CureZone   Log On   Join
Image Embedded How bad is it? It's BAD!!!
unyquity Views: 6,109
Published: 10 years ago
Status:       ~RN [Message recommended by a moderator!]

How bad is it? It's BAD!!!

Okay folks,  you know how we're always complaining that folks that say they are spiritual/religious like to "talk the talk but not walk the walk"?

Well, that applies to everything in life, and especially in health.

WIFI in your home?  If we're gonna do more than be a hypocrites about our health, then it's time to go back to wired connections and telephones.

From here:

Absolutely Brilliant! Here is a talk given by Dr Andrew Goldsworthy at the ES conference in October 2009. He discusses the underlying mechanisms of the many symptoms associated with Electro sensitivity.

The Month Of May Is Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS) Awareness Month

as proclaimed by Governor Charles Crist of Florida, U.S.A., at the  State Capitol of Talahassee on the 29th of March in the year two thousand nine.

Check out our recently updated website: which has more relevant EMF Information. presents seminars and lectures and the latest news geared to help spread the word about this Toxic Enemy.  Have your event posted here.

Some excellent websites we have discovered: Our Network grows stronger. 

Did you know that Microwaves (which is what wifi is based on) are considered a "Stealth Weapon" because they undetectable. Very scary information, wouldn't you agree.
Spread the news - tell your friends, tell everyone please.

The Science
1. Research Programmes and Reviews The programmes and reviews quoted in this section cover a broad range of frequencies and study types including in vivo, in vitro and epidemiological research. These studies form a basis of evaluation for the effects of all digital wireless applications, including WiFi. 
1.1    The BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic fields (ELF and RF). []
 BioInitiative Report 2007. This report is the result of collaboration by twenty-one working scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals (individual names, accreditations and affiliations reviewed 2000 peer reviewed scientific research papers on the issue of EMF.
1.1 The BioInitiative Report provides detailed analysis of the impact on human health (biological not thermal) of exposure to electromagnetic radiation hundreds or even thousands of times below limits currently established by Health Canada, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) in Europe. The authors of the BioInitiative Report conclude that the existing public safety limits are inadequate to protect public health and further state that in light of the total weight of evidence, new public safety limits - as well as limits on further deployment of risk-laden, insufficiently proven technologies - are undeniably warranted.
The following recommendation from the BioInitiative Report are particularly direct Section 17: Key Scientific Evidence and Public Health Policy Recommendations:
  • Mobile phone-free and Wi-Fi free public areas should be established in areas where the public congregates and can have a reasonable expectation of safety……..”
  • Health agencies and school districts should:
    • strongly discourage or prohibit cell towers on or near (within 1000’ of) school properties,
    •  should delay any new WLAN installations in school classrooms, pre-schools and day-care facilities; and
    • should either remove or disable existing wireless facilities, or be required to offer classrooms with no RF exposure to those families who choose not to have their children involuntarily exposed.”  
“B. Defining preventative actions for reduction in RF exposures. Given the scientific evidence at hand (Chapter 17), the rapid deployment of new wireless technologies that chronically expose people to pulsed RF at levels reported to cause bioeffects, which in turn, could reasonably be presumed to lead to serious health impacts,is of public health concern. Section 17 summarizes evidence that has resulted in a public health recommendation that preventative action is warranted to reduce or minimize RF exposures to the public. There is suggestive to strongly suggestive evidence that RF exposures may cause changes in cell membrane function, cell communication, cell metabolism, activation of proto-oncogenes and can trigger the production of stressproteins at exposure levels below current regulatory limits. Resulting effects can include DNA breaks and chromosome aberrations, cell death including death of brain neurons, increased free radical production, activation of the endogenous opioid system, cell stress and premature aging, changes in brain function including memory loss, retarded learning, slower motor function and other performance impairment in children, headaches and fatigue, sleep disorders, neurodegenerative conditions, reduction in melatonin secretion and cancers (Chapters 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12).”
“….we also recommend that wired alternatives to WI-FI be implemented, particularly in  schools and libraries so that children are not subjected to elevated RF levels until more is understood about possible health impacts. This recommendation should be seen as an interim precautionary limit that is intended to guide preventative actions; and more conservative limits may be needed in the future.” The BioInitiative Report recommendations have been used internationally by all levels of authorities to support precautionary measures, which include either the dismantling of Wi-Fi systems or the adopting of hard wiring policies.
It is  strongly recommended that you review the full Report [or even the summary], available at:  
1.2. The Benevento Resolution:  After a conference in Italy in 2006 the Benevento Resolution was signed by 49 leading scientists from around the world. This included: “5 epidemiological and in vivo as well as in vitro experimental evidence demonstrating that exposure to some ELF EMF can increase cancer risk in children and induce other health problems in both children and adults.

