Increased risk of parotid (salivary gland) tumors with cell phone use (Click on link)

http://emf.mercola.com/sites/emf/archive/2010/02/04/cell-phones-are-the-cigarettes-of-the-21st-century.aspx

The first ruling will reduce radiation from relay antennas by 4000 times 21/12/2009 – MD0/EP MADRID During its latest session the Municipal Council of Leganés (a major suburb southwest of Madrid, the third largest town in the region), approved a new motion intended to regulate the installation of mobile telephony relay antennas, a “first” in Spain to resolve this problem, since they will now have to emit the lowest possible level of radiation, about 4,000 times less than at present.  Fulfilment of this ruling will be followed and guaranteed by the Committee for Public Works, Measurements and Surveillance, which will provide “real time” data to residents thanks to a sophisticated observation network.     

Raúl Calle, the councillor for Town Planning and Industry, declared that the emission from relay antennas should be determined according to “the European standard” on which the ruling is based, for “an emission density with maximum peak of 0.6 V/m or 0.1 microwatt by centimetre square”[the BioInitiative Report] . More than a year of work went into the preparation of the document, produced in conjunction with the Federation of local residents’ groups, who will be able to keep watch over the mobile phone installations and check that the new limit is being respected.

This surveillance will be”specially focused on sensitive places such as the interior of public housing, workplaces, schools, homes for the elderly, hospitals, and in fact on all the places where people are likely to spend 6 or more hours (dose in relation to time)”, declared Calle. To ensure that the ruling is respected and check that all the relay antennas conform to the new regulations, the Committee plans to create a system that will allow residents to access the information on the siting of base stations and the intensity of radiation emitted by the antennas. According to the councillor, this system will enable “all the local residents to have all the facts all of the time, and to know not only where the antennas are but for instance how much radiation is being emitted close to their home or their children’s school”. Control network In order to achieve this, the new ruling will make it possible for the radiation level from mobile telecommunications to be checked by the Town Hall via a network of measuring devices placed in strategic points. “We are not going to rely only on inspections but on permanent surveillance thanks to our network of radiation meters,” added Calle. For his part, the spokesperson of the Federation of residents’ groups, Juan Antonio Sánchez, affirmed that the importance of this ruling resides specifically in “the ongoing surveillance of electromagnetic pollution”. A source in the mayor’s office commented that in spite of the guaranteed reduction of permitted radiation levels, these are still “entirely adequate for optimum mobile phone coverage in all areas of the town”. It was emphasised that “the objective is not to restrain or hinder the legitimate activate of the phone networks in the area but to safeguard the health of our citizens”.

The judgment established that the installation “of the structure violates constitutional rights with regard to articles 19, n° 1 (right to life and to physical and psychological integrity), n° 9 (right to health protection) and n° 8 (right to live in a healthy environment free from all pollution) of the political Constitution of Chile. ” The court’s decision, while it recognizes that there is a tendency in recent cases to reject this type of conclusion, indicates that there are two specific factors in the present appeal that have led to this injunction.

The first is a report from the Institute of Public Health, which acknowledges that human health is damaged by the harmful effects of the radiation produced by cellular phone masts.

These statements (in particular the most important ones) are truly serious, because they tell us that the authorities are deliberately admitting that relay antennas may carry a risk to the health of the public. There are continuing discussions as to their impact in the light of ongoing scientific research, but their existence cannot be denied.

The statement of the authorities quoted above recalls also the official position on the use of tobacco in the 60s, notably the studies showing that they “were not conclusive with regard to its carcinogenic effects and encouraged the commercial freedom of the tobacco companies, whereas in the following decades the use of tobacco was shown to be linked to a high number of deaths that could have been avoided.”

The second aspect taken into account by the magistrates at the end of the judgment was that the installation of this phone mast in the Santa Cruz region caused visual pollution in a typical landscape that ought to be preserved. __________________________________________________________________________________

Do adverse health trends correlate with research into Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR)?

An overview of adverse public health trends from 1996 – 2009

Sarah Benson – 10/08/09

On the eighth of May 1997, in the first few months of its publication NZine featured an article in which I interviewed Dr Neil Cherry about his research into the health effects of electromagnetic radiation. Such is the worldwide interest in this topic that the article entitled The Electromagnetic Radiation Health Threat – Part I has continued to be one of the most widely read .

