EMR-Updates 12.20.10 - 12.26.10

EMR-Updates
December 20th – December 26th, 2010
The Newsletter of the
International Coalition for an Electromagnetic Safe Planet

(IC-ESP)
Education! Awareness! Support! Action!

(From denial to acceptance, from ignorance to awareness, from apathy to action, from selfishness to
compassion.)
1. The Downside of Electric Cars (The Globe and Mail)

2. Open Letter to the Chief Medical Officer of Health for the Province of
Ontario (Wind Concerns Ontario)
3. How Many Cell Towers Are There in Ontario? (BlogTO)
4. Cell Phones – Health Risk Debate Continues (iHealth Bulletin News)
5. EMF-Omega-News
6. Voice for Hope
7. Doing This During Pregnancy Can Cause a 40% Increase in Behavioral
Problems (Mercola)
8. House of Commons Debate on Health Effects of Mobile Phones
9. Legislator`s Guide to Warnings on Cell Phones (The People`s Initiative)
10. KPR Board Looks at Technology Plan (Northumberland Today)
11. San Clemente Seeks Info on Smart Meters (ocRegister)
12. PowerWatch Message (PowerWatch)
13. Planet Irth (Magda Havas)
14. Why Using a Computer Can Cause Depression? (DailyMail)
15. Wake-up Call from Electrosmog Expert (Next-up)
16. With Regards to the Investigation of the Students’ Cancer Cluster at St.
Michael Catholic School (Martin Weatherall)
17. Cancer morbidity in subjects occupationally exposed to high frequency
(radiofrequency and microwave) electromagnetic radiation.
18. UK Parliament Debate on the Health Effects of Mobile Phones
(ParliamentLiveTV)
19. Science 101: Weight of the Evidence (Magda Havas)
20. Germany: Scientists Develop Material That Screens Out Radiation (Just-
Style)
21. Telecom lobbies try to erase mobile tower radiation worries (India Today)
22. Risk governance for mobile phones, power lines, and other EMF
technologies. (Pub-Med)
23. Santé Publique : Alerte iPad WiFi Écoles France (Next-up)
24. Important News for Santa: Industry-Funded 'Interphone' Brain Cancer-
Cell Phone Study Design Proven to Greatly Underestimate Risk of Brain
Tumors (ElectromagneticHealth.org)
25. Seeking an 'Opt Out' Clause
26. A Game Changer? (Microwave News)
27. What Electricians Should Know About EMF (Mike Holt)
28. Fixed Price Electrical Contract (Martin Weatherall)
29. WiFi Stealing Considered a Major Crime in Michigan (Fox News)
30. Wake Up Call 2 (YouTube)
31. LE DEVOIR, La Une/Front Page : "Ottawa s'éveille à la menace
électromagnétique" (Next-up)
32. We need to get to the bottom of what mobile phones do to our health
(Guardian.co.uk)
1
33. Short-term Memory in Mice Is Affected by Mobile Phone Radiation
(EMFacts Consultancy)
34. Wireless Foes Gear Up for New Battle (The New Mexican)
35. WiFi in Schools: An Invisible Threat? (Global TV BC)
36. A New York Panel Township Says “No” to Cell Phone Antenna Plan (Seer
Press News)
37. Scientific study: Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (UMTS, 1,950
MHz) inducegenotoxic effects in vitro in human fibroblasts but not in
lymphocytes. (Next-up)
38. EMR Warnings from 1999 (Boston Phoenix)
39. Wisconson Utilities Bullying Customers Over SmartMeters (First Do No
Harm)
______________________________
1. The Downside of Electric Cars

AP Video Monday, Nov. 22, 2010 08:14AM EST
The first mass-market electric cars go on sale next month, and U.S. electric utilities
couldn't be more thrilled, or worried.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/car-life/drive-video/the-downside-of-
electric-cars/article1808261/
(Of course this is just one of the downsides - EMFs even more important!)
______________________________
2. Open Letter to the Chief Medical Officer of Health for the

Province of Ontario
16 December, 2010
Dr Arlene King, MD, MHSc, FRCPC
Chief Medical Officer of Health for the Province of Ontario
Toronto, Ontario
Dear Dr. King;
RE: YOUR REPORT “THE POTENTIAL HEALTH IMPACT OF WIND TURBINES”
We are concerned about the process by which you reached the conclusion of your report
on wind turbines. We also note that the conclusion is not consistent with parts of the body
of the report.
Since the report is being widely used by the wind industry to justify its claim that there are
no adverse health effects from wind turbines on Ontario residents living near these
installations we fear that your report is misleading the public and we believe that the
misinformation contained in it should be corrected publicly at once. The basis for our
concerns is set out below. We would appreciate written answers to all our questions.
There is a huge problem with the process by which this report was produced. In fact, the
irregularities were grave enough to remove all medical credibility from the report itself. We
would like to know why you, in your role as Chief Medical Officer of Health, did not conduct
your investigation with medical and academic professionalism:
2
(i) Failure to investigate complaints of Ontario victims
First, your report appears to have been based almost exclusively on information supplied
by the wind turbine industry. It made no attempt to investigate independently the
complaints of patients actually suffering from the adverse effects of wind turbines in
Ontario. The King report incorporates an oversight of required professional process of the
most serious consequence in medicine. What physician would presume to overlook the
complaints of over 100 patients and not even take the trouble to interview them and
investigate their pathologies? Is that not medical incompetence? Will you explain this
failure of process of universally accepted medical protocol?
(ii) Adoption of the position of the CanWEA/AmWEA Expert Panel Report
Your report regurgitated most of the information already published in the

“CanWEA/AmWEA Expert Panel Report”, an industry commissioned and funded literature
search which denied even the scientific possibility of there ever being adverse health
effects from wind turbines. Such an absurd position is entirely inconsistent with the
scientific method or modern medical research. A failure of the proper process of
independent investigation expected of a medical professional, especially one holding an
office commanding credibility in the province, occurred when the report adopted what
could be construed as the industry spin. A comparison of the parallel phraseology of both
reports is self evident. We are asking you, as Chief Medical Officer of Health to explain this
failure of process which undermined the credibility of the office of the Chief Medical Officer
of Health in Ontario and internationally.
(iii) Loss of credibility because of selection of industry report principal author
Another failure of the universally accepted process for professional scientific investigation
appears to have been your failure to consider the possibility of bias on the part of your
appointees to the panel or to take into account their qualification for making judgements
on the adverse effect of wind turbines on human health.
For example, Dr. David Colby had already been the major author of the contentious
CanWEA/AmWEA Expert Panel Report. That report had attracted scorn from the
international medical community because of its incompetence. It was criticized in the
United Kingdom by the National Health Service for its incomplete and biased selection of
research information and because it had failed even to employ the opinion of an
epidemiologist, a standard in such reports.
Moreover, Dr. Colby had also already been advised by the Ontario College of Physicians
and Surgeons not to make public statements or allow anyone to believe that he had
expertise on the subject of wind turbine related health problems, since his expertise lies
not in this area but in the field of microbiology and infectious diseases. A report in the
Chatham Daily News had pointed out that Dr. Colby had previously appeared at an open
house on behalf of a wind turbine developer reassuring the public that there were no
harmful health effects from wind turbines.
The newspaper indicated that Dr. Colby had received an honorarium for his services on
that occasion. And no doubt, Dr. Colby had been compensated for taking part in the
industry sponsored panel report.
What is the definition of a conflict of interest? In terms of process, do we now accept that
our Medical Officers of Health should be using the credibility of their title to promote the
interests of a private corporation whose products have been widely alleged internationally
3
to be detrimental to the health of some members of the rural community? (Remember,
these allegations have occurred worldwide).
We need clarification as to what private activities (of such a controversial nature) the
public can expect our Medical Officers of Health to engage in and whether those activities
serve our interest in the protection of public health for which we employ them.
Was the process you followed not remiss in failing to investigate the actual qualifications
and private interests of your star panellist, Dr. Colby? Would it not have been in the
interest of unbiased scientific investigation to choose someone who had not already served
as the principal author of an industry commissioned report? This is another issue for which
we require an explanation.
(iv) Lack of scholarly rigour in researching available information
The King report has been criticized for its lack of academic rigour. A significant number of
important, recent, authoritative studies were ignored. For example, “Health Canada
advises…that there are peer-reviewed scientific articles indicating that wind turbines may
have an adverse impact on human health”.
In terms of process, it must be asked why, as Chief Medical Officer of Health, you failed to
make certain that the literature search claimed as the authoritative basis for the report
was, indeed, complete, peer reviewed and authoritative and represented a balanced
consideration of the issue and was not slanted in the interests of the industry? It should be
recalled that industry sponsored studies claiming the safety of their own product are
seldom credible. This was learned over many years from the tobacco industry.
Investigating the validity of data is an essential and customary process fundamental to

assure the integrity of research in every academic discipline. We require an explanation
from you for the failure of this universally accepted process in your report.
Attached below is an outline of the First International Symposium on the Global Wind
Industry and Adverse Health Effects held in October in Picton, Ontario. Numerous
independent scientists from several countries presented information that was already
available but never considered in your report. You and other government representatives
were invited to this conference. You did not attend nor did you send a representative. Is
this not a further failure of the investigative process the public would expect of a chief
medical officer of health who should be attempting to keep informed on this important
topic? Does it not undermine the credibility of your letter to the London Free Press dated
13 December 2010, which claims: “We will continue to monitor new scientific information
on this subject”. A web link to the actual reports from the conference is included below.
(v) Another accepted and customary process of academic research is the inclusion of
dissenting opinions in the final report of an expert panel.
Why were the dissenting voices of two of your panel ignored when they requested that
their minority opinion be included in the main report? Was this not a failure of process?
Your office claimed that the report’s conclusions were based on the majority opinion of the
panel. But surely there is a breakdown in acceptable process to exclude the views of the
one expert who had the greatest field experience with health complaints from wind
turbines and possibly the only one who had already had considerable contact with actual
victims? Or was it a government requirement that the report should be free from
dissenting opinion in the hope that it would reassure the public that no problems existed?
4
We are asking if your report was predetermined by the government.
(vi) Dissenting opinion
(a) Grey-Bruce Medical Officer of Health Hazel Lynn was probably the only person on the
panel who had as much actual first hand medical knowledge of the adverse health effects
on those suffering from the wind turbines since she has come into contact with dozens of
people in Grey and Bruce County who are currently suffering. (See Grey Bruce Health Unit
Board Report, September 17, 2010)
Here is her statement read recently at the Tara Town Hall Meeting:
“There is convincing evidence in the literature to conclude that, in some people, noise can
induce annoyance and disrupted sleep including difficulty falling asleep and sleep
interruption. (Public statement read at the Tara Town Hall Meeting, 30 September, 2010.)
Inadequate and disrupted sleep is associated with fatigue, cognitive impairment, increased
risk of obesity, impaired glucose tolerance, high blood pressure, cancer, depression and
impaired immunity. . . .This disruption from wind turbine noise is poorly predicted by
simple measurements of the physical properties of the noise. As this disturbance can
compromise health in susceptible individuals, care must be taken with respect to host
communities in the siting of wind turbine installations”. –Dr Hazel Lynn, (Medical Officer of
Health for Grey Bruce)
Dr. Lynn has also publicly stated that the 550 metre setback is not enough and that 5-
10% of those living even further from the wind turbines are being adversely affected.
She also told the Owen Sound Sun Times that “the final report glosses over the disruption
that the introduction of wind turbines can cause in a community.”
“The whole section that a couple of us really wanted in there on community health and
community disruption went. It’s not in there. I suspect politically she can’t criticize another
ministry, so I was a little disappointed,” Lynn said.
Did the CMOH decide to compromise the integrity of her report for political considerations?
(b) Ray Copes, MD, Director, Environmental and Occupational Health, Ontario Agency for
Health Protection and Promotion also requested that his dissenting voice be recorded in
the report. According to the Owen Sound Sun Times, Dr. Copes said:
“I think it’s a fair comment that there is other material that could have been in the report
and wasn’t,’ said Dr. Ray Copes, the director of environmental and occupational health at
the Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion and another member of the
committee that reviewed drafts of the report. Copes said there are ‘really important and
quite legitimate questions about wind farms that he and Lynn thought should be
discussed, but I guess the CMOH’s report wasn’t the place for it.”
As a matter of process, one has to ask then, where was the place for it if not an
investigation into the alleged adverse health effects of wind turbines? Why did the process
not allow “really important and quite legitimate” questions to be considered? The process
of scientific enquiry does not include the arbitrary disallowing of evidence.
Moreover it is worrying also to hear a dissenting voice even among the CanWEA/AmWEA
Expert Panel. In 2010 Geoff Leventhall, one of the panel members of the A/CanWEA Panel
Review was quoted as stating that “there was no doubt people living near the turbines
suffered a range of symptoms, including abnormal heart beats, sleep disturbance,
5
headaches, tinnitus, nausea, visual blurring, panic attacks and general irritability.…it’s
ruining their lives – and it’s genuine…”– Countryside News, Wind turbines set to get
bigger, January 28 2010
A more detailed analysis of the academic and scientific shortcomings of the King report can
be found on the web site of the Society for Wind Vigilance entitled Delay Denial and
Disappointment: An Analysis of the Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) of Ontario
We are also attaching our document, “Adverse Health Effects of Wind Turbines” to provide
further information, much of which was overlooked in your report.
We now request that you appear before the media to acknowledge the deficiencies of your
report in an attempt to re-establish public credibility in the office of Chief Medical Officer of
Health and undo the harm that has been done to the cause of those suffering the adverse
effects of industrial wind turbines.
Dr Robert Y. McMurtry, M. D., F.R.C.S.(C), F.A.C.S. has already been very specific in his
criticism of the failure of process in putting together your report:
“Health concerns from wind technology in Ontario must be addressed. These concerns
exist due to the inadequate implementation of Ontario’s renewable energy policy. Front
end health studies prior to establishing the renewable energy policy were not done.
Vigilance monitoring and long term surveillance programs to ensure safe implementation
were not established”.
“Volunteers for WindVOiCe© continue to conduct a vigilance health survey for new victims.
WindVOiCe© follows the principles of Health Canada’s Canada Vigilance, a post-market
surveillance program by which healthcare professionals and consumers report adverse
health effects suspected to be related to a product. This is mandatory for Market
Authorization Holders such as wind turbine manufacturers”.
“To date, one hundred and two Ontarians have reported adverse health effects from
industrial wind turbines and the number is climbing”.
“The Society for Wind Vigilance calls upon the government to halt further development of
industrial wind installations until a full independent, third-party study into the adverse
health effects of industrial scale wind technology is complete”.
“The recent RFP for noise specialists by Ontario’s Ministry of Environment indicates that
the technology and its affect on human health are not fully understood”.
“Ontario families cannot rely on protection from their government when turbine related
noise causes sleep disturbance leading to other adverse health effects. Clinicians and
medical experts must be independently appointed from outside the government and its
public health officers to protect Ontarians”.
Your report also failed to take into account one of the most important principles in
environmental legislation. The Bergen Declaration was signed by Canada in 1990. This
principle has become part of customary international law over the past 20 years. It clearly
states that “policies must be based on the precautionary principle. Environmental
measures must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation.
Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty
should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental
degradation”. Why was this principle which the 2008 Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Statement of Environmental Values requires to be part in its decision making to protect
human health and the environment, not given any consideration in your report? Surely this
is an oversight of the gravest consequence to the health of Ontarians whom, as Chief
Medical Officer of Health, you have an obligation to protect.
6
Your 13 December statement also notes that “the Ministry of Environment appointed a
Research Chair in Renewable Energy Technologies and Health earlier this year. Dr. Siva
Sivoththaman will advise Ontario on emerging technologies over the next five years
including on the potential health effects related to energy from wind turbines”. These are
hardly words that will reassure the public.
Dr Robert Y. McMurtry, M. D., F.R.C.S.(C), F.A.C.S. has already been very specific in his
criticism of the failure of process in this appointment. He has noted that “Dr Siva
Sivoththaman is an electrical engineer. While we wish him well, in our view Dr.
Sivoththaman’s professional background lacks the clinical expertise to evaluate ‘health
impacts of renewable energy associated with industrial wind turbines.’”
Dr. McMurtry goes on to point out:
“Throughout the RFP, the required expertise, experience and qualifications continued to
focus on renewable energy technologies. The health requirement appears to have been a
secondary consideration if it was considered at all. These concerns have been
communicated to the Ministry of Environment and the Chair of the Research Chair during
the selection process”.
Is Dr. Sivoththaman’s appointment not a contradiction of credible process on the part of

the government when such an investigation is totally beyond his area of professional
competence?
Professor Sivoththaman is a recognized expert in semiconductor materials, electronic