1.3. The ECOLOG Institute Review:   In 2000, the same year the Stewart Report was commissioned by the UK Government, T-Mobil in Germany commissioned a highly-rated independent research institute, the ECOLOG Institute in Hanover, to review all relevant available research to date with regard to the health risks from mobile telecommunications. (


This review of over 220 peer-reviewed and published papers found strong indications for the cancer-initiating and cancer-promoting effects of high frequency electromagnetic fields used by mobile telephone technology. Experiments on cell cultures at power flux densities much lower than the guidelines, yielded strong indications for genotoxic effects of these fields, like single and double stranded DNA breaks and damage to chromosomes. The findings that high frequency electromagnetic fields influence cell transformation, cell growth promotion and cell communication also point on a carcinogenic potential of the fields used for mobile telephony. The study also found teratogenic effects (birth deformities) and loss of fertility in animal studies. Moreover, disruptions of other cellular processes, like the synthesis of proteins and the control of cell functions by enzymes, have been demonstrated.

Numerous experiments on humans as well as on animals proved effects on the central nervous system, which reach from neuro-chemical effects to modifications of the brain potentials and impairments of certain brain functions. Loss of memory and cognitive function, for instance, have been demonstrated by animal experiments. From experiments with volunteers, who were exposed to the fields of mobile telephones, there is clear evidence for influences on certain cognitive functions. Possible risks for the brain also arise from an increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier to potentially harmful substances, observed in several experiments on animals exposed to mobile telephone fields.

The ECOLOG report also found indications for disruptions of the endocrine and the immune system. High frequency electromagnetic fields cause stress reactions, showing up in an increased production of stress hormones in experimental animals and they lead to a reduction of the concentration of the hormone melatonin in the blood of exposed animals and humans. Melatonin has a central control function for the hormone system and the diurnal biological rhythms and it is able to retard the development of certain tumours.

A common observation in many of the studies was the importance of pulse modulation. Pulse modulated fields seemed to have a stronger effect than continuous fields and that in some cases, it was the pulse of a certain frequency which triggered the reaction, and absence of pulse, or pulse of a different frequency, led to less significant effects or no effect at all.

In summary, the ECOLOG report came to dramatically different conclusions than the Stewart Report and called for an immediate downward regulation of the power flux density that should be allowed by the guidelines, by a factor of 1,000.

1.4. The Hecht and Balzer Report (1997)
In November 1996, the German Federal Office for Telecommunication (German equivalent of OFCOM) commissioned Prof. em. Prof. Dr Med. Karl Hecht (Professor emeritus of the Humboldt University Berlin) to conduct a review of the Russian scientific literature (1960 to date) with regards to the effects of electromagnetic frequencies on human health. Of the 1500 studies pre-selected for the review, 878 met the criteria to be included in the review. This is the most extensive body of long-term epidemiological and occupational studies ever researched on the subject.  [] The long-term effects with a high incidence found included:
  • Neurasthenia (a condition characterised by chronic fatigue, dizziness, headaches, anxiety, depression).
  • EEG changes (disruption of alpha rhythm in the brain).
  • Sleep disturbance.blood pressure variations
  • Heart arrhythmia and other cardio-vascular conditions.
  • Higher susceptibility to infections.
The long-term effects with a high incidence found included:
  • Neurasthenia (a condition characterised by chronic fatigue, dizziness, headaches, anxiety, depression).
  • EEG changes (disruption of alpha rhythm in the brain).
  • Sleep disturbance.blood pressure variations
  • Heart arrhythmia and other cardio-vascular conditions.
  • Higher susceptibility to infections.
1.5. The Wireless Technology Research Programme
In 1993, the US Congress decided that proper cell phone research was needed. An agreement was made between the FDA and the wireless industry according to which the industry would fund an extensive research programme with $28.5 million, the Wireless Technology Research programme (WTR). The WTR programme lasted six years and was controlled by a peer-review board from Harvard University. It was led by Dr George Carlo, who at a recent presentation in Westminster mentioned the following points amongst the findings: - Near field radiation causes a leakage in the blood brain barrier- Genotoxic effects were found at non-thermal levels of exposure- A doubling of the risk of certain types of brain tumour (neuroepithelial tumours)  

1.6. The REFLEX Report (December 2004)

 Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards from Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods. A project funded by the European Union under the programme “Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources.” 