Do adverse health trends correlate with research into Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR)

An overview of adverse public health trends from 1996 – 2009

Do these trends correlate with the research into Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) that indicates a diverse range of adverse public health outcomes as a result of exposure?

Sarah Benson

Introduction

Whilst increases in certain illnesses have been steady for about four decades – most figures are indicating that for the last 15 years we have seen, worldwide, a marked increase in cancers, cardiac illness, obesity, diabetes, asthma, allergies in children, short term memory problems and sleeplessness, to name but a few. The medical fraternity is particularly concerned by the growing incidence of un-explained cancers, with one example being the findings of two Australian neurosurgeons, who in 2009 have admitted that there is epidemic of brain tumours – an epidemic that includes children.

There are many potential causes of illness – genetic and hereditary factors, as well as environmental pollutants such as chemicals. Nevertheless the only completely new pollutant in the past 10 – 15 years that coincides with the sudden spike in adverse health trends is electromagnetic radiation (EMR).

This explosion of microwave and radiofrequency radiation emitted by communications infrastructure – including computers – is relatively new. With millions of antennas and satellites now irradiating the global population 24/7 for the past 15 years, these are clearly implicated as the major culprit, being the only new pollutant affecting populations globally. All other causes, such as chemical and genetic factors are dwarfed by comparison.

Most people don’t think about the fact that this radiation is being sent all around the planet – somehow magically finding its way to our phones, TVs and radios – without ever touching us. But the human body has its own sensitive electrical system – one that is easily affected by the EMR and microwaves which penetrate our bodies daily. The human body, says Dr. G. J. Hyland of the University of Warwick, UK, is “an electrochemical instrument of exquisite sensitivity,” noting that, like a radio, it can be interfered with by incoming radiation.

The main purpose of this paper is to delineate the links between science and reality, cause and effect, the abstract and the actual. All effects must have a cause – this is a fundamental tenet of the physical universe. To deny this is to be unscientific and lacking the faculty of inquiry that underpins all scientific and intelligent discourse. The secondary purpose is to honour and exonerate the late Neil Cherry, much of whose work is quoted here.

New Zealand physicist Dr Neil Cherry began his work as an electromagnetic radiation (EMR) meta-analyst when he was asked by a residential group contesting the siting of a mobile phone tower if he would be their expert witness. He consequently studied over 600 researchers worldwide, and was shocked to discover that EMR caused DNA breakages, chromosome aberrations, increased oncogene activity in cells, altered brain activity, altered blood pressure and increased brain cancer at very low levels – much lower than those allowed by the Australian standard. He also found that EMR impacts on the pineal gland, thus resulting in a reduction of melatonin – a vital regulator of many of the body’s biochemical and hormonal systems and functions and a major scavenger of damaging free radicals.ⁱ

Dr Cherry went on to make numerous media appearances, travelling to many countries around the world, speaking to scientists, individuals and communities about the potential dangers to health from EMR; the only scientist to have done this so comprehensively and consistently. He also took time discuss his findings with industry and government authorities, tirelessly explaining that biological effects were being found both in the laboratory and in populations that were well below the government’s exposure standard. He did this until he died in 2003.

In 1997 Dr Cherry was invited to address the Australian Senate. Immediately after this address, the then telecommunications Minister, Richard Alston, who had attended, returned to the Senate and accused Dr Cherry of being a snake oil merchant and a charlatan.

However, since that day it has become evident that everything that Cherry predicted has eventuated. His findings have been replicated many times since, and have proved to be prophetic: cancer, leukaemia, cardiac disease, diabetes, sleep disturbances, dementia, weight gain or loss, weakened immune system, asthma, allergies, arthritis, nausea, memory and concentration problems, neurological conditions, and depression – all on a sharp rise. The conditions and diseases he warned of are either endemic or increasing; but unfortunately health authorities – especially in Australia – appear not to be making the connection between these and EMR.

Dr Cherry also found that microwaves can render the blood brain barrier permeable, thus allowing damaging chemicals, viruses and bacteria into the brain which can cause illnesses such as dementia and brain tumours.