devices, and fabrication technologies with a major focus on photovoltaic (PV) energy
conversion. His activities in PV include the development advanced PV materials and
concepts for high performance, material-specific devices using thin-film and bulk
semiconductor technologies. Are you suggesting that such qualifications make him an
expert on epidemiology and the adverse health effects of wind turbines?
Since the report will take five years, by which time all the wind turbines will have been
built, it is a total waste of taxpayers’ money. Given the urgency of the suffering of those
adversely affected in rural Ontario, is it not a further flaw in process to promise
investigation but then delay the process seemingly indefinitely without explanation? (Bear
in mind that real people are being forced out of their homes, are being deprived of sleep
on a continuing basis and suffering serious physiological symptoms).
When can we finally expect to see results of the investigation by the Chair? What plan for
the investigation has been determined? Are we going to see a proper, timely medical
investigation of actual victims as is surely the appropriate process demanded by the
principles of scientific investigation, not another literature review of cherry picked
documents? Will you be recommending a moratorium on all further wind development
approvals until the Chair’s findings are available? When will we see a third party,
independent health study using professionally qualified medical personnel and
epidemiologists?
Will you, as Chief Medical Officer of Health now please have the courage to face the public
and explain the shortcomings of your report so that citizens of this province are no longer
mislead?
Yours sincerely,
Keith Stelling.
CC:
7
The Honorable Deborah Matthews, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care
Christine Elliott, Critic, Health and Long-Term Care Deputy Leader
France Gélinas, Critic, Health and Long-Term Care
Adam Orfanakos, Office of the Ombudsman
Bill Murdoch, MPP, Grey Bruce Owen Sound
John Yakabuski, MPP
Tim Hudak, MPP, Leader, Official Opposition
Andrea Horwath, MPP
Attachments:
1. Adverse Health Effects of Wind Turbines.pdf
2. Article by Joan Morris in Woodstock Beacon Herald
3. Summary of First International Symposium on the Global Wind Industry and Adverse
Health Effects
Attachment 2: Recent article in Woodstock Beacon Herald:
Asked if wind farms are safe, Wilkinson said, “Yes, and I say that if a wind farm is built in
the province of Ontario under the new, strict minimum distance setback and maximum
noise allowance setback, then according to the chief medical officer of health for Ontario,
Dr. Arlene King, they are indeed safe.”
If Mr. Wilkinson and Dr. King feel Ontario’s setbacks are strict, and standards are adequate
to protect health, perhaps they should have attended the International Symposium on
Wind Turbines and Adverse Health Effects October 29-31, where numerous independent
scientists from several countries demonstrated just the opposite.
Is it a coincidence that Ontario government and health officials did not attend this
symposium to expand their knowledge beyond the literature reviews they tout as ‘proof’
their policies could not be impacting health? Is it true they were told not to attend, as the
topics would not be ‘congruent with the government’s policy’? Obviously it is politically
expedient for the scientific evidence to be ignored by the current provincial government in
their rush to fill rural Ontario with wind turbines. We should all ask why they are hiding
from the truth – the effects being experienced in numerous communities already.
The evidence presented at the symposium by experts in ear physiology, sleep disorders,
noise, infrasound, and epidemiology clearly demonstrated the mechanisms by which
adverse health effects occur in proximity to wind turbines. Infrasound is a significant
component in the etiology of health effects being experienced, yet is completely ignored in
Ontario’s regulations. Results from a case-control study in the U.S. will soon be published,
showing a significant relationship between proximity to turbines and impacts on health,
using standardized, validated health measurements.
According to Carl Phillips, PhD (public policy, Harvard; professor of public health): ‘there is
overwhelming evidence that there are health problems from turbines near residences’.
According to Alec Salt, PhD, Professor of Otolaryngology, allowing turbines to be located

550 metres from people’s homes is ‘insane’.
The symposium presenters, attending on their own dime, assembled to share their findings
and scientific expertise in an effort to better understand the phenomena being observed in
wind turbine developments worldwide. They all shared genuine concern and a desire to
8
prevent harm. Dr. King, Mr. Wilkinson and our provincial government would do well to
follow suit. Our rural families deserve nothing less.
J. Morris, MHSc (Community Health & Epidemiology)
Woodstock ON
Attachment 3: Summary of The First International Symposium on the Global

Wind Industry and Adverse Health Effects.
The First International Symposium on the Global Wind Industry and Adverse Health
Effects, held this past weekend in Picton, brought together American, British and Canadian
acousticians, physicists, physicians, and medical researchers. The audience came from
across Ontario and the United States and from as far as Australia.
Our understanding of how wind turbines can affect human health is steadily increasing.
Since the facts often contradict the Ontario government’s and wind industry’s claims, it is
imperative that the CMOH clarify the current state of knowledge. For complete transcripts
please see Symposium Proceedings
1. Claim: Ontario’s regulations are the best in the world.

FACTS: Orville Walsh, CCSAGE chair and APPEC vice president, studied government
regulations in every country hosting wind turbines. The standards differ widely and most
are based on noise, not setback distances. Ontario’s noise level is 40 dbA, measured
outside a home. Countries, like Germany, with lower levels cite either 35 dbA or +3 dbA
above ambient sound.
Night time ambient sound in a rural area is typically 30 dbA or less. (On the dbA scale, the
ear can detect a difference of +/- 2-3 decibels and perceives 10 decibels as a doubling of
sound.)
2. Claim: The sounds heard from wind turbines are no louder than whispers or a
refrigerator.
FACTS: Dr. John Harrison, a physicist, explained that wind turbine sounds, especially the
“swoosh,” are different because of their amplitude and can exceed the 40 dbA regulatory
limit because turbine sitings are based on computer models, not live measurements.
Moreover, turbine noise is not masked by natural sounds and can sometimes be perceived
over great distances. Depending on weather conditions and cloud cover, a large
installation of wind turbines, such as those planned for Lake Ontario, could emit over 40
dbA of noise as far as 9-15 km away.
3. Claim: Wind Turbines do not produce low-frequency sound.

FACTS: Acoustician Rick James exhibited spectrograms of the sound coming from land-
based wind turbines in which the low-frequency component was substantial and could be
measured more than 5 km away. He also compared the symptoms of people suffering
from “Wind Turbine Syndrome” to the identical symptoms reported in the 1970’s and 80s
by those working in so called “sick buildings.” The latter problem was eventually identified
as due to infra low frequency sound (ILFN) transmitted through ducting.
4. Claim: People cannot detect infrasound.

FACTS: Dr. Alex Salt, a physiologist, described his recent research findings in which parts
of the inner ear reacted visibly to infrasound. His research shows that the ear does
respond to low frequency sound even though we do not perceive it as sound. Further
research will be required to understand how these impulses are transmitted to the brain,
with possible disturbance and detrimental effects.
9
5. Claim: Complaints about wind turbine noise indicate annoyance, which is harmless.
FACTS: Dr. Arline Bronzaft, a noise researcher, explained how daytime transit noise near a
New York City public school went well beyond annoyance and affected students’ academic
achievement. The effects of noise disturbance are not restricted to night time, and the
effects of noise on children can be profound, impacting development.
6. Claim: Wind turbine noise is harmless.

FACTS: Dr. Christopher Hanning, a specialist in Sleep Medicine, explained how noise can
disrupt the sleep patterns necessary for health and how loss of sleep affects memory and
thinking, and can lead in the long term to risks of diabetes and heart disease.
Dr. Nina Pierpont, a physician and researcher and author of Wind Turbine Syndrome,
explained how auditory systems react to sound and the negative effects of wind turbine
sound on the patients she has studied.
7. Claim: Wind turbine noise affects few people seriously.

FACTS: Dr. Michael Nissenbaum reported on his studies of people living near wind projects
in Mars Hill and Vinalhaven, Maine. Both studies indicate that residents within 2 km and
beyond, compared to a control group outside the project areas, suffered serious sleep
disturbance and stress.
8. Claim: Wind turbines are safe because no peer-reviewed studies prove otherwise.
FACTS: Dr. Carl Phillips, an epidemiologist, explained that clinical reports around the world
are sufficient evidence of adverse health effects and that wind industry denials reflect
misunderstanding of the stages of scientific inquiry and the value of peer review.
9. Claim: Wind development serves the public good.

FACTS: Carmen Krogh, board member of the Society for Wind Vigilance, applied the
concept of social justice to public health and presented testimonies from Ontario,
Germany, and Japan of people suffering from wind projects. Ontario rural residents are
dismayed, to put it mildly, that every government agency has ignored their plight.
10. Claim: Ontario’s Green Energy Act is unchallengeable.

FACTS: Lawyer Eric Gillespie outlined the legal actions Ontario residents can take against
wind development, including the appeal process for the Ministry of Environment’s
Renewable Energy Approval of projects. Appeals, however, must meet a high standard by
proving that harm to health is serious or harm to the environment is both serious and
irreversible. By contrast, the Ian Hanna case has only to prove scientific uncertainty about
the harm to human health.
11. Claim: Wind development saves lives by closing coal-burning electricity plants.
FACTS: Economist Dr. Ross McKitrick reported that Ontario’s air pollution has declined
steadily since the 1960s and that, according to data from government measuring stations,
coal-related emissions are no more than one part per billion. Statistics of 250 to 9,000
Ontario deaths annually related to coal burning are based on dubious computer models
from elsewhere; they are not founded on actual certificates of death. There is simply no
problem arising from coal on which wind energy development could have a positive effect.
12. Claim: Wind Energy Development is a solution to the Need for Electricity.
FACTS: Journalist Robert Bryce, author of Power Hungry: The Myths of Green Energy and
the Real Fuels of the Future, described society’s need for reliable electric power, not
intermittent, variable wind energy. Since there is no technology for mass storage of
electricity, the power produced from wind cannot contribute substantially to electricity
supply, let alone replace base load.
10
Considering the adverse health effects and practical limitations of wind energy, how is it
that wind development remains so popular? The answer lies in twenty years of social
marketing, environmental fears, and the false economic hope of green jobs. The
Symposium should make everyone question what the Ontario government and wind
industry would like us to believe.
Friends of Arran Lake

Wind Concerns Ontario
RR1 Southampton ON
Central Bruce Grey N0H 2L0
______________________________
3. How many cellular towers are there in Toronto?

Posted by Derek Flack / December 23, 2010
The number of cellular towers in Toronto is one of those strange and somewhat trivial
things that I wonder about once in while. About a month ago I wanted to know how much
it costs to rent Lower Bay Station, which turned out to be rather easy to find out. This
tower question, however, had been posing a bit of a problem until earlier today.
Although there are good Google-based maps that chart the locations of towers throughout
Canada and Southern Ontario, a bit of emailing revealed that the creators don't necessarily
track the total number of transmitters in each locality. But given that this is precisely what
interested me, I was resigned to the fact that I might just have to do some pain in the ass
counting.
11
Delivering me from this fate, however, is the a map that I've recently discovered by
Spatial Databox, "a web service that delivers location-based content to map-based client
applications." Unlike the other maps I've seen, the Spatial Databox uses data from
Industry Canada to offer numeric summaries for various regions that change in accordance
with the (virtual) distance from which one views the map.
So, case in point, when one is zoomed rather far out, it becomes clear that the GTA has
about 3676 cellular towers. Zooming in a bit, on the other hand, reveals that the city of
Toronto itself has 1193. But coolest of all is what one sees when he gets in really close:
12
areas where there are clusters of towers (see lead image). Now I'm not particularly
worried the potential health risks posed by the radio emissions emanating from these
things -- I've actually morphed into a half-computer/half-human hybrid since I started
writing for blogTO -- but for those who want to monitor such things, this map (and the
others like it) do more that just satisfy curiosity: they can be quite useful tools when
selecting a place to live.
Oh, and if you've ever wondered how many Starbucks there are are across the globe,
they've got that covered, too (see below). Now that's scary...
http://www.blogto.com/city/2010/12/how_many_cellular_towers_are_there_in_toronto/
______________________________
4. Cell phones - health risks debate continues

Published December 24th, 2010 in Children, General Interest, Health, Health News, Health
and Wellness, Life, Medical News, Parents, Popular
UCSF.edu - Heavy cell-phone use over many years may threaten one’s health, according
to well-known environmental activist, cancer epidemiologist, and author Devra Davis,
MPH, PhD, who spoke recently at a seminar on the UCSF Parnassus campus.
Pressing a cell phone against the ear, day-after-day, year-after-year, and exposing oneself
to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation at close range is not good for what’s
inside the head, Davis said, pointing to what she described as well-conducted, independent
epidemiological studies of heavy cell phone use, and to animal experiments.
Cell phone use can increase risk for malignant brain cancer and other tumors, including
acoustic neuromas and cancers of the salivary and parotid glands, according to Davis. She
13
noted other studies that suggest cell phone use may be linked to memory loss, insomnia
and inflammation, and to infertility in men. Cell phones alter brain waves in an
electroencephalogram (EEG), a test that measures and records the electrical activity of the
brain, Davis said.
A great percentage of the exposure to electromagnetic radiation could be eliminated by

keeping the cell phone away from the body. Exposure decreases exponentially with
distance. Davis, who still uses her cell phone, advised using a headset and not carrying the
cell phone in clothing pockets.
Davis, who earlier directed the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of
Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, where she was a professor of epidemiology in the Graduate
School of Public Health, left the university in 2007 to found the Environmental Health Trust
in Teton County, Wyoming.
Davis’ Cell Phone Views Are Controversial

Davis’ visit to UCSF on October 8, 2010 coincided with the publication of her new book on
cell phone risks, called “Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the
Industry has Done to Hide It, and How to Protect Your Family.” Davis was a National Book
Award finalist for an earlier book, “When Smoke Ran Like Water: Tales of Environmental
Deception and the Battle Against Pollution.”
As that earlier book title suggests, Davis is no stranger to challenging what she believes
are major corporations’ manipulations of health-risk research and their interpretations of
risk studies pertaining to their own products.
However, Davis’ views on cell phone dangers are controversial. She acknowledged that
most research has not found evidence for dangers due to cell phone use. But Davis argues
that most of the research has been industry-funded and biased, and that most of the
studies have not tracked the kind of heavy, long-term cell phone use that is so common
today.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established exposure standards based on

earlier research by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, in which thermal
effects were estimated using a fluid-filled model of the head of a large man.
However, the most significant biological effects due to cell phones result from non-thermal
effects, Davis said. In addition, most people are smaller, with smaller heads than were
used in the studies used by the FCC – especially children – and the biological effects on
smaller heads are greater, according to research cited by Davis.
On its website the FCC states that, “Those evaluating the potential risks of using wireless
devices agree that more and longer-term studies should explore whether there is a better
basis for radio-frequency safety standards than is currently used. The FCC closely monitors
all of these study results. However, at this time, there is no basis on which to establish a
different safety threshold than our current requirements.”
DNA Damage Due to Radio Waves

Davis noted during her talk that many scientists have dismissed the idea that exposure to
radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation may pose health threats. Unlike X-rays and
other forms of “gamma radiation,” radio waves are non-ionizing – they do not directly
break chemical bonds within molecules such as DNA.
But DNA is damaged indirectly by cell phone transmissions, according to Davis. Within
cells, she said, “There are alterations of fundamental processes by pulsed signals from cell
14
phones.” For instance, exposure can trigger production of harmful production of oxidizing
free-radical molecules. Davis presented research showing that radiofrequency
electromagnetic radiation does indeed damage DNA.
Experiments also find evidence for disruptions to the cell cycle, through which cells divide
and grow, and a decrease in the ability of cells to repair DNA, Davis said.
Davis noted the role of epidemiologic studies in demonstrating the health hazards of
tobacco and asbestos. She said it is a mistake to insist on a demonstration of a biological
mechanism of harm for proof. Epidemiologic evidence plus a biologically plausible
mechanism should be sufficient evidence to act upon, Davis said, and such evidence
already exists.
A cell phone that is turned on continually emits these pulses even when not in use.
Research suggests that pulsing the electromagnetic waves might be more harmful to
biological tissue than continuous exposure, Davis said.
Cancers may be triggered decades before they are diagnosed. Excess brain cancers among
survivors of atomic bombs dropped on Japan did not become apparent until more than 40
years later, Davis said. Children, whose cells and tissues are still developing quickly, may
be especially vulnerable – also evidenced by the high incidence and early onset of breast
cancers among atomic bomb survivors.
Cell Phone Restrictions Aim to Protect Children

Several countries have begun to restrict use of cell phones by pre-teens. Among them,
France also prohibits advertising cell phones to children and requires that they be sold with
earphones.
“Our children are the experiment,” Davis says. But with so many children using cell
phones, it may be difficult to find a control group that doesn’t use them.
Davis strongly encouraged epidemiologists in the audience to brainstorm research

proposals for unbiased studies to further investigate heavy cell phone use and subsequent
health impacts, and was optimistic that federal funding would be made available to fund
such studies.
Cell Phone Symposium Next Year

Stanton Glantz, PhD, the American Legacy Foundation Distinguished Professor of Tobacco
Control at UCSF, introduced Davis. Glantz has waged a similar battle to call attention to
the risks of second-hand tobacco smoke.
According to Glantz, “At this point, it is clear that there are important risks and that the
design, usage and marketing of these phones needs to be revised in light of this emerging
evidence.
“I already minimize my cell phone use and use a wired earpiece,” he added.
Davis’ visit to San Francisco on October 8 also coincided with a major meeting across town
at the Moscone Center, hosted by CTIA, the international association for the wireless
telecommunications industry. The meeting may be the last one CTIA schedules in the city.
The organization is suing to prevent enforcement of a law signed months ago by San
Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. That law requires that retailers display information on
how much radiation exposure each phone causes. There is no meaningful distinction
among phones that have been approved for sale, the trade group claims.
15
http://ihealthbulletin.com/blog/2010/12/24/cell-phones-health-risks/
______________________________
5. EMF-Omega-News
Dear Sir, Madam, Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends,
for your information.
Best regards,
Klaus Rudolph
Citizens' Initiative Omega
http://www.next-up.org/Newsoftheworld/OmegaNews.php
http://www.mastsanity.org/health.html
http://mast-victims.org/index.php?content=news&action=view&type=newsitem&id=2569
http://weepnews.blogspot.com/search/label/Omega%20News
Member of the Buergerwelle Germany (incorporated society)
Protectorate Union of the Citizens and Initiatives for the Protection against
Electrosmog
http://www.buergerwelle.de/cms/content/view/57/70/
RF EMR sources, safety standards, and research

http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/stories/1981/
Short-term memory in mice is affected by mobile phone radiation
What Mobile Phones do to our Health
Cancer Cluster Investigation St Michael's School

