km from the mast was also found for skin cancer. The decline with
distance was also observed at 20 other high power masts, but no significant
increase in overall incidence was found. [27]
d) An earlier study in 1982, conducted by Dr Morton of the University of
Oregon’s Health Science Centre found parallel trends in his study of cancer
and broadcast radiation in Portland. [28]
e) Dr. Stanislaw Szmigielski, a leading epidemiologist with the Centre for
Radiobiology and Radiation Safety at the Military Institute of Hygiene and
Epidemiology, Warsaw, Poland has been the team leader for an on-going study
of the health effects of RF/MW exposure of military personnel in Poland for
the whole military population. His research found that young military
personnel exposed to RF/MW radiation had more than eight times the expected
rate of leukaemia and lymphoma. Careful surveys of exposure revealed that
80 - 85% of the personnel were exposed to an average of less than 42
microwatts/sq. cm., with a median point near 7 microwatts/sq. cm. [8]
f) Quellet-Hellstrom and Stewart (1993) found a statistically significant
3.3 fold increase of miscarriage amongst U.S. physiotherapists using
microwave diathermy compared to a non-exposed control group. The incidence
increased with the number of monthly treatments, which could suggest a
cumulative effect. With about 10 treatments per month, the exposure was
about 0.04 to 0.56 microwatts/sq. cm. [29]
g) Shandala et. al. (1979) found that calcium ion efflux varies in living
animal cells at 10 micro watts/sq.cm. and this level also produces brain
activity changes. [30]
h) Prof. von Klitzing (1995) found changes to human brain EEG with a
signal of 217 Hz modulation on a 150 megahertz (MHz) carrier with an
external exposure of about 2.5 microwatts/sq.cm. [31]
(i) Professor John Goldsmith, at Ben Gurion University of the Negev,
Israel, has collected evidence of several exposures to microwaves which
produced elevated risks of a wide range of cancers, including childhood
leukaemia in children of staff, and cancers in the staff and partners at
the U.S. Embassy in Moscow and other eastern European U.S. embassies.
These cancers were associated with a reported maximum exposure of between 5
and 15 microwatts/sq.cm. and mean exposures between 1 and 2.4 mW/cm2,
recorded near the outside walls of the embassy. Personnel exposures inside
the building were estimated between 0.2 and 0.5 mW/cm2. [32]
j) To quote from Dr. Neil Cherry’s (New Zealand) recent book: [33]
“With these and dozens of other epidemiological studies of large
populations and large numbers of workers occupationally exposed to RF/MW
radiation, showing statistically significant increases of a wide spectrum
of cancers, there can be little or no doubt that chronic low level exposure
to RF/MW radiation produces increased cancer risk.”
k) The Latvian pulsed radar station study mentioned earlier in this talk.
[13]
Who can the public turn to for advice?
Part of my remit was to answer the question whether the public should be
suspicious of soothing statements from people responsible for advice on
these matters.
Dr. Alastair McKinlay, of the UK NRPB, is the vice-Chair of the ‘Expert
Group’ set up by the European Commission. He is quoted as stating: What is
now required is a lot more research in the microwave frequency part of the
electromagnetic spectrum, where mobile phones operate. This is not because
there is concern about health effects, but that such research makes sense
to quell any public concern. [34] The E.C. Committee has recommended a 24
million ECU (about £20m) funding programme for research into mobile phone
safety.
Dr. John Stather, Asst. Director of the NRPB was recently quoted in several
press articles [35] as admitting: Until recently, we believed any harmful
effects from microwaves were due to their heating effects, which would be
negligible at the low powers used by mobile phones. Now their might be
another effect at work and we are much less certain.”.
Conclusions
Powerwatch believes that, although much more research needs doing, regular
mobile-phone use is likely to have adverse health consequences in many
people who use them.
The newer, digital, ones are likely to have more biological effects than
the older, analogue, ones.
Although existing evidence does not yet conclusively prove that there are
any long-term adverse health implications, we feel that we need to advise
people to use them as little as possible.