Recently, Dr Cherry’s work has been confirmed by a group of 14 scientists and public health and policy experts who in August 2007 published a 650 page assessment and review of the science and public health implications of exposure to EMR called The BioInitiative Report.ⁱⁱⁱ This highly comprehensive report has been widely distributed and accepted as being a true and accurate picture of the current state of the science on EMR and health. They found that:

“Prolonged exposure to radiofrequency and microwave radiation from cell phones, cordless phones, cell towers, WI-FI and other wireless technologies has been linked to interference with short-term memory and concentration, sleep disruption, headache and dizziness, fatigue, immune disruption, skin rashes and changes in cardiac function.” However, “These effects can happen with even very small levels of exposure if they occur on a daily basis. Cell phone use is likely to be more harmful in children whose brain and nervous system development can last into late adolescence,” says Cindy Sage of Sage Associates, “The public health implications of billions of people who are exposed makes this a matter of critical concern to policy-makers around the world.” ^iv

They found that the existing public safety limits were inadequate for both Electromagnetic Fields and radiofrequency radiation.

In 2001 an Australian Senate Committee handed down a report that had heard from a wide variety of scientists – many of whom voiced their concern for public health at the results of the research being conducted. During the Senate hearings Dr Cherry said:

“I was very surprised there is so much published evidence in reputable, peer review journals that has not been sighted, summarised or integrated. The more I received the more solid the evidence seemed to be and the more consistent it seemed to be. And so when I heard people saying that the evidence was weak and inconsistent, I decided I should debate this with people and go to conferences and talk to them about it. … This culminated last year at the conference at the European Parliament where I was asked to look particularly at low level effects and epidemiological studies with those response relationships of low level effects. … Over 20 studies show that radiofrequency microwave radiation damages the genes, damages the chromosomes, damages the DNA, and therefore indicates genotoxicity. I am also aware that many studies only use small samples – they are epidemiological studies or laboratory samples. They find elevated levels but they are not specifically significant and they are often described as showing no effects. But I have supplied with my evidence a summary of brain tumour studies, and I have characterised them as studies showing elevated effects, studies showing significantly elevated effects and studies showing dose response effects. And that is a classical way, I believe, at looking at the evidence trail and asking: was it elevated, was it significantly elevated and have we found dose response elevation?”^v

As far back as 1994 Australia’s CSIRO did a 150 page literature review on the status of health effects from EMR.^vi The report’s author, Dr Stan Barnett, said: “whilst researching the scientific database in preparation for this report it has become evident that subtle changes in cell structure and biochemistry have been frequently reported at exposure levels where gross thermal change could not be attributed as a cause.”

The fact that some studies have shown no effects is partly due to the fact that many are undertaken or funded by those with vested interests, and partly due to the nature of what is under investigation; electricity is a highly volatile element that is inaccessible to the senses and thus not like any other element that must be scientifically examined.

Health trends

A group of scientists and doctors in Germany presented evidence at a conference in 2002 showing “a dramatic rise in severe and chronic diseases among our patients exposed to radiofrequency and microwave radiation”. These included extreme fluctuations in blood pressure, heart attacks and strokes in increasingly younger people, degenerative brain diseases such as Alzheimer’s and epilepsy, leukaemia and brain tumours. They also found a rise in headaches, sleeplessness, tinnitus and other ailments that were able to be correlated with the onset of exposure to communications microwaves (see Appendix C).

In 2007 The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare announced that the five leading causes of non-fatal illness in Australia were diabetes, ischemic heart disease, dementia, asthma, anxiety and depression. As 90 per cent of diabetes cases are related to weight gain this could be included as a sixth.

Since then other scientists have conducted further studies showing similar results. One, published in August 2007, indicates that mobile phone radiation causes cancer in mice^viii, and yet another in the same year, with scientists at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel finding that after only five minutes of exposure to radiation one tenth of the power of a mobile phone, rat and human cell chemicals underwent changes. This study is unique in that it demonstrates for the first time a “detailed molecular mechanism by which electromagnetic radiation from mobile phones induces activation of extracellular-signal-regulated kinase (ERK) cascade and thereby induces transcription and other cellular processes.”^ix

In 2005 researchers in China found that relatively low-level RF radiation can lead to DNA breaks^x, and in 2004 the REFLEX project, which summarised the work of 12 research groups in seven European countries, reported that RF radiation could increase the number of DNA breaks in exposed cells, as well as activate a stress response – the production of heat-shock proteins. The manager of the project, Franz Adlkofer, said: “…available scientific evidence of such critical events demonstrates the need for intensifying research – precautionary measures seem to be warranted.”^xi There are many such studies.