Twelve institutes in seven countries have found genotoxic effects, and effects on gene expression and protein formation in cells in vitro, under extremely low frequency-structured radio frequencies at low levels, well below current international safety guidelines. Results like these indicate the possibility of long-term genetic damage, and other biological consequences for users of mobile phones and those exposed chronically to other sources of modulated and structured electromagnetic fields.

“The main goal of the REFLEX project was to investigate the effects of EMF on single cells in vitro at the molecular level below the energy density reflected by the present safety levels….The Reflex project was, therefore, designed to answer the question whether or not any of these disease causing critical events could occur in living cells after EMF exposure. Failure to observe such events in living cells in vitro after EMF exposure would have suggested that further research efforts in this field could be suspended and financial resources should be reallocated for the investigation of more important issues. The now available scientific evidence of such critical events, however, demonstrates the need for intensifying research. Although in vitro data can never prove EMF as a cause of disease, they do support such an assumption. Precautionary measures seem to be warranted.” 

Lai and Singh used power frequency fields, and modulated microwave fields (CDMA) in their experiments, finding single and double strand breaks. Double strand breaks are unusual and can lead to cancerous cells. Exposure to microwave radiation (2,450 MHz, at a whole body specific absorption rate (SAR) of 0.6 and 1.2 W/kg) for 2 hours caused an increase in both single and double strand breaks in DNA of brain cells in the rat. [Lai and Singh, 1995 *Lai H and Singh N P (1995). Acute low-intensity microwave exposure increases DNA single-strand breaks in rat brain cells. Bioelectromagnetics, 16, 207-210.], 1996.)pV]

2.   Epidemiological Studies on Base Stations/Wi Fi 
The radiation from WiFi is comparable to the radiation from base stations. (The signal strength intensity from WiFi is similar to and can be greater than average readings where the beam of maximum intensity from a base station reaches the ground at about 100 metres i.e. comparing the typical points of human exposure.) 
BBC Panorama documentary describing Wifi exposure compared to mobile cell tower exposure to EMF.
Kolodynski AA, Kolodynska VV, (February 1996) Motor and psychological functions of school children living in the area of the Skrunda Radio Location Station in Latvia, The Science of the Total Environment. 180(1): 87-93
"Motor function, memory and attention significantly differed between the exposed and control groups. Children living in front of the RLS had less developed memory and attention, their reaction time was slower and their neuromuscular apparatus endurance was decreased" 

The signals from this transmitter were pulsed and of a similar intensity to exposures from WiFi.

Santini R et al, (July 2002) Investigation on the health of people living near mobile telephone relay stations: 1.Incidence according to distance and sex, Pathol Biol (Paris) 2002 Jul; 50(6):369-73
"Comparisons of complaints frequencies (CHI-SQUARE test with Yates correction) in relation with distance from base station and sex, show significant (p < 0.05) increase as compared to people living > 300 m or not exposed to base station, till 300 m for tiredness, 200 m for headache, sleep disturbance, discomfort, etc. 100 m for irritability, depression, loss of memory, dizziness, libido decrease, etc. Women significantly more often than men (p < 0.05) complained of headache, nausea, loss of appetite, sleep disturbance, depression, discomfort and visual perturbations. This first study on symptoms experienced by people living in vicinity of base stations shows that, in view of radioprotection, minimal distance of people from cellular phone base stations should not be < 300 m."
Zwamborn APM et al, 2003, Effects of Global Communication System Radio-frequency fields on well being and cognitive functions of human subjects with and without subjective complaints. Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (TNO) 

This study found significant effects on wellbeing, according to a number of internationally-recognised criteria (including headaches, muscle pain and dizziness) from 3G mast emissions well below ICNIRP guidelines. Those who had previously been noted as ‘electrosensitive’ were shown to have more pronounced ill-effects, though others were also shown to experience significant effects.