We need to get to the bottom of what mobile phones do to our health

THE LEGISLATOR'S GUIDE TO WARNING LABELS ON CELL PHONES

Legal challenge in regards to PG&Es usage of smart meters

Wi-fi in schools: an invisible threat?
Planet Irth
New mobile phone masts concern Putney Hill residents
London Borough of Putney in Battle With Mobile Phone Companies
A New York Township Panel Says No to Cell Phone Antenna Plan
16
No cell towers atop buildings without PMC's nod
Battling neighbours set for another mast fight
Next-up News Nr 1536
http://www.sharenews-blog.com:8090/helma/twoday/sharenews/stories/3824/
News from Mast Sanity
http://tinyurl.com/2vhcbl6
http://tinyurl.com/aotw3
______________________________
6. Voice For Hope

Prevention Today or Cure Tomorrow
The healers of planet earth have long been advocates of education, nutrition, prevention.
These are the foundations of true healthcare. Current health reform dialogues are still not
placing significant value on these important realities as integral and essential parts of our
health care solutions. Join Today
17
18
VOICE FOR HOPE is pleased to introduce WisdomFilms™, a powerful new tool to help
connect us with our inner wisdom. These films support our mission by putting healing tools
in the hands of individuals and also support VOICE FOR HOPE.
http://www.voiceforhope.org/
______________________________
6. Doing This During Pregnancy Can Cause a 40% Increase

in Behavioral Problems…
Posted by: Dr. Mercola | December 24 2010
19
Researchers have found evidence that when pregnant women use cell phones regularly,
their children are more likely to have behavioral problems.
The scientists examined data from 28,000 7-year-old children and their mothers. Children
whose mothers used cell phones while pregnant were 40 percent more likely to have
behavioral problems. If the children themselves used cell phones, this rose to a 50 percent
likelihood.
Reuters reports:
"[The researchers] tried to account for other possible causes, such as whether women who
used cell phones were different from women who did not, especially during the time of
their pregnancies when cellphone use was less common than it is now."
A separate study also found that a mom's behaviors during pregnancy can greatly
influence the future health of her child, Specifically, what you eat during pregnancy affects
your child's food preferences, because it helps to form their sense of smell, according to
the new study.
It turns out that a pregnant mother's diet shapes her child's brain development, sensitizing
her fetus to those particular smells and flavors.
According to the Hindustan Times:
"This makes the mother's diet more attractive to the child when they are older ...
Researchers studying mice found that the pups' sense of smell was changed by what their
mothers ate, teaching them to like the flavors in her diet.
At the same time, they found significant changes in the structure of the brain's olfactory
glomeruli, which processes smells, because odors in the amniotic fluid affect how this
system develops."
Sources:
Reuters December 6, 2010

Paging Dr. Gupta December 7, 2010
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health December 7, 2010
The Hindustan Times December 3, 2010
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences December 1, 2010
20
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Most moms-to-be have an intuitive sense that the choices they make during pregnancy
can impact their developing baby, and there is a great deal of research showing this
connection as well.
Your diet, stress levels -- even the choice of whether or not to use a cell phone -- all may
influence your newborn's health.
Why Pregnant Women Should Avoid Cell Phones

In 2008, researchers analyzed data from nearly 13,000 children and found that exposure
to cell phones while in the womb, and also as children, was linked to more behavioral
difficulties.
Pregnant women using handsets just two or three times a day was enough to raise the risk
of their babies developing hyperactivity and difficulties with conduct, emotions and
relationships by the time they reached school age -- and the risk became even greater if
the children also used the phones themselves before age 7.
The 2008 study revealed that mothers who used mobile phones were 54 percent more
likely to have children with behavioral problems. When the children also later used the
phones themselves, they were:
● 80 percent more likely to suffer from difficulties with behavior

● 25 percent more at risk from emotional problems
● 34 percent more likely to suffer from difficulties relating to their peers
● 35 percent more likely to be hyperactive
● 49 percent more prone to problems with conduct
This year the researchers looked at a larger group of children -- nearly 29,000 -- and also
considered additional variables that could be swaying the results, and the association was
found once again.
In the latest study, children whose mothers used cell phones while pregnant were 40
percent more likely to have behavioral problems, and this rose to 50 percent when the
children also used cell phones themselves. The researchers even accounted for family
history of behavioral problems, inattention of the mother, breastfeeding and time spent
with the child -- and the association remained.
Cell Phone Use is Not Worth the Risk During Pregnancy

It will be a long time before these findings are thoroughly explored or publicized, but in the
meantime you're better off playing it safe than sorry.
There is some speculation that cell phone use may cause women to secrete excess
amounts of melatonin, which influences metabolism of the mother and also potentially the
developing fetus' brain.
Animal studies have also shown that electromagnetic fields (EMF) in the cell phone
frequency range can affect liver enzymes, glands, muscles, hormone balance, and heart
and bone marrow. The cellular stresses caused by EMF may actually alter the DNA
structure of both you and your child.
Autonomic nervous system expert Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt has noted this radiation can
easily flip certain genes in the mitochondria. If this gene sequence is altered in a pregnant
woman, she can pass her damaged mitochondria on to her child. The child can then
21
develop a mitochondrial disorder, which can include muscular atrophy and severe
developmental problems.
The Importance of a Healthy Diet During Pregnancy

Obviously it's important to eat healthy while pregnant to make sure you're giving your
developing fetus enough vitamins, minerals, and other macro- and micronutrients. But
your diet impacts much more than that -- including your baby's future food preferences.
A new study from University of Colorado researchers found that a mother's diet sensitizes
her fetus to the smells and flavors of foods, and even alters development of brain regions
that process smells.
If you eat a diet rich in healthy foods, there's a good chance your baby will prefer healthful
foods too. In fact, it appears that eating healthy during pregnancy can "pre-program" your
baby's tastes for a healthful diet. But if you eat a high-sugar, highly processed food diet,
your child may be predisposed to preferring that type of diet, too.
The relatively new field of science called epigenetics helps explain how and why this
happens.
Epigenetics is the study of how environmental factors like diet, stress and maternal
nutrition can change gene function without altering the DNA sequence in any way. The
changes occur when a certain factor, such as your diet, changes the expression of a
certain gene or set of genes, essentially turning them on or off.
Researchers have found, for instance, that rat fetuses which received poor nutrition while
in the womb experienced epigenetic changes that primed them for a nutrition-poor
environment once they were born, thereby increasing their risk of health problems ranging
from diabetes and heart disease to obesity.
Previous research has shown that these changes can last for two generations or more,
meaning that even what your grandmother ate during pregnancy can have an impact on
your health now.
So you'll want to eat a well-balanced diet, with plenty of fresh produce and healthy meats.
One of the easiest ways to do this is by eating right for your nutritional type and also
following my comprehensive nutrition plan.
How to "Prime" Your Baby for Optimal Health

There are numerous ways you can help "prime" your future child's genes for health, rather
than disease. Here's a list of top strategies you should focus on integrating into your
lifestyle if you're pregnant or planning to become pregnant:
● Optimize Your Vitamin D Levels

If you or someone you know is pregnant, PLEASE make sure that you get your
vitamin D levels (25 hydroxy D) regularly checked during your pregnancy.
We know today that your levels need to be above 50 ng/ml to protect you and
your baby from some of the most serious complications of pregnancy such as
premature delivery and preeclampsia -- but most obstetricians will NOT
automatically check your levels for you.
Vitamin D is also essential for helping your baby’s brain develop properly, including
reducing the risk of autism.
22
Please do not assume that your levels have been tested with the routine
pregnancy blood work you receive. You will need to specifically ask to have your
vitamin D level tested. It is likely that it will be considered negligence or
malpractice to not check pregnant women’s vitamin D levels in the near future, but
for now it is not standard practice.
Ideally you should optimize your vitamin D levels by getting proper sun exposure
or using a safe tanning bed, but you can also use a vitamin D3 supplement as long
as you monitor your levels.
Your vitamin D status is dependent on several factors, such as the color of your
skin, your location, and how much sunshine you're exposed to on a regular basis.
The only accurate way to determine your optimal dose is to get your blood tested,
and then be aware that the reference ranges from the lab may say your levels are
normal when in fact they are still too low.
Again, you'll want to maintain a vitamin D level of at least 50 ng/ml and perhaps
as high as 80-90 ng/ml year-round.
For in-depth information about safe sun exposure, dosing and other
recommendations to safely and effectively optimize your vitamin D levels, please
watch my free one-hour lecture on vitamin D.
● Supplement with a High-Quality Animal-Based Omega-3 Fat, such as Krill

Oil
Omega-3 fats are absolutely vital for the complete development of your baby’s
brain, and they can help prevent premature delivery.
Omega-3 fat and its derivative, DHA (docosahexaenoic acid), is so essential to a

child's development that if a mother and infant are deficient in it, the child's
nervous system and immune system may never fully develop, and it can cause a
lifetime of unexplained emotional, learning, and immune system disorders.
I recommend krill oil as your best source of omega-3 fat because it is in a highly
absorbable, bioavailable form and does not go rancid the way most fish oil does. It
is also a pure oil that will not expose you to the mercury and other pollutants
found in most fish.
● Take a High-Quality Probiotic

If you are not eating a lot of naturally fermented foods, such as kefir or natto,
taking a probiotic supplement is important. Doing so during pregnancy and
breastfeeding may promote your immune system and reduce your risk of
premature labor, along with help protect your baby from allergies and eczema.
Probiotic supplements during pregnancy can also help women lose weight after
their child’s birth.
● Do Not Use a Cell Phone

As discussed earlier, a developing fetus may be particularly at risk from exposure
to cell phone radiation, so resist the urge to use a cell phone while pregnant.
Barring a life-threatening emergency, children should not use a cell phone, or a
wireless device of any type, either. Children are far more vulnerable to cell phone
radiation than adults because of their thinner skull bones and other factors.
● Do Not Get “Silver” Amalgam Fillings Removed While Pregnant
23
Canada advised dentists to stop placing amalgam in children and pregnant women
in 1996, but in the United States, they're still regarded as the "gold standard" of
dental care.
The mercury in amalgam fillings is a reproductive toxin and a neurotoxin that can
kill unborn children and cause permanent neurological harm to a child’s developing
brain.
For those of you who have mercury fillings, I recommend that you have them
removed – but do NOT do so while pregnant. When you have these fillings
removed you can be exposed to significant amounts of mercury vapors, especially
if the dentist doesn’t know what he or she is doing, and this could be detrimental
for your baby.
So wait until AFTER you give birth to have any mercury fillings removed.
In the event you need a filling while pregnant, do NOT get a silver amalgam filling.
Instead, see a biological dentist who can recommend a truly inert material that will
not harm your health or that of your developing baby.
● Exercise
Exercising during pregnancy is helpful both for you and your baby. Previous
studies have shown that, in general, women who exercise throughout their
pregnancies have larger placentas than their more sedentary peers.
The volume of your placenta is a general marker of its ability to transport oxygen
and nutrients to your fetus, so it stands to reason that having a large, healthy
placenta will lead to a healthier baby.
Exercise can also help with back pain, leg cramps and depression, while reducing
your risk of gallstones and preterm birth.
So unless you have some form of medical condition that is putting your pregnancy
at risk, regular exercise is a great idea for both mom and baby.
If you want even MORE tips on how to have a healthy pregnancy and give your baby the
best possible start to life, read my No-Nonsense Guide to a Naturally Healthy Pregnancy
and Baby.
http://emf.mercola.com/sites/emf/archive/2010/12/24/do-cell-phones-cause-behavioral-
problems.aspx
______________________________
7. UK Parliament Adjournment Debate - Mobile Phones

(Health Effects)
I received the following link from Alasdair Philips, Powerwatch UK