Dr Peter French, of St Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney, was able to replicate earlier findings, indicating that mobile phone radiation switched on heat shock proteins:

In the USA Marshall and Wetherall^xiii found an exponential increase of autism, ADHD, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Alzheimer’s since 1984 – the year the first commercial cell phone networks started to spread across the USA. These rates increased even further with the switchover from analog (1G) to digital (2G) in the early 1990s.

In February 2007 Swedish scientists announced in the European Journal of Cancer Prevention that they had observed a connection between the health of the population and population density, suggesting that the two factors having the strongest correlation with decreased health quality were the estimated average power output from mobile phones…and the reported coverage from the global system for mobile communication base stations in each country.^xiv

This was confirmed by the German company ECOLOG’s report which was commissioned by telecommunications company T-Mobil in 2000. The results of this research – leaked to British group HESE in 2006 – found that cancer, DNA damage, chromosome aberrations, changes to enzymes, changes in the brain, interruption of cell cycle and cellular communication, debilitation of the immune system and changes to the central nervous system were caused by exposure to EMR.

Around a dozen studies in 2006 and 2007 demonstrated similar results, including one that found the signal from a mobile phone affecting genes and neurons in both ‘on’ and ‘off’ modes,^xv while another found “some evidence of nervous system structural damage after the EMR exposure.”^xvi

In April 2009 the European Parliament announced that mobile phone antennas, masts and other EMR emitting devices should be set within a specific distance from schools and health institutions. Based on a report adopted by the European Parliament, the recommendations were that whilst there were many benefits of wireless technology there were “Continuing uncertainties about possible health risks.”

I believe that in Australia it is time that the precautionary principle was implemented. “The precautionary principle is a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.” (See appendix D).

A scientific paradigm change is urgently needed. In his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), Thomas Kuhn discusses the nature of science, scientific research and methodology and paradigms, how conceptual changes come about, and what prevents them. In the introduction^xviii he says:

“The most obvious examples of scientific revolutions are those famous episodes in scientific development that have often been labeled revolutions before….Copernicus, Newton, Lavoisier and Einstein. More clearly than most other episodes…these display what all scientific revolutions are about. Each of them necessitated the community’s rejection of one time-honoured scientific theory in favour of another incompatible with it…each transformed the scientific imagination in ways that we shall ultimately need to describe as a transformation of the world within which the scientific work was done. Such changes, together with the controversies that almost always accompany them, are the defining characteristics of scientific revolutions.”

However,
“The invention of other new theories regularly, and appropriately, evokes the same response from some of the specialists on whose area of special competence they impinge. For these men the new theory implies a change in the rules governing the prior practice of normal science. Inevitably, therefore, it reflects upon much scientific work they have already successfully completed. That is why a new theory, however specialist range of application, is seldom or never just an increment to what is already known. Its assimilation requires the reconstruction of prior theory…an intrinsically revolutionary process that is seldom completed by a single man and never overnight.”

“Normal science, for example, often suppresses fundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments.”

Freiburger Appeal

(Signed by 58 doctors and medical specialists in 2002 – see Appendix C)

“Out of great concern for the health of our fellow human beings do we – as established physicians of all fields, especially that of environmental medicine – turn to the medical establishment and those in public health and political domains, as well as to the public.

We have observed, in recent years, a dramatic rise in severe and chronic diseases among our patients, especially:

• Learning, concentration, and behavioural disorders (e.g. attention deficit disorder, ADD)
• Extreme fluctuations in blood pressure, ever harder to influence with medications
• Heart rhythm disorders
• Heart attacks and strokes among an increasingly younger population
• Brain-degenerative diseases (e.g. Alzheimer’s) and epilepsy
• Cancerous afflictions: leukaemia, brain tumours

Moreover, we have observed an ever-increasing occurrence of various disorders, often misdiagnosed in patients as psychosomatic:

• Headaches, migraines
• Chronic exhaustion
• Inner agitation
• Sleeplessness, daytime sleepiness
• Tinnitus
• Susceptibility to infection
• Nervous and connective tissue pains, for which the usual causes do not explain even the most conspicuous symptoms.

Since the living environment and lifestyles of our patients are familiar to us, we can see, especially after carefully-directed inquiry, a clear temporal and spatial correlation between the appearance of disease and exposure to pulsed high-frequency microwave radiation.”