The Naila Study. Eger H et al, (2004) Influence of the spatial proximity of mobile phone base stations on cancer rates. Umwelt-Medizin-Gesellschaft 17:273-356 
"The result of the study shows that the proportion of newly developing cancer cases was significantly higher among those patients who had lived during the last ten  years at a distance of up to 400 metres from the cellular transmitter site, which has been in operation since 1993, compared to those patients living further away, and that the patients fell ill on average 8 years earlier. In the years 1999-2004, i.e. after five years’ operation of the transmitting installation, the relative risk of getting cancer had trebled for the residents of the area in the proximity of the installation compared to the inhabitants of Naila outside the area.”

Wolf R, Wolf D, (April 2004) Increased incidence of cancer near a cell-phone transmitter station, International Journal of Cancer Prevention, 1(2) April 2004


"A comparison of the relative risk revealed that there were 4.15 times more cases in area A than in the entire population. The study indicates an association between increased incidence of cancer and living in proximity to a cell-phone transmitter station."
This study, based on medical records of people living within 350 metres of a long established phone mast, showed a fourfold increased incidence of cancer generally compared with the general population of Israel, and a tenfold increase specifically among women, compared with the surrounding locality further from the mast.
 Oberfeld G et al, (October 2004) The Microwave Syndrome - Further Aspects of a Spanish Study, Conference Proceedings.

 "The adjusted (sex, age, distance) logistic regression model showed statistically significant positive exposure-response associations between the E-field and the following variables: fatigue, irritability, headaches, nausea, loss of appetite, sleeping disorder, depressive tendency, feeling of discomfort, difficulty in concentration, loss of memory, visual disorder, dizziness and cardiovascular problems. The inclusion of the distance, which might be a proxy for the sometimes raised "concerns explanation", did not alter the model substantially." 

 Oberfeld G et al, (May 2005) Cell phone base stations change brain currents and cause unwellness. 

“The radiation of a cell phone base station at a distance of 80 metres causes significant changes of the electrical currents in the brains of testees (measured by electroencephalogram, EEG). All the testees said they felt unwell during the radiation, some of them seriously.

During the second phase the parameters of all the brainwaves, measured by EEG, changed significantly. Afterwards the testees were asked to describe their experiences. All of them felt unwell during the second phase. They reported symptoms like buzzing in the head, palpitations of the heart, unwellness, lightheadedness, anxiety, breathlessness, respiratory problems, nervousness, agitation, headache, tinnitus, heat sensation and depression. 

According to the scientists, this is the first worldwide proof of significant changes of the electrical currents in the brain by a cell phone base station at a distance of 80 metres. It has been scientifically established before that the radiation of cell phone base stations leads to unwellness and health complaints.”
For more studies see:  
In January 2005 Sir William Stewart, chairman of the Health Protection Agency and chairman of the IEGMP 2000 (Stewart Report), was reported to have said that evidence of potentially harmful effects had become more persuasive over the last five years. Among the studies which concerned him were cited the REFLEX report, the TNO study and the Naila study.[] 
3. Resolutions and Appeals
Governments would have been aware of several resolutions and formal appeals made by scientists throughout Europe who were concerned about the dangers of ‘non-thermal’ electromagnetic fields (i.e. below the level at which EMR absorption raises temperature). Also, similarly, there have been many appeals made by medical practitioners.
Appeals by scientists: 

Vienna Resolution (1998, by 16 international scientists).[]

Salzburg Resolution (2000, by 19 international scientists and public health doctors).[]

Catania Resolution (2002, by 16 international scientists).[]

The Benevento Resolution (2006, by 31 international scientists).[]

Kompetenz Initiative (2007, 18 organisations, 56 international scientists).[]
Appeals by medical doctors: 
Freiburger (2002, now by 1,500 doctors).[]
Bamberger (2005, by 175 doctors).[]

Also in Germany:  Hofer (2005) []

Coburger (2005) []

Freienbacher (2005) []

Lichtenfelser (2005) [[

The Public must demand Healthy Homes and living environments: we have the non toxic materials, the scientific measuring devices AND we have the Technology.