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=7279
SCROLL TO 7HR.06 mins approx (21:40 hrs) the adjournment debate is in the last 30 mins
of the session. Dr Devra Davis, Alasdair Philips and Powerwatch, Dr Lennart Hardell, Dr
24
Henry Lai, myself and the EM Radiation Trust are all mentioned. It is an honour to be
included amongst such great names.
Only a few MPs attended this important adjournment debate including my MP Bill Esterson.
However, it is an historic moment and could finally open up doors to further
communication.
News report: We need to get to the bottom of what mobile phones do to our health
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/20/mobile-phones-health-
companies-precaution-research
Also download the transcript from Hansard:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm101220/debtext/10122
0-0004.htm
Thanks to Lloyd Morgan for including yellow highlights to for sections he found most
interesting.
20 Dec 2010 : Column 1284
Mobile Phones (Health Effects)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Mr Dunne.)
9.41 pm
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab): Good evening Mr Speaker, and good evening
Minister.
It is a great testament to science and maths writers such as Ben Goldacre and Matt Parker
that no self-respecting politician can make speeches in the House of Commons without
taking heed of the science behind their contribution, so at the outset let me tell the
Minister that I am sure we both agree that public health decisions must be grounded in
scientific facts and that our public policy must be evidence based. As we have both read
around this subject, we will probably agree that there is no conclusive evidence to prove
the link between mobile phone use and brain cancer.
Let me contradict myself at the beginning of this speech by making an allegation for which
I have little factual evidence. From my experience of nearly a decade in the House, it is my
view that the more an industry or organisation wishes to hide something unpleasant or do
something unpopular, the more lobbyists it employs to talk to MPs. The $1 trillion telecoms
industry hires a lot of lobbyists.
I do not seek to persuade the Minister that there is a link between brain cancer and the
radiation emitted by mobile phones, but I want to convince her to take a sceptic's eye to
the recommendations before her in future public policy. A number of scientists and
epidemiologists believe that although there is no certainty that mobile phone use causes
tumours, there are ample causes for concern. At the very least, I ask her to look at the
work of Siegal Sadetzki or the earlier work of Allan Frey, and to read "Disconnect", a
recently published book by Devra Davis, and the work of Henry Lai.
Some of those scientists and writers challenge the conventional thinking in the telecoms
industry. I make no apology for giving their case a hearing in the Chamber tonight,
although I accept that they are not the only voices in the debate. I should like to tell the
25
Minister first why the industry needs to put a greater emphasis in its communications to
consumers on the potential risks that mobile handsets cause, and secondly, why I am
concerned about independent research. I shall also outline what I think needs to be done
to remedy those two problems.
The Minister is new to her post, but she could make a big difference to public policy before
she gets that promotion that I am sure she deserves in the imminent reshuffle that we
read about in the papers. The mobile industry is big business and an important player in
the UK economy. Ofcom's most recent figures from its communications market report
show that operator-reported retail revenue currently totals £30.4 billion. Mobile retail
revenues are £14.9 billion; mobile voice call minutes amount to 118 billion; data volumes
over mobile networks increased by 240% in 2009; and more than 96 billion text messages
and 600 million picture messages were sent in 2009. The Office for National Statistics
estimates that mobile phone ownership has increased from 65% in 2001 to 81% in 2009
and, worldwide, 5 billion people are using mobile phones. In the UK, that means that there
are now more mobile phone connections than there are people-an estimated 80 million.
One of the key concerns of scientists such as Devra Davis is labelling. She says that the
labelling of phone products in store, online and in the literature a person receives with
their phone is woefully inadequate. I also accept the case from statisticians such as Matt
Parker who disagree with me. Matt told me today:
"The only basis for precautionary labelling mobile phones would be on a hunch. There is no
evidence for it. Of course we should continue research, and make sure it is independent
and unbiased, but there is no need to give people the impression that they should alter
their use of mobiles when there is absolutely no basis for it".
Yet the mobile phone companies themselves provide precautionary advice-it is just difficult
to find it. If someone wanted to make a judgment on whether to purchase a phone based
on its specific absorption rate, which indicates how much electromagnetic radiation is
absorbed by body tissue while using a mobile phone-the higher the SAR, the more the
radiation is absorbed-or on how close to their head they can hold the phone, they could
not do so at the point of sale, because the information is simply not there. It is not
available on the shop floor or at the click of a button online.
I suspect that most sales staff would not be able to recommend which phone a consumer
should buy based on its radio frequency exposure either. Yet we know that the legal
departments of mobile phone manufacturers are all now slipping into the fine print a
warning about holding a phone against the head or body. That, in itself, is not enough, and
they are not giving this information enough prominence in their literature. Why are the
manufacturers printing these warnings, after years of denying that there was any risk of
radiation, if they are of the view that there is no cause for concern? Apple, for example,
suggests that users of the iPhone should keep about five eighths of an inch between the
handset and the head. Research in Motion-the manufacturer of the BlackBerry-is even
more cautious, saying that people should keep a distance of about an inch.
For the average user, those warnings require a magnifying glass to read. They are usually
in point 8 font size or below and make up part of the little slip tossed aside when a phone
is unpacked. If someone managed to struggle through any of these booklets and reached
the advice, they would be one of only a handful of people ever to have managed it. How
many people even know that radio frequency exposure comes from the phone's antenna?
Not many, I suspect. How many people know that this exposure is stronger when a phone
is kept in clothing, which weakens the signal, causing the power to increase? How many
people know that it is recommended, if mobiles are carried on belts or in pockets-
26
[Interruption.] I am sorry, would the Whip, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), like
to get in? Is he seeking to intervene? No?
How many people know that it is recommended that if mobiles are carried on belts or in
pockets, the liquid crystal display and keypad should face towards the body? The fact is
they do not. Hardly anyone knows what advice is given on the use of handsets. Although
all phones sold in the UK fall within the SAR guidance of 2 W per kilogram in 10 grams of
tissue for electromagnetic radiation absorbed, most users would probably be shocked to
learn that each handset differs and that the manufacturers give different guidance on
using phones.
Improved labelling has support among many academics and organisations, such as the EM
Radiation Research Trust, which was brought to my attention by my hon. Friend the
Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), and Powerwatch.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab): Like me, Mr Speaker, you have young children. Also
like me, you will be concerned if there is compelling evidence of the dangers of mobile
phone handsets or masts. My constituent Eileen O'Connor, of EM Radiation Research Trust,
has drawn to both my attention and that of my hon. Friend the strong evidence that exists
of the dangers of electromagnetic radiation, particularly to children. Does he support calls
for the Government to investigate the safety of mobile phone handsets and masts, and
either to issue stronger guidance or to legislate on the basis of that evidence?
Mr Watson: Yes, and I am going to make the case that the science should leave no stone
unturned. If my hon. Friend lets me develop my argument, I am sure that he might want
to comment on it later.
Improved labelling has support among many academics and organisations. For example,
Alasdair Philips from Powerwatch has stressed to me that safety advice should be included
in an obvious position, such as the "Getting started" section of a new phone booklet, not
buried in the back pages of the manual. I cannot vouch for those organisations, but they
are entitled to have their voices heard in this House. It is often hard for independent
organisations to be heard above the cacophony of voices from telecoms lobbyists.
We might even need to go one step further. The Government should consider the merits of
obliging manufacturers to place health advice and SAR ratings on the outside of handset
boxes. Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich is pressing Congress to look at passing a similar
law. He summed up his thoughts perfectly when he recently said:
"Until we know for sure, a labelling law will ensure that cellphone users can decide for
themselves the level of risk that they will accept...mobile phone companies should not be
the ones making that decision for us."
San Francisco aims to become the first city in the USA to require large wireless retailers to
display a device's SAR rating prominently. The regulation will come into force at the start
of February next year. Lawmakers in Oregon and in Californian cities are considering
similar steps. Around the world, other nations are extending the cautionary approach.
The German Government, for example, has introduced the Blue Angel phone label. In
order for mobile phone manufacturers to be able to display the BA sign on their products,
their SAR ratings must not exceed 0.6 W per kilogram. Although the German
Government's current safe limit is in line with the EU level of 2 W per kilogram, it is
perhaps the first recognition that the EU's rating is already much more lenient than that of
the US, Canada or New Zealand. In Germany, the Federal Office for Radiation Protection
publishes the SAR ratings of all mobile phones on sale in Germany. Why not put the
ratings on our direct.gov website, so that British consumers who are interested in the issue
27
can get the facts? The bottom line is that consumers should be given enough information
about SAR levels to allow them to make an informed purchasing choice. At the moment,
they cannot do that. This Government believe in transparency, and I applaud them for
that. I believe in the power of information. The Minister can ensure that consumers are far
better informed about the science around their mobile phones, should they be interested.
On the risks of mobile phones, thousands of studies have been published in scientific
journals, forming the basis for systematic reviews by health agencies. The balance of
evidence to date would suggest that there are no short-term established adverse health
effects on the brain from mobile phones. To pretend that the long-term effect of exposure
to such devices over more than a decade is known, however, is false. It is not known, and
the matter will not be settled until the science leaves no stone unturned. Despite the
mobile phone lobby's claim otherwise, many key and respected studies have suggested
that there may well be a link between mobile phones and brain cancers. Although such
studies do not identify a causal link, they insist that further research is warranted and
emphasise the need for caution in public policy making. As far back as 2000, for example,
the Stewart report said that the use of mobile phones is not totally
"without potential adverse health effects".
Although Sir William's report said that there was no evidence of a health risk to either
adults or children at the time, it said that children should be discouraged from making
"non-essential" calls until further research had been completed.
Bill Esterson: My hon. Friend seems to be saying that there is strong evidence that is
worthy of further investigation. He mentioned the fact that manufacturers give warnings,
but that they are sometimes difficult to find. Does he think the manufacturers issue those
warnings to cover themselves legally, just in case there is a problem, or perhaps because
they have strong evidence? Does he agree that, either way, it is imperative that the
Government take action now?
Mr Watson: An optimist would say that they are adopting the precautionary principle in
regard to health. A pessimist might say that they are adopting such a principle because of
possible legal cases. Either way, they are not doing enough to provide clear packaging.
The doubts about the long-term health impacts of mobile phones continue to be
highlighted by the Department of Health's own guidance, to which I am sure the Minister
will refer. Many parents are probably not even aware of the guidance, however. It states
that children should
"use mobile phones for essential purposes only"
and
"keep calls short-talking for long periods should be discouraged."
This advice was influenced by the Stewart report.
We also had the National Radiological Protection Board's report, "Mobile phones and
health", in 2004. That review updated Stewart, and its main conclusion was that there was
no hard evidence at present that the health of the public had been adversely affected by
the use of mobile phone technologies. The report does, however, state that some
uncertainties remain and that a continued precautionary approach to the use of mobile
phones is recommended until the situation is clarified. Following the publication of that
report, Sir William Stewart himself said:
"The fact is that the widespread use of mobile phones is a relatively recent phenomenon
and it is possible that adverse health effects could emerge after years of prolonged use.
28
The evidence base necessary to allow us to make firm judgements has not yet been
accumulated".
The report's findings make it clear once again that this is not a settled issue.
Further research, such as the 2004 Karolinska Institute study, published worrying findings
on a link between mobile phones and ear tumours. The institute's research suggested that
using a mobile phone increased the risk of acoustic neuroma by 3.9 times on the side of
the head on which the phone was used. There was no increase on the other side of the
head, giving an overall rise in risk of 1.9 times. The report went on to conclude that
regular mobile phone use over a decade or more might increase the risk of benign
tumours. Like the Stewart report and the NRPB report, the Karolinska Institute's study
makes it clear in its findings that this is not a settled issue. Further research is needed.
Well-respected epidemiologists such as Dr Lennart Hardell of Orebro university in Sweden
have also found that links between mobile phones and cancer might exist.
Bill Esterson: Since my constituents drew this matter to my attention, I have looked into
the details, as my hon. Friend has done. I have reached the conclusion that it is important,
as a parent, to take precautions and to restrict the use of mobile phones by children in
anything other than an emergency. I urge the Government to take that point seriously,
even at this stage, as well as taking on board all the other points that my hon. Friend has
made about carrying out further investigations.
Mr Watson: Even with my own beloved children-my five-year-old and my two-and-a-half-

year-old-I sometimes have to persuade them not to grab my mobile phone. The
precautionary principle should apply, but it is very hard for parents. This is why public
information is very important.
As I was saying, Dr Hardell, in his study "Long-term use of cellular phones and brain
tumours: increased risk associated with use for 10 years", has reviewed epidemiological
studies that found that phone users had an increased risk of malignant gliomas. In
carrying out his review, he found a link-although not a causal link-between phone use and
a higher rate of acoustic neuromas. He also found that tumours were more likely to occur
on the side of the head that the handset was used. His study indicated that one hour of
cell phone use per day significantly increased tumour risk after 10 years or more. He also
makes the case that this is far from a settled issue.
In May, the hotly anticipated Interphone report for the World Health Organisation
suggested that those who engage in heavy phone use could be at risk, but stopped short
of establishing any firm links from the data. The Interphone study is the largest study to
date into phone use and head and neck tumours.
Although there were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure
levels, the report went on to state that
"The possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones require further
investigation."
The research team was divided on its findings-
10 pm
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.- ( Mr Dunne .)
Mr Watson: That is a quaint tradition in the House, Mr. Speaker. I had forgotten that I had
to engage in it when I was a Whip.
29
The fact that the research team was divided on its findings did not prevent the UK-based
GSM Association, which represents the global mobile phone industry, from deciding that
the report supported a consensus that there was "no established health risk", while
deriding what it considered to be errors in the report.
Despite what the mobile phone lobby continues to tell us, all those studies have one thing
in common. The issue of whether mobile phone use increases the risk of brain cancers
remains open. The link between phones and cancer may turn out to be like Creutzfeldt-
Jakob disease, in the case of which our original fears did not come to fruition, or it may
turn out to be like the link between tobacco and lung cancer. The truth is that we simply
do not know. Further independent research over a longer period is needed. At this point I
must issue a statistics health warning. Matt Parker has implored me to make it clear that
we will never reach the point of saying, "Mobile phones do not cause cancer"; there will
merely be more and more studies showing that there is no reason to believe that they do
not.
I suspect that one academic who would challenge Matt's view that we should only act if the
numbers tell us to do so is Dr Devra Davis, author of the brand-new book "Disconnect". If
the Minister has not yet had a chance to read Davis's book, I urge him to do so. Former
United States Assistant Health Secretary Philip Lee has described it as
"A critically important book that is a must-read for parents and policy makers. A
surprising, well-documented, and compelling call for action."
Dr Davis specialises in the way in which the environment affects our health. She has
previously written books stating that the tobacco industry was not initially honest about
the links between cigarettes and cancer, and that the debate in Britain about the dangers
of asbestos lasted for a century. She insists that the mobile phone industry has behaved in
the same way, working-often with Government help-to discredit independent scientists,
while ensuring that others toe the line for fear of losing their funding. She says in her
book:
"Those studies that have been paid for by the industry tend to find that there's not a
problem. Studies that are independent-while there are fewer-tend to show there is a
problem. I don't think that's an accident. This has had a chilling effect on the ability of
policy-makers to form policy."
Dr Davis's worry about just how independent some of those studies are is backed up by
others, including such noted people as the well-respected Henry Lai, a research professor
at the University of Washington. Lai began laboratory radiation studies in 1980, and found
that rats exposed to radio frequency radiation had damaged brain DNA. He maintains a
database of a further 400 scientific papers, from different academics, on possible biological
effects of radiation from wireless communication.
Significantly, Lai has found that 67% of studies without industry funding show some
biological effect of radiation from wireless communication, compared with only 28% of
studies that receive some form of industry funding. "That's not trivial," he recently told
The New York Times. Like Dr Davis, Lai has been pressing for the commissioning of more
non-industry research, not only on brain cancer but on other possible biological and health
effects. The voices of Davis and Lai should be heard in the debate in the UK. Davis in
particular has highlighted the distortion of research during the last decade by a "show me
the bodies" approach to the evidence. I believe that there may well be merit in their
arguments.
As they say, it may simply be too early to expect mobile phone users to develop brain
tumours. Davis also highlights in her latest book, "Disconnect", how when the Hiroshima
30
bomb survivors were tested after 10 years, researchers found no evidence of brain cancer,
yet some 30 years later an abundance of cases were found. While the mobile phone
industry may point out that the official statistics show that the incidence of brain cancer
has changed relatively little, the absence of any epidemic right now is not an argument for
complacency.
At present, we are awaiting the outcome of the cohort study on mobile communications
and health-COSMOS. It differs from previous attempts to examine links between mobile
phone use and diseases such as cancer and neurological disorders in that it will follow
users' behaviour in real time. Most other large-scale studies have focused on asking people
already suffering with cancer or other diseases about their previous mobile use. They have
also been conducted over a shorter time frame. While the COSMOS study will look at long-
term use over 10, 20 and 30 years, I think we need to be reassured that it will be properly
independent. At present, COSMOS is being funded by the Mobile Telecommunications and
Health Research Programme, a UK body that receives hefty funding from the industry as
well as Government.
In addressing some of the shortcomings, I have highlighted a lack of independent

research. I believe the Government must pressurise mobile phone companies to set up an
independent fund for research that has the full confidence of all interested parties. This
fund should support academics and allow them to examine the risks without interference.
Academics and researchers should not be fearful of having funding withdrawn based on
what the outcome of their work might be.
Setting up a truly independent fund for research is the least these companies can do given
their huge profits. Vodafone already stands accused of £6 billion in tax avoidance, just as
the NHS and the rest of the public sector is facing massive budget cuts. The phone giant
may have denied the claims, but it has now become a symbolic target for protests against
the coalition's cuts. The UK Uncut campaign, organised through Twitter against Vodafone,
continues to attract demonstrations at stores across the country. While no Members would
support breaking the law, we can all understand why Vodafone's consumers feel very
angry at its current tax arrangements.
The Government should not let themselves be pushed around by telecoms lobbyists. It is
time the Government took back the 900 mHz-the low frequency-spectrum that they gave
to Vodafone and O2 for nothing in the 1980s. When a similar section of spectrum was sold
in Germany it raised £2.9 billion, roughly the equivalent of the cuts made to higher
education this year. We can get a lot of independent university research with that kind of
money.
To conclude, I hope I have shown the Minister the following things. Labelling and
packaging is inadequate and guidance is buried too deeply in the small print of packaging
booklets. Also, the widely held view among manufacturers that mobiles are safe is not yet
beyond doubt, as I hope I have shown with reference to the major studies; virtually every
piece of major research is inconclusive or recommends further study. An independent fund
would also give academics and researchers the confidence that future funding would not
be withdrawn based on the outcome of their findings. The mobile industry should use its
huge profits to make a sizeable contribution towards putting this into practice.
When I applied for this debate, I thought that the House's main business might finish early
today. Notwithstanding the eagerness of the Whip to get home, that perhaps allows me to
add one additional point as this debate is entitled on the Order Paper, "Effect of mobile
phones on human health". This week, I talked to a man who nearly broke down in tears
when he explained to me that his privacy had been violated by a rogue private investigator
31
listening to his mobile phone messages for a News International newspaper. Phone
hacking had affected his mental health.
Illegal hacking has caused great distress to those in the privileged position to know
whether they were one of the potential 3,000 targets of the News of the World-for that is
what one of the investigating officers in the Mulcaire/Goodman case admitted last week.
Like me, the victims express amazement that nearly every tabloid newspaper in the United
Kingdom failed to report that A-list Hollywood actor, Sienna Miller, was the victim of a
phone hack. The distress caused to her by mobile phones speaks for itself. The victims
were amazed not to read in every national newspaper that Take That front man Robbie
Williams no longer uses a mobile phone because he was sick of being hacked. They are
asking questions and they will find peace of mind only when they know that their mobile
phone is secure and that everything has been done to investigate their case.
With more News of the World executives implicated in the scandal only last week, with the
admission that News International is paying the legal fees of the Prime Minister's director
of communications and with the Information Commissioner saying only last week that he
will investigate the loss of potentially significant personal data, is it not time that the
Government asked another police force-one other than the Met-to take up the case? The
former Metropolitan police investigating officer now works for News International. Justice
must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. It is now absolutely clear for all to see
that leads have not been followed up and that whistleblowers have been intimidated into
retracting their public statements. The only way that these mobile phone victims will get
peace of mind is for another police force to take over the inquiry and undertake a thorough
review of the old and brand new evidence.
10.11 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton): I congratulate the
hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) on securing this debate. I know that he
takes a particular interest in this and all other matters of technology, both nationally and
in his constituency. He is absolutely right to say that we must heed scientific fact, but his
insight into reshuffles is perhaps lacking in a certain degree of fact-or perhaps he knows
something that I do not, from sources unknown. However, I wish to thank him for his
flattering comments.
At the last count there were a staggering 80 million mobile phones in the UK, and the
number is still rising steadily. More than 12 million people own a smartphone in order to
access the internet and other web-based technologies. The benefits of mobile phones are
clear in terms of social networking and rapid communication, and they help people to feel
safer and in touch. They are also a way of including people. I feel more comfortable
knowing that my children have mobile phones and that I can contact them, as they can
me, wherever they are. I am sure that my parliamentary office would say the same about
contacting me, particularly during the recess.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that mobile technology has also raised significant
health worries. Many people are extremely concerned about the effect of electromagnetic
radiation from phones, and we should understand and acknowledge those worries. We
should answer them on the basis of the evidence and we should ensure that appropriate
protections are in place, so that not only is everyone safe, but everyone feels safe-and the
hon. Gentleman has demonstrated that that is not necessarily the case.
Bill Esterson: The planning Green Paper that the Conservatives published before the
election stated that the party would
32
"review potential health issues related to mobile phone masts in the light of ongoing
scientific research."
Can the Minister tell us how that review is going, and if a similar one is being carried out
on handsets?
Anne Milton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but may I suggest that he
may be jumping the gun a little? I have only been speaking for about two minutes, and I
will come to all those issues if he gives me a bit more time.
The independent expert group on mobile phones and health was set up in 1999, partly as
a response to public concern. It was tasked with reviewing the health effects of mobile
phone technology. As a newly elected councillor, I was acutely aware of the considerable
concerns among people in my ward at that time. As has been mentioned, the group was
chaired by Sir William Stewart, the former chief scientific adviser to the Government. Its
report was published in May 2000.
The report was based on a thorough review of scientific evidence on the health effects of
mobile telephones and it took account of work in progress, alternative views on the science
and public opinion, which at that time was considerably concerned about those effects. In
2004, the then National Radiological Protection Board reviewed the evidence again-the
hon. Member for West Bromwich East mentioned this-and reiterated Stewart's
recommendations, in particular the recommendation that a precautionary approach should
be adopted. Current Government policy on mobile phones is based on the Stewart report
and its recommendations. The headline conclusion in the Stewart report was that
"the balance of evidence to date suggests that exposures to"mobile phone "radiation
below" national"guidelines do not cause adverse health effects."
The report was referring to the National Radiological Protection Board national guidelines,
which were in place at the time. It is none the less important to note that Stewart
recommended that as a precautionary measure the guidelines should be replaced by more
restrictive international guidelines.
In recognition of the incomplete scientific knowledge and significant public concern,