All sections of this research paper will be published in NZine in separate chapters, with the appendices at the end. – Editor

• ⁱ Cherry, N., 2000: Evidence that Electromagnetic Radiation is Genotoxic: The Implications for the Epidemiology of Cancer, Cardiac, Neurological and Reproductive Effects.
• ⁱⁱ Cherry, 2000, Probable Health effects Associated with base Stations in Communities: The Need for Health Surveys, p.1
• ⁱⁱⁱ BioInitiative Working Group, Cindy Sage and David O. Carpenter, Editors: BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF) at www.bioinitiative.org, August 31, 2007.
• ^iv http://www.bioinitiative.org/press_release/index.htm
• ^v http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/Committee/ecita_ctte/completed_inquiries/1999-02/emr/report/c02.htm
• ^vi Barnett, S., 1994, Status of Research on Biological Effects and safety of Electromagnetic Radiation: Telecommunications Frequencies, CSIRO, Division of Radiophysics.
• ^vii http://www.energyfields.org/science/becker.html
• ^viii Oberto G, et al, 2007: Carcinogenicity Study of 217 Hz Pulsed 900 MHz Electromagnetic Fields in Pim1 Transgenic Mice. Radiat Res; 168 (3): 316 – 326
• ^ix Friedman et al, 2007: mechanism of fort-term ERK activation by electromagnetic fields at mobile phone frequencies, Biochemical Journal, 405, 559-568, printed in UK.
• ^x Lixia S., et al, 2006: Effects of 1.8 GHz radiofrequency field on DNA damage and expression of heat shock protein 70 in human lens epithelial cells. Volume 602, Issues 1-2, 1 135-142
• ^xi Diem, E., et al, 2005: Non-thermal DNA breakage by mobile-phone radiation (1800 MHz) in human fibroblasts and in transformed GFSH-R17 rat granulosa cells in vitro, 2004.
• ^xii The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, 2001: Inquiry into Electromagnetic Radiation, Report of the Senate,
• ^xiii Marshall 2001, Weatherall 2007.
• ^xiv Hallberg, O., 2007: Adverse health indicators correlating with sparsely populated areas in Sweden; European Journal of Cancer Prevention. 16(1):71-76.
• ^xv Zhao, TY et al, 2007: Studying gene expression profile of rat neuron exposed to 1800 MHz radiofrequency electromagnetic fields with cDNA micro assay. Toxicology, 235 (3): 167 – 175
• ^xvi Orendacova, J., et al 2007: Neurobiological effects of microwave exposure: a review focused on morphological findings in experimental animals; Arch Ital Biol, 145(1):1-12.
• ^xvii http://www.energyfields.org/
• ^xviii Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962.

• Chapter 2 Part a – Cancer
• Chapter 2 Part b – Brain Cancer
• Chapter 2 Part c – Breast and Prostate Cancer
• Chapter 3 – Diabetes and Obesity
• Chapter 4 – Heart Disease, Strokes, High Blood Pressure
• Chapter 5 Asthma, Allergies and Arthritis
• Chapter 6 Alzheimer’s Disease

You may also be interested in:

• Schools, Cellphone Towers and Children’s Health
• Cell Phone Towers An Issue Again – This Time In The USA
• Neil Cherry, scientist, teacher, politician, peace worker
• Damage from electromagnetic fields on living cells
• Health problems and legal action about Ouruhia EMR
• EMR health dangers confirmed in Californian research
• Cellphones a boon or a health threat?
• Neil Cherry updates EMR articles and sets up a Website
• Dangers of electromagnetic radiation
• New Zealand Expert Discusses EMR Issues – Part 1
• New Zealand Expert Discusses EMR Issues – Part 2
• The Ouruhia Affair – A Win-Win Situation Or A Lose-Lose Affair?
• Shirley Primary School In Christchurch, New Zealand, And Telecom’s Cellsite
• Cellphones – A Boon To Modern Society Or A Threat To Human Health?
• Electromagnetic Radiation – Report On Ouruhia Health Concerns
• ElectroMagnetic Radiation – The Damage And Reducing The Impact
• Electromagnetic Radiation – Out Ouruhia Way

Copyright 1996 – 2005 NZine

The industry says there’s no connection, but experts are raising the alarm. Here’s how to play it safe.

We rely on them to connect us to the people we love, to help us stay organized, and, in an emergency, to keep us safe. But more and more experts are saying that cell phones may pose a very serious health risk – increasing your chance of developing a brain tumor.

That means that over 270 million Americans may be playing Russian roulette with their cell phones every day. Each year, more than 21,000 adults and 1,500 children are diagnosed with brain tumors, and researchers believe some of them may have been caused by talking on a mobile phone.