Refs:
[ 1 ] K H Mild, et al, Comparison of analogue and digital mobile phone
users and symptoms ~ A Swedish-Norwegian study National Institute for
Working Life, Umeå, Sweden. 14.5.1998
[ 2 ] Electromagnetic Hazard & Therapy, Vol.9, No1-2, 1998, pp1-3
[ 3 ] Braune, et al, Resting Blood Pressure increase due to RF EMF
Exposure, Lancet Vol.351, pp1857-8, 20th June 1998
[ 4 ] U.K. NRPB “Doll Report” EMFields & Cancer (Doc. NRPB V3, No1, 1992)
and follow up statements
[ 5 ] Dr Andrew Davidson letter in the Medical Journal of Australia, 5th
January 1998
[ 6 ] Article on page 9 of Sunday Express, 28th September 1997
[ 7 ] The Medical Journal of Australia, Vol.1, No.12 14th June 1980
[ 8 ] The Science of the Total Environment 180, Elsevier, 1996, pp9-17
[ 9 ] Lai & Singh, 1996, “Single & double-strand DNA breaks ...”;
Int.J.Rad.Biol.,V.69,pp513-521, April 1996
[10] John Holt, BBC1 TV Watchdog Programme, 3rd June 1996
[11] Repacholi et al., Lymphomas in mice exposed to 900MHz pulsed EMFs,
Rad. Res. 1997;147(5):631-640
[12] Electromagnetic Hazard & Therapy, Vol.8, No1, 1997, pp1-5
[13] The Science of the Total Environment 180, Elsevier, 1996, pp 87-93
[14] The Science of the Total Environment 180, Elsevier, 1996, pp 81-86
[15] Charlotte Silverman (Am.J.Epi, 1973, & Proc IEEE V79, pp78-84 1980)
[16] Microwave News, September/October 1993, pp 1,10,12
[17] Pershin et al,1994,“Microwaves in ... immune response to VI-antigen”;
Electro. Magnetobiol. 13:203-209
[18] Takashima et al, 1979, “Models of long-range order in cerebral
macromolecules: Effect of ELF and
modulated VHF fields”; Radio Sci. 14:141-145
[19] Byus et al, 1984, “Alteration in protein kinase activity following
exposure of cultured lymphocytes to modulated microwave fields” ;
Biolelectromagnetics 5:34-51
[20] Bawin et al,1978,“Poss. mechanism of weak EMF coupling in brain
tissue” Bioelctrochem. Bio.5:67-76
[21] Cleary et al, 1992, “Effects of RF power in mammalian cells”;
Ann.N.Y.Acad.Sci.649:166-175
[22] Youbicier-Simo, et al., Mortality of Chick Embyos Exposed to EMFs from
Mobile Phones, BEMS, Florida 1998
[23] John Holt, Powerwatch Network Technical Supplement, May 1996
[24] Peter French, personal communication, October 1996
[25] Microwave News, Vol. XV, No.6, Nov/Dec 1995, p1 & p16
[26] EM Facts Info. Service Mobile Phones and their Transmitter Base
Stations, page 7, -
(EMFacts Information Service, PO Box 96, North Hobart, Tasmania, 7002,
AUSTRALIA)
[27] Dolk et al., Cancer Incidence near Radio and Television Tx in GB,
Am.J.Epi.,V.145 No1,1997,pp1-17
[28] Microwave News, Vol. XV, No. 6, Nov./Dec 1995, p16
[29] Quellet-Hellstrom, R., and Stewart W.F., Am. J. Epi., 138, No. 10,
Nov. 1993, pp 775 - 784
[30] Shandala, M.G. & Vinogradov, Imunological effects of microwave action,
JPRS 72956, p16, 1979
Also see same authors, Abstracts BEMS 12th Ann. Meeting, San Antonio,
1990.
[31] Von Klitzing,, L. LF pulsed EMF influence EEG of man, submitted to
Physica Medica, 1995
[32] Goldsmith, J.R., ‘Epi. Evidence of RF Effects...’ Int. J.
Environmental Health, 1, 1995, pp 47-57
[33] Dr. Neil Cherry,Potential and Actual Adverse Effects of Radiofrequency
and Microwave Radiation (1997)(122 pages)
Available in UK by sending a cheque for £12 payable to A.Philips to 2
Tower Road, Sutton, Ely, Cambs, CB6 2QA.
[34] Electronics and Wireless World, November 1996, p821
[35] Sunday Times 21.9.97 and Daily Express 30.9.97
http://www.powerwatch.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alasdair Philips (aphilips@gn.apc.org)
Director, UK Powerwatch,
EMC Engineer and EMF-bioeffects researcher
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html