Stewart made other precautionary recommendations. For example, he recommended that
the widespread use of mobile phones by children for non-essential calls should be
discouraged. As the hon. Gentleman said, however, warnings are difficult to find, and the
small print is very small. I suspect that many people these days are unaware of that
guidance. I shall return to the question of scientific evidence in a minute.
The Government accepted the advice of the Stewart report and followed a precautionary
approach, and most of the recommendations were implemented in full. On Stewart's
recommendation, we moved to stricter international guidelines for exposure. Along with
other member states, the UK supports the European Council recommendation to limit
exposures to electromagnetic fields, which incorporates international guidelines. By 2001,
industry, Government Departments and their advisers were working to the new exposure
guidelines for mobile phone technology, so now all mobile phones and base stations
comply with the guidelines.
An important development following the Stewart report was the setting up of a new
research programme in this country-the mobile telecommunications and health research
programme, or MTHR. Research has been carried out at centres throughout the country
under the management of an independent programme management committee. It is
important to mention that it is independent. In 2007 MTHR published a report from 23
completed projects. Since then, further work has been published from the programme.
33
MTHR is a very high-quality research programme and none of the research so far has
shown that radio frequency emissions from mobile phones affected people's health-at least
in the short term, although that is obviously not the end of the story. The lack of long-
term data, however, has been noticed by MTHR, the World Health Organisation and other
regional and international advisory committees. It is also being addressed by an
international cohort study on mobile phone use and health known as COSMOS, to which
the hon. Member for West Bromwich East referred.
The UK forms a key part of the study, and our participation is funded under the MTHR
programme. I understand that the COSMOS study aims to follow the health of
approximately 250,000 European mobile phone users for up to 30 years. It is a very
thorough process. COSMOS will consider any changes in the frequency of specific
symptoms, such as headaches and sleep disorders, over time as well as the important
risks of cancers, benign tumours and neurological and cerebrovascular diseases.
The Department also supports the World Health Organisation's international

electromagnetic fields project, which encourages research focused on specific gaps in our
knowledge. There is no doubt that there are considerable gaps in our knowledge at this
stage. Apart from the accident risk from using mobile phones when driving, present
knowledge indicates no proven risk to health from mobiles, except of course in the easy
access that one has to home delivery pizzas and the possible impact on our daily calorific
intake, which cannot be ignored.
Let me address for a moment mobile phone base stations, which are often called masts.
When I first entered politics as a local councillor, that was one of the subjects that caused
most concern. Masts provide the communication links by radio waves to handsets, allowing
connection to the rest of the telephone system and the wider world. Mobile phones need
this infrastructure to function, and it is this infrastructure that has caused so much concern
in the past. On masts in particular, Stewart concluded that on the balance of evidence
there is no general risk to the health of people living near masts, on the basis that
exposures are expected to be very small. However, it is of note that in that connection,
too, he recommended a precautionary approach. It was interesting to learn from the
Stewart report that the levels of radio frequency exposure from masts, which people
thought were likely to be high, were much lower than those from mobile phone handsets
held near the head. Indeed, yearly independent audits have shown that mast exposures
are well below the international guidelines-in many cases tens of thousands or more times
below.
The MTHR also reaffirmed that exposures from base stations were very much lower than
international guidelines. An MTHR study specifically looked to see whether short-term
exposure to radio frequencies from masts could affect people's health. Although some
people attribute their ill-health symptoms to mobile phone base stations-the hon.
Gentleman raised this issue-the MTHR peer-reviewed study found no convincing evidence
so far that their symptoms were caused by exposure to signals from mobile phones or
masts. But, of course, we should not and shall not be complacent: we must continue to
keep the science under review. The Health Protection Agency keeps us informed of the
science in this area, and its independent advisory group on non-ionising radiation is
currently reviewing worldwide scientific studies on radio frequency emissions as part of its
regular review cycle, and will report in one to two years' time.
Mr Watson: I am grateful to the Minister for her very gracious answer to my rather long
presentation. Does she think there are merits in opening up discussion with the industry
on how they can improve their packaging advice and how we can improve public
education, particularly for young mobile phone users?
34
Anne Milton: Yes, the hon. Gentleman's point is well made. As I have said, most people
are unaware of the guidance available, and the small print is often extremely small.
I am aware of the ability of large and powerful vested interests to lobby, often very
successfully. There are, without doubt, eye-wateringly large amounts of money at stake in
the mobile communications industry. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am old enough
and cynical enough to apply at all times an appropriate level of scrutiny and cynicism to all
information that comes my way-always seeking to find out whence it came and who paid
for it. He is right to say that no stone must be left unturned, but the problem is to
establish causality. That is why, with ongoing and international studies, following a cohort
is essential. We must base any Government action on robust scientific evidence. He is also
right to say that it matters who funds research, and I assure him that I will not be pushed
around, and I will keep my level of cynicism. However, I cannot comment on phone
hacking; he must address those comments to another Minister on another occasion. Within
my own portfolio, I will keep my eye on what is going on. As I say, I look forward to the
report of the HPA's independent advisory committee in one or two years' time.
Let me conclude by saying that the Government take extremely seriously public concern
over possible health risks from mobile phone technology, as they do all threats. There is a
particular issue in that we are aware that health effects might not become apparent for 10,
20 or even 30 years. It is important to remain vigilant and to keep this matter at the top
of our list of priorities. We will continue to respond to people's concerns and to support
those high-quality scientific studies, both nationally and internationally, in an honest, open
and transparent way, being clear at all times where the vested interests lie. I thank the
hon. Gentleman for raising this issue, which is of concern to so many people.
Question put and agreed to.
10.25 pm
House adjourned.
Eileen O'Connor
Director
EM Radiation Research Trust
http://www.radiationresearch.org
______________________________
8. Owen Veterinarian Fights Xcel Energy Over Electrical

Pollution
Friday, December 17, 2010
I interviewed Dr. Pamela Jaffke, a veterinarian in Owen, Wisconsin, who is suffering

because of the bullheadedness of her utility company, Xcel Energy. They, along with the
other state power companies and the Public Service Commission, refuse to take action to
improve the safety of their product in spite of the continuous stream of health complaints
like Dr. Jaffke's over the years.
It is time for the Wisconsin utilities to stop releasing their voltage trash - known as
transients and harmonics - into the ground, and upgrade the system statewide to protect
people, and not just cows, from exposure to biologically harmful ground currents.
35
.........................................................................
I'm not after money. I don't care if Xcel would give me a million dollars right
today. That's not going to buy my cat's health. That's not going to buy my health.
--Pamela Jaffke
.........................................................................
Since realizing she was electrically sensitive, Dr. Pamela Jaffke, a dairy veterinarian in
Owen, has worked to make her house safe. Stetzerizer filters helped a bit, but were unable
to bring the electrical pollution levels down far enough. "The only thing that made things
truly livable, I just unhooked the neutral from the water main," she says.
Then her home's electrical pollution levels spiked November 1 following some work to the
sewer pipes, which stopped them from carrying the ground currents, and she and her cat,
Magic, were hit hard with debilitating symptoms. "It was an absolute disaster for both of
us and it's continued that way," says Jaffke, who has Multiple Sclerosis, and gets painful
tingling in her legs from this electrical exposure. Her cat has trouble walking and stops
eating.
Xcel came out and ran circles around her without addressing the problem, she told me. "If
I was a dairy farm, they would be forced to do something. Anything over 1/2 volt, they are
forced to do something," says the veterinarian. The current readings in her home range
from 1/2 to one volt.
Wisconsin law currently protects cows from high levels of stray voltage, which Jaffke says
is not "stray." "Xcel put it there and it is Xcel's problem," she says. The term stray voltage
only legally applies to cows. The currents are referred to as electrical pollution in relation
to humans. "But there's no laws to protect people," says Jaffke.
Not a New Issue

The health menace of stray voltage/electrical pollution is not a new issue. Wisconsin
journalists have blazed a fiery trail to try to expose it. Reporter Chris Hardie at the La
Crosse Tribune had won five Wisconsin journalism awards and was nominated for a 2000
Pulitzer Prize for work covering the issue, including a special website dedicated to it, while
journalist Kurt Gutknecht had been fired as editor of the Wisconsin Agriculturist for
continuing to write about the health affects on animals and the farmers themselves.
State Representative Barb Gronemus, D-Whitehall, had proposed legislation in 2003 to

force the utilities to clean up their act. The legislation died in committee despite huge
support exhibited at a public hearing September 18, 2003. Supporters blame pressure
from the big utilities on the lawmakers for its failure.
At a volt, I'm objecting.

Today, Dr. Jaffke insists she is covered by the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) 92D,
which states that there should be no objectionable flow of current over the earth. "At a
volt, I'm objecting," she says.
It is likely to be an uphill battle. Xcel Energy has a history of fighting customers over
health issues. They argued in a 2008 article that the cow deaths could be blamed on other
factors than stray voltage. In an article in the La Crosse Tribune on December 11, 2006,
Xcel and the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin claimed that no credible scientific
evidence had been raised "that suggests the electrical system in Wisconsin is unsafe or
causes any health problems in humans."
Such resistance to customers' needs and safety is deeply ingrained in the untouchable
36
utilities and their unaccountable defender despite numerous studies showing harm, and
the nonstop procession of people reporting illness over decades. (See Research and
Technical sections at Electrical Pollution , and the Stetzer site for some of the studies and
cases. Here is a case involving cancer.)
Owen Council Meeting

Dr. Jaffke is enlisting the help of her city to help deal with the powerful utility. She
explained her case and read a list of lies Xcel told her during the Owen city council meeting
on December 15. For example, the utility told her that the 5-wire system is unsafe. But,
adding a fifth wire would easily correct the problem of electrical pollution for her - and for
all residents statewide.
This acceptable, effective method appears in the 1995 report from the research arm of the
utilities, the Electric Power Research Institute. It states: "A method that practically
eliminates ground currents associated with primary distribution line and still maintains the
advantage of a four-wire multi-grounded system is a five-wire system."
It would just cost pennies to do, says Jaffke. It is such a simple solution, she told Owen
council members, who were alarmed to hear about the serious health effects the respected
veterinarian and her cat were experiencing. The council meets in a building right behind
her house, "which pretty much implies that they're getting fried, too," says the human
"canary in the mine."
Jaffke hopes her city will have the will and the legal clout to get results. She says, "The
city has an obligation to protect their citizens and make sure that any corporation doing
business in town is up to code."
Owen mayor Tim Swiggum said during a telephone interview that they plan to go at this
from both ends: They will talk to the guys who help them when they are extending power
lines to see if that area of town is overloaded, and they also will meet with the higher-ups
at the utility to see what they have to say about this problem.
"It's fairly new to me," says Mayor Swiggum, who has begun to educate himself on this
controversial issue. "I don't want to burn any bridges. We need the electric company," he
adds, though he agrees that Pam Jaffke definitely needs help with the problem in her
house.
Jaffke told me she warned the city, "Xcel is going to try to tell you that everything's fine
just like they told me. You'll have to be able to refute every one of their arguments.
They're not just going to roll over and do whatever you say."
The Owen resident says she just wants a resolution to the problem, and hopes the city can
help. But she would not mind if the utility ended up suing her because "in court they'll be
exposed as a fraud."
"I'm not after money. I don't care if Xcel would give me a million dollars right today. That's
not going to buy my cat's health. That's not going to buy my health," the Owen
veterinarian says.
How Can People Check Their Own Homes?

Jaffke says the way to check for voltage coming into your home is to borrow or buy a $50
volt meter. A trifield meter will show the microwave frequencies coming into the house.
So, for about $200 people could get together and purchase both meters. "Between a
trifield meter and a volt meter you have all the tools you need to figure out the garbage
that's coming into your house," she says.
37
.........................................................................
And I say, if the utilities got up to speed and took care of the mess they have made,
everyday people would not need to try to do this kind of detective work or have to battle
the power companies for their health. What a racket.
______________________________
9. LEGISLATOR'S GUIDE TO WARNING LABELS ON CELL

PHONES
Dearest People,
My gosh, this year has FLOWN by!! We are very excited to announce the publication our
new paper...
THE LEGISLATOR'S GUIDE TO WARNING LABELS ON CELL PHONES AND THE LAYMAN'S
GUIDE TO NON-THERMAL EFFECTS FROM CELL PHONES AND OTHER WIRELESS
PRODUCTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE.
You can upload the paper here...
http://www.thepeoplesinitiative.org/uploads/Non_Thermal_Paper_10-10A.pdf
We hope it helps those of you out there who are wanting to take actions on this issue.
This paper was recently used to assist the state of Oregon in introducing the first ever
NON-THERMAL language warning label in the world!! The significance of this is enormous,
as non-thermal is what is causing all the problems with wireless products and
infrastructure and also what is ignored in current cell phone, WIFI, smart meter and cell
tower/antenna safety standards. It is based on acute exposure and heat as opposed to no
heat and prolonged exposure. We will send notification out once the language has
officially been posted on the state of Oregon's government website. We hope you will find
this paper helpful in any educational or legislative action you may wish to take on this
issue. And remember, we are always here to help and support...speaking of which, if you
would like to support further efforts and endeavors to this end, it is still not too late to
make a tax deductible donation on our website. Just go to our home page and scroll down
to the bottom of the left hand column (we couldn't post the donate URL here, it's too
long). Our IRS letter has also been posted should you need it for your records.
Wishing you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Sincerely, Liz
______________________________
10. KPR Board looks at technology plan
It is apparent that the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board has
adopted an Instructional Technology Plan worth 12 million plus the cost of
SMART boards, notebooks, iPods, and lapstops. As Mr. Hick said in the
September meeting, if wireless goes then the whole plan crumbles and they
have no intention of letting the key component of the plan--wireless--go.
38
These items will appear in the next KPRDSB budget.
http://www.northumberlandtoday.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?archive=true&e=2465541
______________________________
11. San Clemente seeks info on smart meters