A new study examined a decade’s worth of research and concluded that people who use cell phones for more than 10 years are up to 30% more likely to develop brain tumors than people who rarely use them.

What Cell Phones Do

Every time we call to say we’re late for a meeting or to ask if we can pick something up at the store, the cell phones we use are emitting radiofrequency radiation. While not as damaging as the radiation from X-rays, it can still affect our DNA. In fact, animal studies have shown that the radiation from cell phones can change the cells inside their brain. Whether those changes will cause serious damage is still up for debate. But because cell phone use is a relatively recent phenomenon, and brain cancer can take many years to develop, some scientists warn we will not see the results until it is too late.

What the New Research Found

A group of researchers from South Korea and California analyzed 23 studies that looked at the association between tumors and mobile phone use. As a group, the studies did not show an increased risk, but when the researchers focused on the higher quality studies and the longer-term use studies, they discovered about a 30 percent increased risk of tumors.

Who is Most at Risk

Children’s brains are thinner and contain more fluid than adult brains, which means they can more readily absorb electricity. Mathematical models show that when children hold a mobile phone up to their ears, the brain surface they expose to radiation is more than double that of adults. Some countries, including Finland and Israel, have already issued warnings that children not use cell phones, and Maine recently passed an emergency bill mandating warning labels about children and cell phones.

5 Steps to Staying Safe

1. Put it on speaker. Because your exposure drops exponentially as you move the phone away from your head, you don’t have to keep the phone very far away to reduce your exposure by 1,000 to 10,000 times.
2. Go wired. In crowded, noisy areas, use a wired headset instead. If you must use a wireless headset, turn it off when you’re not using it.
3. Store it. Unless you’re on it, stow the phone in your purse or bag. If you keep it on your waist, keep it turned off. Studies have shown that keeping a cell phone in your pocket can decrease sperm count.
4. Save it for a strong signal. When reception is bad (such as in a rural areas or when you’re driving) use your phone for emergencies only. The weaker the signal, the more the radio frequency has to boost itself to get connected, increasing your exposure.
5. Protect the kids. Do not let children use cell phones next to their heads. For older kids, it shouldn’t take much encouragement to get them to text more than they chat.

CANCER AND THE DIRTY ELECTRICITY PLAGUE

Released in the year 2000 a study of 44,788 sets of twins from Sweden, Denmark and Finland concluded that environmental factors were the initiating event in the majority of cancers.(ii)  The strongest contender and most likely culprit is artificial (man-made) electromagnetic radiation.

The pieces of the puzzle were finally pieced together by a ground-breaking study in 2008. Two highly qualified men aided by a school teacher were given unauthorised access into a school where there was a cancer cluster.  Threats of unlawful trespass to the distinguished doctor and a letter of reprimand to the teacher were issued.  When the teachers from the school filed a complaint, the progressive California Department of Health intervened. Finally, a study was conducted with the highest integrity, and able to break through the red tape and politics that usually accompanies dirty electrical environments.  The study showed that dirty electricity – a potent universal carcinogen – caused the cancers in the school and that the high levels of dirty electricity measured at the electrical outlets in the classrooms accurately predicted a teacher’s cancer risk.  

Of no surprise, breast cancer was amongst the 18 cancers in the 137 teachers at this school as breast tissue is the most sensitive tissue in the body and the most sensitive to artificial (man-made) radiation.  Being a very high risk disease today one would assume that a possible cause of this disease, let alone a probable cause – would be widely disseminated and acted on promptly.  Sadly this is not the case.

Why is it that an associate professor can submit testimonies for women for court cases in Canada reporting how a dirty electrical environment can cause breast cancer yet women continue to remain uninformed on the involvement of dirty electricity with this potentially deadly health issue?  Dirty Electricity (DE) is taking away women’s breasts with working at computers a high risk factor.  

Are our experts really so uninformed or is it because breast cancer affects so many women that the information is so widely resisted with suggestions of ‘random change’ and ‘coincidence’?   Breast cancer today affects 1 in 7 women yet when individual cases of breast cancer or breast cancer clusters in women occur, various reproductive factors are also taken into account which makes it easier to discount role that EMFs play in causing breast cancer.

When Professor Bruce Armstrong who led the breast cancer cluster investigation at the ABC TV studios in Brisbane Queensland was questioned on national television in August 2007 on the frustration of some of the women who felt that the proper investigations were not carried out before all the equipment was taken out, he admitted: “It is very important to do the investigations properly, and indeed we did have a problem with the ABC with the fairly quick decision to remove people from the site. It did mean that some of the measurements we wanted to do were not complete, and I do understand how the women feel in that respect; they don’t feel that it’s been done satisfactorily…”(iii)

When, in 2001, three men in one small office developed breast cancer, Dr Sam Milham testified for the men in their 2003 court case, arguing that their cancers were caused, in part at least, by EMFs emanating from an electrical vault next to a basement office where the men worked.(iv) In 1997, Dr Thomas Erren, MPH, had noted that an association between ELF EMFs and breast cancer is supported in men.(v)   Breast cancer in men is rare, usually 1:100,000.  

In 2008, it was reported that there were 108 breast cancer clusters in the USA with another currently in San Diego.  In Australia, currently I am aware of breast cancer cluster occurrences at the ABC TV studios Brisbane, Concord Hospital Sydney, Adelaide Women’s and Children’s Hospital Adelaide, in Gin Gin Western Australia, and possible breast cancer clusters at Sydney Airport and many other locations where I have been informed by women who are worried but are too scared to bring attention to it for fear of losing their employment.

It was virtually impossible for a woman in the South of the United States of America in the 1940s to develop breast cancer but when she moved to a city that had electricity, her risk increased.  These cancer clusters serve to show us what is happening silently on a daily basis in everyone’s lives. The adults and children of today have already been affected by EMFs.  It is not only the fields from power lines and substations that are of concern; dirty electricity is running through virtually every building on the planet. This potent carcinogen is invisible and silent, secretive and subtle.

Many different types of artificially created radiation have been woven into our daily lives.  Dirty electricity explains why professional and office workers have high cancer incidence rates.(vi)  People in their own homes must also protect themselves.

There have been thousands of studies of EMFs, more so than with any other health issue. In 1997, Dr Erren commented that there are more epidemiological studies that link cancer to these fields than to environmental tobacco smoke.(vii)

History has shown that the western world with its vested interests is slow to inform citizens about toxic agents and help protect them. The ‘dirty electricity’ pandemic is no stranger to inaction, as were the asbestos, lead, acid rain, DDT, PCB and tobacco-smoking public health issues before it. Illness from asbestos was first seen around 1900, recognised as an occupational hazard in 1936 yet it was not until 1995 that its production, use, and import was banned in Australia.

Prevalent even more so in our personal environments since the oil embargo of 1973 – which changed the way our electrical equipment operated – and the rise of the computer age, the latest research indicates that dirty electricity is the underlying cancer menace and has been since the beginning of the electrical distribution system.

The contention that the fields from electricity can harm has a history replete particularly in the area of breast cancer with destroyed careers and tarnished reputations involving scientists who have sought to help the people, and with so-called experts who have colluded with the forces going against the precautionary principle of public health: first, do no harm.

In his assessment for the journal of the Royal Institute of Public Health in the UK, Dr Stephen J. Genuis reported that vested interests have been effective in delaying restrictive EMF legislation. He also noted that claims of environmental harm have been challenged by researchers who fail to disclose covert ties to industry, that economic interests exert undue influence on medical journals, and that some editors and journal staff have suppressed publication of scientific results that are adverse to the interests of industry.(viii)

Today it is quite widely accepted that the electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from electricity(ix)  can cause childhood leukaemia.  (The reason why childhood leukaemia has been studied is because the strongest evidence for a cancer is that the same cancer is significantly elevated in children).   The WHO conservatively classified these EMFs as a Class 2b carcinogen in 2001 based on 6 epidemiological studies for childhood leukaemia.

Why is it though, that authorities continue to resist so heavily the contention that EMFs can cause breast cancer? There are 18 epidemiological studies (not 6 as in the case of leukaemia), showing an increased risk of breast cancer with occupational EMF exposure and unlike for childhood leukaemia where experimental studies neither support nor refute the association the magnetic fields, for breast cancer experimental studies (both in vivo and in vitro) show a cause and effect relationship and point to possible mechanisations of action which leukaemia does not.(x)  Any study into breast cancer has significant ramifications for all of us.