Published: Dec. 22, 2010 3:21 p.m.
By FRED SWEGLES
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
San Clemente's City Council will gather more information about a new technology that's
coming to town – smart meters – and may ask San Diego Gas & Electric to hold off on
installing them on every home and business here until questions can be aired.
"Can we wait?" Mayor Lori Donchak asked at Tuesday night's council meeting. The council
has scheduled a discussion for its Feb. 1 meeting.
Sandi Aders, of San Clemente, stands next to the electric meters currently installed at her apartment
complex. SDG&E is planning on installing smart meters that Aders says has given her health problems
when she has lived near them in the past. 01.spn.smart.meters.1216.pb 12/16/2010 Paul Bersebach,
The Orange County Register
The mayor said she spent much of the weekend reading materials and viewing YouTube
videos about how smart meters – wireless electric meters that power companies install on
homes – have become an issue in some Northern California cities and around the country,
with questions raised about health effects on people sensitive to radio-frequency emissions
and whether wireless technology poses privacy issues.
SDG&E says the meters are well within FCC guidelines and the utility company has rolled
out 1.8 million of them in San Diego County with minimal response from customers. The
utility says smart meters don't require monthly visits to the home and can help people
understand their energy consumption to help reduce energy use.
The City Council agreed to air the issue, which San Clemente resident Sandi Aders has
raised from the floor at the last three council meetings. She told the council that she is
extremely electro-sensitive and moved to San Clemente after being driven from her home
in Idaho after a smart meter was installed there, only to learn recently that smart meters
are to be installed here.
Aders said there can be insomnia, fatigue, heart problems, tinnitus and a host of other
effects. She said that while the electric emissions are similar to Wi-Fi, which is found in
39
many homes and businesses, residents with Wi-Fi have a choice whether to install it in
their home.
"If you don't want them, fight, fight, fight," she said at Tuesday night's meeting. "This is
going to change your life, if you are susceptible, and you'll end up electrically sensitive like
me."
Donchak said she wants to learn more about California Assembly Bill 37, which could give
customers a choice to opt out, together with the questions being raised in some other
communities.
Duane Cave, utility spokesman, said "we are scheduled to begin our installations for San
Clemente in late January or early February. We have been installing smart meters
throughout our service territory for the last year and a half, Orange County is the last
district in our service territory to have smart meters installed."
Contact the writer: fswegles@ocregister.com or 949-492-5127
http://www.ocregister.com/news/smart-281391-meters-san.html
______________________________
12. Powerwatch Message
Many thanks to all of you who have taken an interest in the debate around
electromagnetic fields throughout 2010. As the year closes, we've seen the end of the
second phase of the Stakeholder Advisory Group on Extremely low frequency
electromagnetic fields, an insightful new book published by Devra Davis, the beginnings of
evidence that even the Interphone data is showing a potential long term health risk from
phone use, IARC identifying melatonin disruption as a probable carcinogen (and one the
has been linked to EMF exposure), and another 150 or so new scientific papers of interest.
40
It's good to see so much research being carried out on such an important topic, and we
hope that 2011 will progress our state of knowledge further still, so that policy makers can
adopt reasoned guidance and the general public can make informed decisions for their own
use. In the meantime, it's time to enjoy the festive period at the end of the year and make
the most of the break and the weather.
From all of us at Powerwatch, we wish you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and
healthy start to 2011.
To view this eCard online, please click here
______________________________
13. Planet Irth
Here is a gift to all of you who are concerned about electrosmog. It is a short (8:40
minutes youtube video) of a narrated fairy tale about planet irth, sensitives, electrosmog,
and electrosmogitis and was a chapter in the BRAG Antenna Ranking of Schools Report
that you can find here (http://www.magdahavas.com/2010/04/28/how-to-brag™-rate-
your-school/).
The message is straight forward with cartoon characters and animation. I hope you enjoy
it. Feel free to pass it on to others who may be interested.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtb8dTgB3LE
Happy Holidays!
-magda
drmagdahavas@gmail.com
______________________________
14. Why using a computer can cause depression
OLINKA KOSTER, Daily Mail
Sitting in front of a computer screen for five hours a day can dramatically increase the risk
of depression and insomnia, new research suggests.
Previous studies have focused on how too much screen time can cause physical afflictions,
such as headaches, eye strain, and backache.
Now one of the biggest ever investigations into the hazards of computers in the workplace
has concluded that they can also damage mental health.
In a three-year survey of 25,000 workers, many complained of feeling depressed, anxious

and reluctant to get up for work in the mornings.
They were also plagued by broken sleep and reported problems getting along with fellow
employees.
The study by researchers at Chiba University in Japan, concluded that bosses should limit
the time their staff spend on computers.
41
Lead researcher Dr Tetsuya Nakazawa said: ' This result suggests the prevention of mental
disorders and sleep disorders requires the restriction of computer use to less than five
hours a day.'
The results, published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine, showed one in four
staff spent at least five hours a day at their terminal.
Once they crossed that threshold, the dangers of psychological disorders setting in
appeared to increase dramatically.
British experts said working alone at a computer for hours on end could lead to a sense of
isolation, even in a busy office.
Psychology Professor Cary Cooper from the University of Manchester Institute of Science
and Technology said concern was growing over mental health problems caused by working
with computers.
'We are finding that people are working with machines as opposed to other people,' he
said. 'The problem is not just sitting in front of a computer but the fact that people don't
take a break and cannot prioritise what they are doing.
'They are overloaded then they worry about the work they are not doing.
'People are not interacting with each other and the longer you do that, the less work meets
your social needs.'
Professor Brian Shackel, from Loughborough University, agreed: ' Even in a full office, the
likelihood is staff would have targets to meet, so the opportunities for social chit-chat
would be considerably diminished.'
Dr Nakazawa insisted the findings were not just due to staff being in repetitive jobs.
'They performed different types of work,' he said. 'The computers were different, as were
the working environments. Even so, our results were extremely consistent over a three-
year period.'
A spokesman for the Health and Safety Executive said bosses had a duty under the 1974
Health and Safety Act to protect the mental as well as physical health of staff, even though
psychological damage was harder to prove.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-153281/Why-using-cause-
depression.html#ixzz14NXEPDZR
______________________________
15. Wake up call from electrosmog expert

Pr Olle Johansson (video)
42
- All Next-up News: www.next-up.org/Newsoftheworld/2010.php
http://videos.next-
up.org/Teslabel/Pr_Olle_Johansson_Wake_up_call_from_electrosmog_expert/22_12_2010
.html
______________________________
16. With Regards to the Investigation of the Students’

Cancer Cluster at St. Michael Catholic School
125 Vanevery Way
Stratford, Ontario
N5A 8C1
22 December 2010
Open letter to:
Dr. Miriam Klassen

Perth County Medical Officer of Health
653 West Gore St.
Stratford, Ontario
N5A 1L4
Re: Investigation of the Students’ Cancer Cluster at St. Michael Catholic School
Dear Dr. Klassen,
I am writing to offer information that may assist you with your investigation into the
cancer cluster among students at St Michael Catholic School, Stratford. There is strong
43
scientific information to indicate that exposure to microwave radiation may be the main
cause of the cancers.
Although there are many scientific reports that show a link between electro magnetic
radiation and various types of cancer, I would like to draw your attention to the
epidemiology research by S. Szmigielski, entitled Cancer morbidity in subjects exposed to
high frequency (radiofrequency and microwave) electromagnetic radiation. The document
is available at Pub Med, The U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of
Health. The ID number is 8717316, here is a link to the information -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8717316. An abstract of the research is included at
the end of this letter.
Szmigielski’s paper describes a large scale scientific study involving over 128,000 Polish
military personnel, of whom approximately 3,700 were exposed to radiofrequency and
microwave radiation over several years. The results show that the persons exposed to
electro magnetic radiation (EMR) had a rate of cancer morbidity that was more than twice
the amount that the non-exposed people suffered. This statistic is very significant in itself.
Of even greater importance to your investigation, however, is the elevated incidence of
certain cancers that occurred within the “exposed” group, in comparison with the rates of
occurrence of the non-exposed persons.
The cancers that you are investigating at St. Michael Catholic School are reported as being
in the lymphoma family. The Szmigielski report found increases in non-Hodgkin
lymphomas of nearly six times higher (OER = 5.82) than unexposed persons. The largest
differences in morbidity rates between exposed and non-exposed personnel were found for
chronic myelocytic leukaemia (OER = 13.9) and acute myeloblastic leukaemia (OER =
8.62). By extrapolation, the results of this research have huge implications to the present
and future health of Stratford and Perth County residents, as most people are being
exposed to this type of radiation on a daily basis.
The “exposed” subjects of the Polish military were being exposed to radiation only during a
normal working week, which was probably eight hours a day, five days a week. By
comparison, most of the youth in Perth County are being exposed to radiation twenty-four
hours a day, seven days a week. In addition to Wi Fi in the schools, they are also exposed
to DECT cordless telephones and Wi Fi systems that constantly emit strong amounts of
microwave radiation in their homes.
Many youths also have cell phones, which research has already linked to significant
increased risk of brain, ear, eye and mouth cancers. Sometimes, these young people
sleep with these dangerous devices under their pillows or they recharge their cell phones
in close proximity to the beds where they are sleeping. Both of these practices may be
harmful and should be avoided. The young are often exposed to microwave radiation from
other wireless devices, as well, including wireless baby monitors, wireless games,
microwave ovens, electrical ‘smart meters’, Wi Fi on city streets, Wi Fi in retail, business
and restaurant establishments, cell phone towers, and other antenna systems.
It is a major concern that the internal electrical systems of children are being assaulted by
strong pulsed radiation while their brains and neurological systems are still growing and
developing. Previous generations of children have never experienced these dangerously
high levels of radiation. The “exposed” people in the Szmigielski study were healthy, fully
developed adults, who were not as vulnerable as children. The youth of today can be
likened to subjects in a mass medical experiment. The dreadful results of this
experimentation are already clearly indicated in the available scientific literature, but that
is largely being hidden or ignored by industry and by the agencies whose duty it is to
protect us.
44
The serious cancer illness of several Stratford and Perth County youths is a tragic and
horrible situation, but it is the future illness of countless others that should alarm this
community. Since cancers often develop during the course of many years, we are unlikely
to see the harm caused by today’s microwave radiation exposure for several more years to
come. At that time, the victims could be in the prime of life, possibly even parents
themselves. The potential harm to these people, and the health costs that may be
involved, is staggering.
Although your investigation is focused upon the lymphoma cancers at St Michael School,
you must also be aware of other young persons in Perth County who have suffered from
leukemia. It is known, from several scientific research projects into the health effects of
power-line electro magnetic fields, that relatively low levels of EMFs cause leukemia rates
to double. These EMF levels can sometimes be found inside homes, caused by incorrect
wiring practices and various electrical devices. The Szmigielski study indicates that the
leukemia rates of people who are exposed to microwave and RF radiation may be nearly
fourteen times higher than that of persons who are not exposed. The combination of the
dangers from electric fields and electro magnetic radiation will likely produce results that
are much worse.
I ask you to complete a thorough investigation into the health effects of electro magnetic
radiation, and carefully consider the possibility that electro magnetic radiation may be the
main cause of the children’s cancers. I am not aware of any other potential factor that has
a risk factor as high as electro magnetic radiation, which can increase the chance of cancer
by multiple times. Please advise me, if you are aware of any other such hazard.
I believe that you will find during the course of your investigation that there is more than
enough evidence to warrant a “public health warning” about the dangers of electrical fields
and microwave radiation. This action would educate parents to be aware of the potential
harm that their children face from radiation, and help the parents to take precautions for
the health of their children and themselves.
There are strong scientific reasons to believe that many of these childhood cancers could
be avoided if parents, school boards, and others were to take precautions and stop the
harmful radiation exposure of children. It is important that our elected leaders are advised
about the dangers in such a way that they are required to take action to protect the people
they represent. It is ironic that pesticide use has been tightly controlled in Perth County,
yet we are now polluting our entire environment, both indoors and outdoors, with radiation
that was shown to be dangerous to human health over forty years ago.
I am willing to meet with you to discuss in more detail the health effects of electro
magnetic radiation. I could provide you with further scientific evidence about the dangers
of EMR, connect you with world-leading researchers, and demonstrate electro magnetic
detection equipment, to show you the electro magnetic fields that people are being
exposed to.
Yours sincerely,
Martin Weatherall
Cc Stratford City Council.

Avon Maitland District School Board
Huron-Perth Catholic School Board
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49299182/Dr-Klassen-Re-Cancer-Cluster-Investigation-St-
Michael-s-School-Final
45
______________________________
17. Cancer morbidity in subjects occupationally exposed to

high frequency (radiofrequency and microwave)
electromagnetic radiation.
Szmigielski S. 1996 Feb 2;180(1):9-17

Department of Biological Effect of Non-Ionizing Radiations, Center for Radiobiology and
Radiation Safety at the Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Warsaw, Poland.
Abstract
Cancer morbidity was registered in the whole population of military career personnel in
Poland during a period of 15 years (1971-1985). Subjects exposed occupationally to
radiofrequencies (RF) and microwaves (MW) were selected from the population on the
basis of their service records and documented exposures at service posts. The
population size varied slightly from year to year with a mean count of about 128,000
persons each year; each year about 3700 of them (2.98%) were considered as
occupationally exposed to RF/MW. All subjects (exposed and non-exposed to RF/MW)
were divided into age groups (20-29, 30-39, 40-49 and 50-59). All newly registered
cases of cancer were divided into 12 types based on localisation of the malignancy; for
neoplasms of the haemopoietic system and lymphatic organs an additional analysis
based on diagnosis was performed. Morbidity rates (per 100,000 subjects annually) were
calculated for all of the above localisations and types of malignancies both for the whole
population and for the age groups. The mean value of 15 annual rates during 1971-1985
represented the respective morbidity rate for the whole period. Morbidity rates in the
non-exposed groups of personnel were used as 'expected' (E) rates for the exposed
subjects, while the real morbidity rates counted in the RF/MW-exposed personnel served
as 'observed' (O) rates. This allowed the calculation of the observed/expected ratio
(OER) representing the odds ratio for the exposed groups. The cancer morbidity rate for
RF/MW-exposed personnel for all age groups (20-59 years) reached 119.1 per 100,000
annually (57.6 in non-exposed) with an OER of 2.07, significant at P < 0.05. The
difference between observed and expected values results from higher morbidity rates
due to neoplasms of the alimentary tract (OER = 3.19-3.24), brain tumours (OER =
1.91) and malignancies of the haemopoietic system and lymphatic organs (OER = 6.31).
Among malignancies of the haemopoietic/lymphatic systems, the largest differences in
morbidity rates between exposed and non-exposed personnel were found for chronic
myelocytic leukaemia (OER = 13.9), acute myeloblastic leukaemia (OER = 8.62) and
non-Hodgkin lymphomas (OER = 5.82).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8717316
PMID: 8717316
______________________________
18. UK Parliament Adjournment Debate - Mobile Phones

(Health Effects)
I received the following link from Alasdair Philips, Powerwatch UK

SCROLL TO 7HR.06 mins approx (21:40 hrs) the adjournment debate is in the last 30 mins
of the session. Dr Devra Davis, Alasdair Philips and Powerwatch, Dr Lennart Hardell, Dr
Henry Lai, myself and the EM Radiation Trust are all mentioned.
46
Only a few MPs attended this important adjournment debate including my MP Bill Esterson.
However, it is an historic moment and could finally open up doors to further
communication.
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=7279
Also download the transcript from Hansard:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm101220/debtext/101220-
0004.htm
Eileen O'Connor
Director
EM Radiation Research Trust
http://www.radiationresearch.org
_____________________________
19. SCIENCE 101: WEIGHT-OF-EVIDENCE
December 22, 2010. What does “weight-of-evidence” mean and how is it calculated?
From Terry’s Thoughts on “weight-of-evidence” and “weight-of-warning”

Health Canada’s “weight-of-evidence” approach means if there is one more study showing
no harmful effect of microwave radiation, even if that study is industry-funded, Health
Canada can ignore all other science no matter how compelling. It is a numbers game that
errs on the side of profit.
However, if we follow the rules of this numbers game when it comes to warnings about
wireless devices, we have only one agency – Health Canada-saying WiFi is safe since
provincial and municipal health departments defer to Health Canada when it comes to
electromagnetic radiation. But we have the American Society for Reproductive
Medicine saying microwave causes DNA damage to sperm in only four hours. We have
the Royal Society of Canada saying it weakens the blood-brain-barrier in only eight
hours. We have the majority of the insurance industry refusing to underwrite
manufacturers of wireless devices because of the “incalculable risk to human health”. We
have the Canadian Standards Association stating it “does not guarantee WiFi is safe
and without a health risk.” We have the WiFi Alliance-a lobby group for the industry-
refusing to claim its products are safe, and finally we have the makers of the wireless
devices who are silent when publicly asked if their devices are safe, and it we read the
fine print of their manuals it says that, in fact, they are dangerous and we should limit our
exposure.
So the “weight-of-warning” is on the side of not using WiFi in schoolswhere children

have no choice. The “weight-of-warning” is on the side ofcaution and informed consent.
The weight-of-warning is a phrase we may chose to adopt.
47
Health Canada, with its track record of error causing human death, cannot be the only
advisor when the “weight-of-warning” suggests caution and avoidance. The “weight-of-
warning”, in this case, means that Health Canada must be ignored until it catches up with
the majority.
Response to Terry’s Thoughts on “weight-of-evidence” and “weight-of-warning”

Terry is a parent who believes that WiFi was making his child, and possibly other children,
ill at school. He has educated himself about the dangers of microwave radiation and thinks
that the studies and methods that Health Canada uses to justify the safety of WiFi needs
to be re-examined. I agree.
Health Canada has received many warnings and reports from scientists that show WiFi and
other forms of microwave radiation generated by wireless devices are potentially
dangerous. They have also heard from people from British Columbia to Newfoundland who
become ill when exposed to microwave radiation. Some of these people have been
medically diagnosed as having electrohypersensitivity (EHS), which is an adverse reaction
to electromagnetic radiation and is a cousin to multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS). Both
EHS and MCS are recognized by the Canadian Human Rights Commission as forms of
environmental sensitivities (Sears 2007). Click here to download this document. The
“weight-of-evidence” method that Terry talks about and the “weight-of-warning” needs to
be re-examined . . .
What does “weight-of-evidence” mean and how is it calculated?