Louis Slesin comments that the important papers documenting the effect these EMFs have on the hormone melatonin and the drug Tamoxifen were left out in the WHO EMF Project – a 365-page document with over 1000 references.(xi)

The outcome of the report on the current breast cancer cluster at the University of California, San Diego will be of interest as Louis Slesin, editor of ‘Microwave News’ comments that Leeka Kheifets – professor-in-residence, Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, who has a position at the University of California, Los Angeles – has spent most of her professional career either directly or indirectly working for the Electric Power Research Institute, an arm of the electric utility industry.

There is no doubt dirty electricity is taking away our breasts.

All females should be informed about the different types of radiation.

All females should be informed about why we should not voluntarily irradiate our breast and how not to remain an unsuspecting recipient.

All females should be informed how to protect themselves in their workplace and in their homes.

All females taking the drug Tamoxifen should be informed on the EMF research.

All females should be informed as to the importance of moving to a lower voltage area in their workplace to prevent breast cancer, if they already have breast cancer or are recovering from breast cancer.  Two of the three women who developed breast cancer in the Bell Canada workplace court case died on returning to the workplace.  The one who refused to return to work survived.

All females should be informed as to why working at computers puts them more at risk of breast cancer.  Little did women realise that burning their underwire bras in the 1970s women’s movement could have saved many breasts from being removed.   Was this an instinctive move as the rise of the computer age has coincided with the dramatic increase in breast cancer?

~ Donna Fisher

Editor’s Note: This article comprises edited extracts from Donna Fisher’s two books, “Silent Fields: The Growing Cancer Cluster Story When Electricity Kills…” and “More Silent Fields: Cancer and the Dirty Electricity Plague The Missing Link…” available from the publisher Joshua Books http://www.joshuabooks.com

Footnotes:
(i) Milham S, Historical evidence that electrification caused the 20th century epidemic of “diseases of civilization” Med Hypotheses (2009), doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2009.08.032

(ii) Lichtenstein P, Holm NV, Verkasalo PK, Iliadou A, Kaprio J, Koskenvuo M et al., “Environmental and heritable factors in the causation of cancer: Analyses of cohorts of twins from Sweden, Denmark, and Finland”, N Engl J Med 2000; 343:78-85

(iii) Professor Bruce Armstrong, interviewed on 9am with David & Kim, Channel 10, Australia, August 7, 2007

(iv) Slesin L, News & Comment, Microwave News, July 22, 2004, http://www.microwavenews.com/nc_ja2004.html; also see Milham S, MD, MPH, “A cluster of male breast cancer in office workers”, Am J Indust Med 2004 Jun10; 46(1):86-87

(v) Erren T, MD, MPH, “Epidemiological Studies of EMF and Breast Cancer Risk: A Biologically Based Overview”, in: Stevens, Wilson and Anderson, The Melatonin Hypothesis, op. cit., p. 731

(vi) Milham S, Historical evidence that electrification caused the 20th century epidemic of “diseases of civilization” Med Hypotheses (2009), doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2009.08.032

(vii) Erren, in: Stevens, Wilson and Anderson, The Melatonin Hypothesis, op. cit., p. 729

(viii) Genuis SJ, “Fielding a current idea: exploring the public health impact of electromagnetic radiation”, Public Health 2007, doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2007.04.008

(ix) Extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields – ELF EMF

(x) Havas M, Report to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, Breast Cancer and Occupational Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields, Expert Testimony: Breast Cancer and EMF November 18, 2008 Pages 4-7

(xi) www.microwavenews.com “When Enough is Never Enough: A Reproducible Effect at 2mG-12mG

Donna Fisher, based in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, is the chair of Donna Fisher Silent Fields Inc., a non-profit organisation working towards the implementation of legislation against ‘dirty electricity’ with the aim of protecting people in the workplace. Her model is now being incorporated across the globe, especially in the European Union. She is also CEO of the Donna Fisher Breast Health Initiative, which is committed to non-invasive technologies for prevention, detection and cure of breast cancer and supports eliminating the environmental causes of breast cancer with particular focus on chemicals and radiation. Donna Fisher is the author of “Silent Fields: The Growing Cancer Cluster Story –When Electricity Kills…” and “More Silent Fields: Cancer and the Dirty Electricity Plague – The Missing Link…”. Donna Fisher is available for media interviews and can be contacted through her publisher Joshua Books at http://www.joshuabooks.com

At the bare minimum, we need him to agree to participate in another public meeting ( he allowed us to use his name, which added credibility) so people can learn about upcoming events, and discuss concerns which were not addressed at the meeting in June.

Hope to see you there.
Sharon