The wrong way to calculate “weight-of-evidence” is to collect as many peer-reviewed*
scientific publications as possible and then identify which ones show harmful effects and
which ones show no effects and place them on a scale. This is the way Health Canada
calculates weight-of-evidence. They refer to “thousands” of studies showing no effect.
* [Note: a peer-reviewed publication is one where the editor of a journal sends the
submitted paper to at least two experts in the field for their comments about the quality
and value of the work submitted for publication. If both experts agree the work is well
done and has value it is published and referred to as a peer-reviewed publication.]
The right way to calculate “weight-of-evidence” is to collect as many peer-reviewed

scientific publications as possible and then identify which ones showharmful effects and
which ones show beneficial effects and then place them on a scale.
The rationale behind this is that an agent (microwave radiation, a drug, or something else)
can have three possible effects: harmful, beneficial, or no effect. We use statisical
analysis to determine if a harmful or beneficial effect is real or due to chance. If it is due
to chance we place it in the “no effects” pile. We use 95% (or higher) as the level of
probability in scientific studies. What this means is that if this study was repeated 100
times, we would get the same result 95 times and it would happen by chance 5 times. So
we have 95% confidence that this result is “real” and not due to chance.
But it could be due to chance 5% of the time so we have another way of examining the
results. We compare as many peer-reviewed publications as we can find and do the correct
weight-of-evidence calculation.
Here is how it works.
Let’s assume that out of 100 studies, 35 show a “harmful effect” and 5 show a “beneficial
effect ” and the rest (60 studies) show no effect. Some wouldfalsely claim that the
weight-of-evidence (35 vs 6o) shows no effect so we have nothing to be concerned about.
The correct comparison is 35 studies “harmful” and 5 studies “beneficial”. So the weight
of evidence is 35 studies vs 5 studies or a ratio of 7 to 1. This would add to our
confidence that the “harmful” effects are real and not due to chance since you might
expect as many studies showing harmful vs beneficial effects to be due to chance. So let
48
us assume, for the time being, that all of the positive studies are due to chance (note this
is unlikely) then you might expect that the same number of harmful studies are also due
to chance. That still leaves 30 studies showing statistically significant harmful effects. How
do you explain these studies? You just can’t sweep them under the rug and say well there
are more studies that show no effect because a “no effect” study does NOT cancel one
that shows “harmful effects”!
Here is an analogy.
Let’s assume you are a prospector looking for gold and you find a
gold nugget in a particular area (equivalent to one study showing a harmful effect of radio
frequency radiation). Does that mean this is a place for a gold mine? No, not necessarily.
Someone may have dropped the gold nugget. But let us assume that of 100 prospectors,
60 don’t find anything, 35 find gold (35 studies showing a harmful effect) and 5 find fool’s
gold (5 studies showing a beneficial effect). Let’s also assume that 5 of the gold miners
who thought they found real gold actually found fool’s gold (same number as the original
fool’s gold findings). That still leaves 30 miners who found real gold in a particular area.
No one in their right mind would compare the 30 successful finds with the prospectors who
didn’t find anything and say that the weight-of-evidence shows that there isn’t any gold in
“dem dere hills”. Instead what it means is that there is gold in that location. The analogy
is that there are harmful effects of the radio frequency radiation because so many studies
are documenting them.
To make certain that the results are not biased, it is useful to examine who funded the
studies. When this is done we find that studies funded by the telecommunication industry
are more likely to show “no effect” than those independently funded. See results below for
a study conducted by Dr. Henry Lai, University of Washington. For this very reason,
authors are asked to disclose funding sources and any other connections that may be
viewed as a “conflict of interest” when they submit papers for publication.
Dr. Henry Lai examined the results of cell phone studies documenting biological effects and
found that results depended on who funded the study. Here are his results presented at
Lakehead University in Thunder Bay Ontario on February 22, 2010.
49
This analysis shows that 28% of industry funded research and 67% of non-industry
funded research documented biological effects. The weight-of-evidence for non-industry
funded studies shows that cell phones radiation is “biologically active” i.e. it has biological
effects. In this case the analysis (Chi Squared) documenting a difference in results based
on funding source is statistically significant at the 99.9% level. So there is a 0.1% chance
that this result is due to chance! According to this table there are 181 studies showing
biological effects of cell phones! Should we just ignore these reports?
A similar study was published by Huss et al. in 2007, Source of funding and results of
studies of health effects of mobile phone use: Systematic review of experimental results.
Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 115, pages 1-4. (Click here to download this
study).
Here is a direct quote from Huss et al. 2007:
“Studies funded exclusively by industry reported the largest number of outcomes, but
were least likely to report a statistically significant result: The odds ratio was 0.11 (95%
confidence interval, 0.02–0.78) [MH NOTE: this is statistically significant!], compared with
studies funded by public agencies or charities. . . . CONCLUSIONS: The interpretation of
results from studies of health effects of radiofrequency radiation should take sponsorship
into account.”
This is a polite way of saying we may not be able to trust some industry-funded research.
There are multiple explanations for this outcome and they include some of the following:
(1) Industry funded studies showing an effect are suppressed while those not showing an
effect are submitted for publication.
(2) Industry funded studies are designed to not find an effect as was done with the
INTERPHONE study published earlier this year. See Lessons from INTERPHONE Study and
also see recent comparison of the INTERPHONE study to the Hardell studies (Hardell et al.
2010).
There are less charitable interpretations that I won’t present here.

This type of industry-funded research plays into the hands of Health Canada and other
agencies who do weight-of-evidence calculations incorrectly.
Weight-of-Warning
50
Terry’s concept of a “weight-of-warning” is an interesting one. But we need to bare one
thing in mind and that is that science is not a popularity contest. New discoveries and
novel understanding starts with a single scientist who, by definition, is in the minority. It
takes great courage for that single scientist to share his/her views that may be in conflict
with prevailing scientific or religious or financial or political views.
In the past, science faced opposition primarily from religion. For this reason, Copernicus
did not allow his book to be published until after his death. Galileo was excommunicated
and under house arrest for supporting Copernicus and stating that the earth revolved
around the sun.
Today, the greatest opposition to environmental and health science comes from industry.
Industry wants to make as much profit as possible and as quickly as possible. Many
industries have become profit-junkies. They develop products that may not be properly
tested or that pollute the environment or that are harmful to human health. They factor in
risk and put money aside for legal fees dealing with future law suits.
Pinto is a good example of this. A design flaw, known to the company, caused the fuel
tank to explode in a rear-end collision resulting in the loss of life. Ford weighted the cost of
redesigning the flaw and decided it would be cheaper to pay off possible lawsuits resulting
in death.
Many governments are power-junkies. They make the rules and, if they are provided with
sufficient resources, they enforce the rules. Generally governments don’t like to change
guidelines or standards because these changes have ripple effects that they don’t want to
deal with including potential legal action. Also, these changes indicate they were wrong.
They don’t seem to realize that when you learn something new a change of opinion may
be appropriate. Mahatma Gandhi, when he was talking to a reporter, stated in his
autobiography, “This is my opinion today. Tomorrow I may learn something and, if that
happens, I may change my opinion.” This is exactly how science works. As we stand on
the shoulders of giants, we get a better view of our surroundings and that allows us to
make advances that may require new theories or new world views to emerge. Admitting
you are wrong means you have learned something new.
Today, unpopular views may cost industry money or the government a loss of face so
there is considerable opposition and hostility to new ideas and interpretations. Instead of
scientists being excommunicated, they lose their research funding or their jobs. Attempts
are made to discredit them by calling them names like “fear-mongerer” or “quack”. These
are things kids do in elementary school and it is disturbing to see adults stooping to the
same level of immaturity.
So, while a “weight-of-warning” may be useful as scientific understanding matures in a

particular discipline at the early stages the “weight-of-warning” will favor the status quo.
For this reason we have the Precautionary Approach/Principal that encourages action to
minimize the potentially harmful effects of an agent, while scientists try to understand
what is happening.
We have made so many mistakes with new agents introduced into the environment . . .
PCBs, DDT, dioxin, lead, cadmium, asbestos, CFCs, X-rays, . . . Why are we so slow to
learn?
Today, with the rapid adoption of wireless technology, we are putting the lives of future
generations at risk for the convenience of wireless when wired technology is faster, more
secure and safer. Schools have aligned themselves with profit-junkies. They won’t admit
their mistake until students and teachers become sick, learning disabilities increase, and
51
test scores decrease. And they can always hide behind Health Canada who states that this
technology is safe based on their faulty analysis of the weight-of-evidence.
To read more visit: http://www.magdahavas.com/2010/12/22/science-101-weight-of-

evidence/
drmagdahavas@gmail.com
______________________________
20. GERMANY: Scientists develop textiles that screen out

radiation
just-style.com
Scientists in Germany have developed what they claim to be the world's first fabrics which
effectively screen out both electromagnetic (EM) and infrared ...
http://www.just-style.com/news/scientists-develop-textiles-that-screen-out-
radiation_id109892.aspx
______________________________
21. Telecom lobbies try to erase mobile tower radiation

worries
Ignoring wider ramification, including health impacts of radiations emanating from mobile
towers, a study commissioned by telecom lobbies COAI and Auspi has claimed that the
level of radiation from cellular base stations in Delhi "falls hundreds of times below
international safety standards." The Cellular Operators Association of India ( COAI) and
Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India ( Auspi) have sent the report to
the department of telecom ( DoT) for its consideration.
The study has neither been peerreviewed nor published in a journal.
"While carrying out measurements on the electromagnetic radiation at over 180 locations
in New Delhi it was found that in all circumstances the cumulative measurements were
well below the compliance limit set by the International Commission on Non-Ionising
Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), bringing it at par with the International safety standards,"
COAI's director general Rajan Mathews said on Tuesday.
"About 180 areas were studied across the capital to understand the extent of EMF (
electromagnetic field) emitting from the mobile towers. It was revealed that the magnetic
field readings were 100 times below International Safety guidelines," he added.
Experts from the Indian Institute of Technology-Madras (IIT-M), Thiagarajar College of
Engineering, Madurai (TCE) and Centre of Excellence in Wireless Technology, Chennai (
CEWIT) carried out the study.
When questioned about cases such as birds, like sparrows, vanishing from places in and
around mobile towers, representatives from the telecom lobbies said they have not
touched upon these issues.
" Our study is based on investigation conducted on the magnitude of radiation emanating
from towers. I think the study done is fine enough to eliminate fears that mobile tower
radiations are hazardous to health," said Auspi's secretary general S. C. Khanna.
52
Dr S. Raju, head of department ( electronics and communication engineering), TCE,
claimed, "The study brings out very clearly that even in the worst case scenario the
cumulative emission levels were far below the international standards." Experts were of
the view that the radiation from mobile towers should not be related to health ailments
since there was no major study across the world, which has established a correlation
between mobile tower radiation and increase in health related issues or genetic damage.
However, the government is worried about radiation from mobile towers effecting public
health. Mobile service providers were earlier told to pay a fine of ` 5 lakh per mobile
phone tower from November if they do not conform to internationally accepted limits of
radiation.
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/124146/Business/telecom-lobbies-try-to-erase-
mobile-tower-radiation-worries.html
______________________________
22. Risk governance for mobile phones, power lines, and

other EMF technologies.
Risk Anal. 2010 Oct;30(10):1481-94.

Kheifets L, Swanson J, Kandel S, Malloy TF.
UCLA School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1772,
USA. kheifets@ucla.edu
Abstract
Power-frequency electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) have been present in industrialized
countries since the late 19th century and a considerable amount of knowledge has been
accumulated as to potential health effects. The mainstream scientific view is that even if
there is a risk, it is unlikely to be of major public-health significance. EMFs from cellular
communications and other radio-frequency technologies have increased rapidly in the last
decade. This technology is constantly changing, which makes continued research both
more urgent and more challenging. While there are no persuasive data suggesting a health
risk, research and particularly exposure assessment is still immature. The principal risk-
governance issue with power frequencies is how to respond to weak and uncertain
scientific evidence that nonetheless causes public concern. For radio-frequency
electromagnetic fields, the issue is how to respond to large potential consequences and
large public concern where only limited scientific evidence exists. We survey these issues
and identify deficits in risk governance. Deficits in problem framing include both
overstatement and understatement of the scientific evidence and of the consequences of
taking protective measures, limited ability to detect early warnings of risk, and attempted
reassurance that has sometimes been counterproductive. Other deficits relate to the
limited public involvement mechanisms, and flaws in the identification and evaluation of
tradeoffs in the selection of appropriate management strategies. We conclude that risk
management of EMFs has certainly not been perfect, but for power frequencies it has
evolved and now displays many successful features. Lessons from the power-frequency
experience can benefit risk governance of the radio-frequency EMFs and other emerging
technologies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20723143
53
______________________________
23. Santé Publique : Alerte iPad WiFi Écoles France
- Toutes les Next-up News / All Next-up News: www.next-up.org/Newsoftheworld/2010.php

http://videos.next-
up.org/TF1/Alerte_iPad_Wifi_Ecoles_Tulles_Conseil_General_Correze/22_12_2010.html
______________________________
24. IMPORTANT NEWS FOR SANTA:

Industry-Funded 'Interphone' Brain Cancer-Cell Phone Study Design
Proven to Greatly Underestimate Risk of Brain Tumors -- Previous Denial
of Brain Cancer Risk Now Seen As Unjustified
http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/santa/
Camilla Rees
ElectromagneticHealth.org
______________________________
54
25. Seeking an 'Opt Out' Clause
The Linked document is an important legal challenge to the rules and practices, in regards
to PG&Es usage of smart meters in California.
Many thanks to David Wilner
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49299397/Application-for-Modification-2
______________________________
26. A Game Changer?
For a long time now, skeptics have argued that the epidemiological studies pointing to a
tumor risk from cell phones must be wrong because no one has seen an increase in cell-
phone related tumors in the general population.
Some new data from Israel may now force a rethink of the whole cell phone cancer
controversy.
Read all about it in Microwave News

http://www.microwavenews.com
Best,
Louis Slesin
______________________________
27. WHAT ELECTRICIANS SHOULD KNOW ABOUT EMF
By: This Article by Karl Riley kriley3@ix.netcom.com/ who wrote the book.
Tracing EMFs in Building Wiring and Grounding.
http://www.mikeholt.com/technical.php?id=grounding/unformatted/emf&type=u&title=Ele
ctro%20Magnetic%20Fields%20(EMF)
______________________________
28. Fixed Price Electrical Contract
Mr. William Zehr

President, Festival Hydro
P.O. Box 397
Stratford, Ontario
N5A 6T5
21 December 2010
Dear Mr. Zehr,
Thank you for your letter dated December 17, 2010.
We do not like your proposal to install a smart meter for our home, where it may cause
further radiation in our neighbourhood and also cost us over four hundred dollars.
55
Yesterday, we entered into a five year “fixed price contract” with Canada Energy
Wholesalers Ltd. (http://www.canadaenergy.ca/ )
Because we will not be using "time of day pricing" for the next five years, it would be
pointless to install a smart meter on or near our home.
We will fully co-operate with future meter readings and hope this satisfies both Festival
Hydro and the Ontario Government.
Yours sincerely,
Martin Weatherall
______________________________
29. Wi-fi stealing considered a major crime in Michigan
Fox 28
More>> by Dave Schroeder "I use wi-fi daily for both business and personal use," said
businessman Curt Gressinger. Greissinger travels the world for ...
http://www.fox28.com/Global/story.asp?S=13716760
Note - What a strange world we live in. People can spread harmful microwave radiation
around freely, causing ill health, cancer and possibly death to others, without concern from
legal authorities and the police. Yet if someone was to use the signal from that radiation
to check his e-mail, he faces serious criminal charges!
This is more evidence of how stupid the law and the EMR situation really is.
Martin
______________________________
30. Wake-up Call 2

http://www.youtube.com/user/EMRinformation?feature=mhum.
______________________________
31. LE DEVOIR, La Une/Front Page: "Ottawa s'éveille à la

menace électromagnétique"
56
http://www.next-
up.org/pdf/Le_Devoir_La_Une_Ottawa_s_eveille_a_la_menace_electromagnetique_18_12
_2010.pdf
______________________________
32. We need to get to the bottom of what mobile phones do

to our health
As we await more research, phone companies shouldn't shirk from their responsibility to
broadcast precautionary messages
Tom Watson
guardian.co.uk, Monday 20 December 2010 11.00 GMT
Without my iPhone, I'd find it hard to function, to stay in touch with my constituents and
check the latest developments in Westminster on the move. Colleagues always joke that
my mobile is glued to my ear. And, yes, I've even been known to use it in the bath.
But what does all that talk-time do to your health? Or carrying a phone next to your body
for 18 hours a day?
The scientific jury is still out on whether those powerful micro-waves may be causing long-
term damage. Thousands of studies have already been published on the subject, especially
into the links between brain cancer and radiation. Yet the vast majority have proved
57
inconclusive. Only last year, the World Health Organisation's International Agency for
Research on Cancer said further work was crucial into the long-term "heavy" use of mobile
phones.
The effects are as unclear as a decade ago. But one fact is indisputable. Brain cancer is on
the rise among 20- to 29-year-olds. Imagine if all our worst fears came true? What if
mobile phone-related brain cancer in the current generation is like the tobacco and lung
cancer scandal for the previous one?
The least the government should do is put pressure on the industry to use its vast profits
for genuine, independent research. The "big four" – O2, Orange, Vodafone and T-Mobile –
generate more than £100bn in revenue, the equivalent of the entire NHS budget. We need
to get to the bottom of what mobile phones do to our health once and for all with an
independent fund for research. This fund should support academics examining the risks.
Having read the evidence, I wouldn't let a child or teenager use a phone for anything other
than texting and emailing. Children are most at risk because radiation penetrates deeper
into their brains through their smaller, thinner skulls.
Of course, the phone companies are not daft. Those leaflets packaged with your shiny new
phone already carry health warnings. It's just that they're buried in the small print.
According to Apple, the safe distance for an iPhone is ⅝ of an inch or more from your
head. Research in Motion, which makes the BlackBerry, is even more cautious. It warns
customers to leave about an inch between their skull and the handset.
These disclaimers are all very well. But I'm not going to accept the big four have done
enough to safeguard our health. And neither will the courts. So it's in their interest to
advertise precautionary health advice. And I mean advertise it properly. It's simply not
good enough to bury a warning inside the box – it should be printed in explicit language on
the packaging. There should also be public education campaigns. Mobile phone companies
shouldn't shirk from their responsibility to broadcast precautionary messaging.
It's the least these firms can do with their profits. Vodafone stands accused of £6bn in tax
avoidance just while the public sector faces massive budget cuts – and although the phone
giant denies the claims, it's now a symbolic target for protests against coalition axe-
wielding.
Henry Lai, a bioengineering professor at the University of Washington, has been warning of
the potential risks of mobile phones since the 1980s. He's also concerned about the bias of
studies funded by mobile phone companies. According to Lai's calculations, at least two-
thirds of studies without mobile-phone industry funding conclude that wireless
communication has a biological effect. So what was the verdict of those funded by the
industry? Just 28% of studies backed by mobile-phone companies found any negative
impact. I asked Lai if he believed the industry was deliberately playing down the risks
because it would affect their profits. His response was yes.
This is not about scaremongering. But brain cancers can take many years to develop, as
Cancer Research UK points out on its website. Which is why funding for long-term studies
is crucial. In the meantime, those of us who receive a mobile this Christmas should take a
moment to read the small print.
● guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2011
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/20/mobile-phones-health-
companies-precaution-research
______________________________
58
33. SHORT-TERM MEMORY IN MICE IS AFFECTED BY MOBILE
PHONE RADIATION
Tuesday December 21st 2010, 1:48 pm

Filed under: Cell phone news
A new paper by Lukas Margaritis and his team at the University of Athens has been
published in Pathophysiology in November 2010.
From Lukas Margaritis:
http://kyttariki.biol.uoa.gr/EMR-GROUP/Ntzouni-et-al-2010-memory-in%
20%20mice.pdf
Pathophysiology. 2010 Nov 25. [Epub ahead of print]
Short-term memory in mice is affected by mobile phone radiation.
Ntzouni MP, Stamatakis A, Stylianopoulou F, Margaritis LH.

Department of Cell Biology and Biophysics, Faculty of Biology, National and Kapodistrian
University of Athens, Panepistimiopolis, Zographou 15784, Athens, Greece.
Abstract
The effects of mobile phone electromagnetic fields (EMFs) were studied on a non-spatial
memory task (Object Recognition Task - ORT) that requires entorhinal cortex function. The
task was applied to three groups of mice Mus musculus C57BL/6 (exposed, sham-exposed
and control) combined with 3 different radiation exposure protocols. In the first protocol
designated “acute exposure”, mice 45 days old (PND45 - postnatal day 45) were exposed
to mobile phone (MP) radiation (SAR value 0.22W/kg) during the habituation, the training
and the test sessions of the ORT, but not during the 10min inter-trial interval (ITI) where
consolidation of stored object information takes place. On the second protocol designated
“chronic exposure-I”, the same mice were exposed for 17 days for 90min/per day starting
at PND55 to the same MP radiation. ORT recognition memory was performed at PND72
with radiation present only during the ITI phase. In the third protocol designated “chronic
exposure-II”, mice continued to be exposed daily under the same conditions up to PND86
having received radiation for 31 days. One day later the ORT test was performed without
irradiation present in any of the sessions. The ORT-derived discrimination indices in all
three exposure protocols revealed a major effect on the “chronic exposure-I” suggesting a
possible severe interaction of EMF with the consolidation phase of recognition memory
processes. This may imply that the primary EMF target may be the information transfer
pathway connecting the entorhinal-parahippocampal regions which participate in the ORT
memory task.
Copyright © 2010. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd
Lukas H. Margaritis
Professor Cell Biology and Radiobiology
Dept. of Cell Biology and Biophysics
Faculty of Biology
University of Athens, Greece
tel. +2107274542, fax. + 2107274742
http://kyttariki.biol.uoa.gr/emr_group.htm
59
http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=1386
______________________________
34. Wireless foes gear up for new battle
Firstenberg, others cite health risks from stronger signals in system upgrade
Tom Sharpe | The New Mexican

Posted: Sunday, December 19, 201
Wireless opponent Arthur Firstenberg wants a new round of public hearings on last
month's upgrades of AT&T's cellular-phone system in Santa Fe.
Firstenberg, who says he is hypersensitive to electromagnetic signals from wireless

devices, drew headlines last year by suing his neighbor over her use of an iPhone and a
Wi-Fi system. A judge has thrown out the iPhone claim, but the Wi-Fi claim is set for trial
on March 21.
Now, Firstenberg is asking for a judge to require AT&T to apply for a special exception
from the city to increase the intensity of its signals. Otherwise, he contends, AT&T should
be forced to shut off its new system in 30 days.
An AT&T spokeswoman declined to comment on the charges and referred a reporter to an

industry group, whose spokesman was not available for comment this week.
On Nov. 15, AT&T turned on its third generation — 3G — network for the first time in
Santa Fe, allowing faster connections and new options on iPhones. Verizon Wireless, which
provides service for the BlackBerry and other smart phones, has offered 3G service here
since 2006. It plans to begin 4G service in some cities next year and by 2013 in Santa Fe.
Verizon reportedly will begin offering service for iPhones early next year.
AT&T's implementation of 3G service "vastly increased the bandwidth of their radio

emissions," constituting "a change in the intensity of use," according to Firstenberg's pro-
se petition for a writ of mandamus filed Wednesday in state District Court in Santa Fe.
The city land-use code, it says, requires AT&T to seek a special exception "for each of its
existing base stations before it is permitted to increase the intensity of use" — a process
that requires new public hearings.
The city already had one hearing on the subject on Nov. 17, when the Board of
Adjustment approved changes in several AT&T cell towers to accommodate 3G service.
Firstenberg and others at that meeting claimed that under the land-use code, AT&T should
seek a special exception for those changes, but city attorneys maintained that was not
required, Firstenberg said.
Attached to Firstenberg's petition are letters from more than a dozen people asking the
Board of Adjustment to reject the changes because they are concerned that their health,
or that of others, is being damaged by the proliferation of electromagnetic signals.
Angela Werneke of Santa Fe wrote that she has immune deficiency, chronic fatigue and
chronic migraines. Although she has not been diagnosed with electromagnetic sensitivity,
she wrote, she is "deeply concerned, not only for my own personal health and well being,
60
but also for all those who are being marginalized from our community by the pervasive
and rapidly increasing levels of electromagnetic radiation."
Felicia Noelle Trujillo, a Feldenkrais practitioner in Santa Fe, wrote that she has patients
who are undeniably sensitive to electromagnetic radiation and will suffer from "this brutal
and instant rise in the levels of EMR in their environment, when they are already in a
weakened state."
Jeraldine Peterson-Mark, a Santa Fe massage therapist, said she tries to avoid the
"disturbances caused by living in a wired society," but believes "there is nowhere left to
run or hide as large companies' interests are being prioritized over my rights as an
individual to choose my good health and well being over bloated modern conveniences."
Contact Tom Sharpe at 986-3080 or tsharpe@sfnewmexican.com
______________________________
35. Wi-fi in schools: an invisible threat?
Carolyn Jarvis, Gaïa Willis-Owen, 16:9: Monday, December 20, 2010
Wifi
Photo Credit: Global News, 16:9
Sixteen-year-old McKenzy Honing says school makes him feel sick.
The grade 11 British Columbia high school student came home complaining of headaches
and heart palpitations. “It felt like my heart was skipping beats,” he said. But on the
weekends?
“I’d start to get better. And by Sunday I’d start to feel normal.”
Just a typical kid trying to get out of class? Maybe. But McKenzy’s mom, Lynda Honing,
doesn’t think so.
She thinks her son’s health is at risk. And she’s just one of hundreds of concerned parents
across the country speaking out against what they fear may be an invisible threat to their
childrens’ well being: Wi-Fi in schools.
Global News’ current affairs program, 16:9 The Bigger Picture, wanted to find out just how
much radiation laptops and routers in schools could be emitting.
61
So 16:9 asked Kavinder Dhillon, president of LabTest Certification Inc., to test radiation
levels in a simulated typical, active wireless classroom.
The result? A reading of 113.8 microwatts – well below Health Canada’s recommended
threshold of 10 million microwatts.
Just outside the classroom in the hallway, the radiation reading near the router hit 2600
microwatts.
That’s 20 times higher than inside the classroom. While it was still low by Health Canada
standards, Dhillon expressed some discomfort. “The people who are in the industry, who
are testing this,” he told 16:9, “they feel this is a high level. This is very high.”
16:9 investigated further with another test to see how a person might react in proximity to
radiation levels Health Canada considers safe.
Professor Magda Havas, a Trent University environmental scientist, used a wireless

computer and a router on an adult male subject who calls himself “electrically sensitive.”
In a blind test, Prof. Havas exposed him to microwave radiation at levels similar to those
in an average wireless classroom.
She found the closer the router, the faster the subject’s heart rate. Although the levels she
used in the test were under Health Canada’s limit, Prof. Havas has a theory that may
explain her findings.
“Some percentage of the population is reacting to this microwave radiation,” she said.
But could trading chalkboards for laptops make kids sick? 16:9 asked the Wi-Fi Alliance to
comment on wireless products’ possible health effects.
The Alliance responded with a written statement. “Wi-Fi technology meets all national and
international safety requirements,” it said, “and emits signals that are typically hundreds
to thousands of times below the safety limits.”
When 16:9 first asked Health Canada to respond to parents’ concerns about WiFi, Beth
Pieterson, a Health Canada representative said there was no reason to worry.
She told 16:9 the amount of radiation children experience in a typical wireless classroom is
in no way responsible for the headaches, nausea and hyperactivity some kids say they
experience.
“There’s no scientific evidence,” said Pieterson, “that those kinds of effects are caused by
the energy limits the kids are exposed to by Wi-Fi.”
Now, after 16:9’s investigation aired, putting WiFi in the spotlight, Health Canada is
promising to look at the potential health risks associated with WiFi exposure.
Early this month, the Health Committee made recommendations to parliament including an
independent long-term study and the development of a process to receive and respond to
reports of adverse reactions to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation.
Dr. David Carpenter from Albany, New York, a world-renowned expert in environmental
toxins, told 16:9 the evidence warrants a serious second look.
“The weight of the evidence demonstrates clearly that exposure to RF radiation causes
disease,” he said, adding, “the evidence is strongest for cancer.”
62
While Canada races to go wireless, in other parts of the world, Wi-Fi has worn out its
welcome. Herouville-St.Clair, France is the first municipality in the world to remove W-Fi
from schools and public buildings.
Mayor Rudolphe Thomas told 16:9 he’s not willing to gamble with childrens’ health.
In other European countries, wireless technology is still prevalent, but it's increasingly
treated with caution. In Germany, Wi-Fi is still in use but the government recommended
children limit their exposure. And in Britain, some public schools independently decided to
remove it altogether.
Here, the current precautions are few and the Wi-Fi hotspots are plenty. Parents like
Honing are concerned we’re sacrificing our kids’ health for convenience.
She says she doesn’t want to wait. She doesn’t want her son to be an experiment. Dr.
Carpenter shares her concern.
He told 16:9 it’s time for Canada to stop turning a blind eye to Wi-Fi’s possible risks. “You
don’t want to wait until you can count the bodies before you tell the public that there is a
serious potential of harm,” he said.
“And with regard to the issue of Wi-Fi in schools, this is exactly where we are.”
© Copyright (c) CW Media Inc.
http://www.globaltvbc.com/schools+invisible+threat/4003568/story.html
______________________________
36. A New York Township Panel Says No to Cell Phone

Antenna Plan
Richard Teahon Dec 20th, 2010 Featured News, Technology. RSS 2.0.
63
A Long Island township’s appeals board has rejected a proposal to install six mobile phone
antennas on the roof of a Jewish community center. The plan from a cell phone company
was to install the antennas on Farimingdale Wantagh Jewish Center.
They were rejected because the phone company could not prove the need to improve
wireless coverage.
There was also a concern from residents, that property values would be lowered due to
their close proximity to the phone antennas.
This is similar to a current situation in the UK, where residents are voicing concerns over
the installation of phone masts over health and conservation issues. It is unlikely that the
application to install phone masts by two phone companies will be rejected in this case.
In Hempstead New York however, the Jewish community center remains antenna free.
There does seem to be a backlash against phone antennas, largely down to health,
property values, and unsightly appearance.
http://seerpress.com/a-new-york-township-panel-says-no-to-cell-phone-antenna-plan/18412/
______________________________
37. Scientific study: Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields

(UMTS, 1,950 MHz) inducegenotoxic effects in vitro in human
fibroblasts but not in lymphocytes.
- Schwarz C, Kratochvil E, Pilger A, Kuster N, Adlkofer F, Rüdiger HW.
64
- All Next-up News: www.next-up.org/Newsoftheworld/2010.php
http://www.next-
up.org/pdf/NCBI_Pub_Med_Scientific_panel_on_electromagnetic_field_health_risks_conse
nsus_points_recommendations_and_rationales_02_2011.pdf
______________________________
38. EMR Warnings from 1999
Still, what's known so far is suggestive enough that in 1997, more than 40 researchers
and faculty members at the Harvard School of Public Health, and others at the BU School
of Public Health, signed a petition asking that state officials block Sprint from activating a
PCS network pending "a full review and determination of its safety by the scientific
community."
"It is just stupid to disperse microwaves upon the population from a public-health
perspective," says Susan Clarke, an anti-EMF activist from Concord who organized the
petition drive. "How much do we value healthy brain functioning in our society? How much
do we value freedom from cancer?"
Sue
http://www.bostonphoenix.com/archive/features/99/04/01/EM.html
______________________________
39. Wisconsin Utilities Bullying Customers Over Smart

Meters
The age-old adage First Do No Harm should be the tempering goal of not only
medicine, but government and industry, especially when they team up to deploy
new technologies, set policies and serve the people.
This blog exists to reveal and analyze areas in which these powerful groups are
failing to "first do no harm."
http://firstdonoharmblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/wisconsin-utilities-bullying-
customers.html
______________________________
65
"Doubt is our product," a cigarette executive once observed, "since it is the best
means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general
public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy."
http://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Their-Product-Industrys-Threatens/dp/019530067X
"Not one drop of rain thinks it causes the flood."
______________________________
And the Insanity Continues! Until next time! Wake Up People, Wake Up! Giving up your cell
phone is an act of compassion -- and intelligence.
The EMF Refugees
66

EMR-Updates 12.20.10 - 12.26.10

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EMR-Updates 12.20.10 - 12.26.10

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EMR-Updates

December 20th – December 26th, 2010

The Newsletter of the

International Coalition for an Electromagnetic Safe Planet

Education! Awareness! Support! Action!

1. The Downside of Electric Cars (The Globe and Mail)

1. The Downside of Electric Cars

2. Open Letter to the Chief Medical Officer of Health for the

Dr Arlene King, MD, MHSc, FRCPC

Chief Medical Officer of Health for the Province of Ontario

Dear Dr. King;

RE: YOUR REPORT “THE POTENTIAL HEALTH IMPACT OF WIND TURBINES”

(ii) Adoption of the position of the CanWEA/AmWEA Expert Panel Report

Your report regurgitated most of the information already published in the

(iii) Loss of credibility because of selection of industry report principal author

(iv) Lack of scholarly rigour in researching available information

Investigating the validity of data is an essential and customary process fundamental to

(vi) Dissenting opinion

Dr. McMurtry goes on to point out:

Is Dr. Sivoththaman’s appointment not a contradiction of credible process on the part of

Professor Sivoththaman is a recognized expert in semiconductor materials, electronic

1. Adverse Health Effects of Wind Turbines.pdf

2. Article by Joan Morris in Woodstock Beacon Herald

Attachment 2: Recent article in Woodstock Beacon Herald:

According to Alec Salt, PhD, Professor of Otolaryngology, allowing turbines to be located

J. Morris, MHSc (Community Health & Epidemiology)

Attachment 3: Summary of The First International Symposium on the Global

1. Claim: Ontario’s regulations are the best in the world.

3. Claim: Wind Turbines do not produce low-frequency sound.

4. Claim: People cannot detect infrasound.

6. Claim: Wind turbine noise is harmless.

7. Claim: Wind turbine noise affects few people seriously.

9. Claim: Wind development serves the public good.

10. Claim: Ontario’s Green Energy Act is unchallengeable.

Friends of Arran Lake

3. How many cellular towers are there in Toronto?

4. Cell phones - health risks debate continues

A great percentage of the exposure to electromagnetic radiation could be eliminated by

Davis’ Cell Phone Views Are Controversial

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established exposure standards based on

DNA Damage Due to Radio Waves

Cell Phone Restrictions Aim to Protect Children

Davis strongly encouraged epidemiologists in the audience to brainstorm research

Cell Phone Symposium Next Year

Member of the Buergerwelle Germany (incorporated society)

RF EMR sources, safety standards, and research

Cancer Cluster Investigation St Michael's School

We need to get to the bottom of what mobile phones do to our health

THE LEGISLATOR'S GUIDE TO WARNING LABELS ON CELL PHONES

Legal challenge in regards to PG&Es usage of smart meters

Wi-fi in schools: an invisible threat?

New mobile phone masts concern Putney Hill residents

London Borough of Putney in Battle With Mobile Phone Companies

A New York Township Panel Says No to Cell Phone Antenna Plan

No cell towers atop buildings without PMC's nod

Battling neighbours set for another mast fight

Next-up News Nr 1536

Next-up News Nr 1537

Next-up News Nr 1539

Next-up News Nr 1540

Next-up News Nr 1541

News from Mast Sanity

6. Voice For Hope