Let's minimize our exposure to Wi Fi and other EMF (Electromagnetic Fields, Electromagnetic Forces and even Electromagnetic Flux).



 The Solution Is Simple

Turn Off Your Wi-fi Exposure

Say No To WiFi

 The Solution Is Easy


 Governments and WiFi (WLAN)


Safe Living is your North American specialist for Wifi exposure and EMF concernsMeasure wifi and emf exposure: Buy an EMF Meter 

Please Join Our Crusade In Removing WiFi & EMF Exposure

Make It Happen Where You Live!


Are Cellphones Really Safe For Children? 

View the CBC Marketplace presentation


Current regulation (posted May 2009) 

Canada follows the guidance levels issued by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) []. However, these guidelines only cover short-term (6 minutes) heating effects of surface shock and burns. They explicitly exclude “potential long-term effects of exposure, such as an increased risk of cancer.” There are no guidelines to cover the non-thermal effects of long-term exposure to this form of low-level electromagnetic radiation.

Responding to studies showing effects at non-thermal levels,  governments in Europe have decided to set more precautionary maximum exposure levels.[]

France has a proposed law which will limit exposure  EMFs emitted by mobile phone masts cannot exceed 0.6 v/m.  Public WiFi will be phased out.


For instance, at the frequency of 1800 MHz, the ICNIRP level for maximum exposure which applies in the UK is 58 V/m. By comparison in Switzerland, Italy, Russia and China the guideline level is 6 V/m and in Salzburg it is 0.06 V/m. (The natural cosmic background levels which mankind has evolved in are 0.00000002 V/m.)

In May 2000 the Ecolog Report of 220 studies called for the ICNIRP guidelines to be reduced by a factor of 1000

In September 2006 the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS) convened a conference in Italy [] The Benevento Resolution was signed by 31 leading world scientists calling for a meaningful precautionary approach to these technologies. The resolution includes:

More evidence has accumulated suggesting that there are adverse health effects from occupational and public exposures to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields, at current exposure levels….. Epidemiological and laboratory studies that show increased risks for cancers and other diseases from occupational exposures to EMF cannot be ignored…. Further, there is accumulating epidemiological evidence indicating an increased brain tumor risk from long term use of mobile phones.”

In August 2007 the BioInitiative Report reviewed 2000 research papers and concluded that the existing standards for public safety are inadequate to protect public health. They called for an international guideline level of 0.614 V/m.

Please Let Us Know How Your Country Is Taking Action To Minimize WiFi Exposure

Canada - Canadian Government & WiFi
Health Canada is failing to offer precautionary messages to Canadian. It is still relying on regulation published in 1999 and predominantly focusing on thermal affects.  Canada lacks some of the funding of other governments and has supported only a small number of studies.

Canada offside with world on cell tower issue,  April 2, 2009.

Health Canada says the government's limits of human exposure to  electromagnetic fields and radio frequency radiation, set in 1999,  adequately protect Canadians, including children, so no European-style  warning on cellphone towers is necessary..

While, the European parliament voted overwhelmingly to push for tougher  regulations to keep mobile phone towers and other electromagnetic emitting  devices away from schools and to limit cellphone use for children and  teenagers because of the "continuing uncertainties about the possible health  risks."

Key parts of the newly endorsed report, backed by 559 of 581  parliamentarians, puts Canada offside with a growing number of international  bodies raising concerns about a possible link between wireless technologies  and devices and certain types of cancers, including brain cancer.

In a statement issued Thursday in the wake of the vote, Health Canada said  it is constantly reviewing the scientific literature to make sure Canada's  Safety Code 6, which establishes exposure limits. The limits, last revised  in 1999, remain "current and valid," the department said.

"The limits set out in Safety Code 6 also protect frequent users of  cellphones as they assume non-stop usage — 24 hours a day, seven days a  week — which is not typical of Canadian cellphone use. As well, tests were  performed at peak power levels. Cellphones typically operate at much lower  levels."
·         Lakehead University Bans Wif
In Jan 2008, Lakehead university made a decision “to limit wireless connectivity based on the “precautionary principle” as there are numerous scientific studies that suggest there is a basis for concern that continuous or frequent long-term exposre to WiFi electromagnetic fields could have adverse health effect. 

“microwave radiation in the frequency range of WiFi has been shown to increase permeability of the blood-brain barrier, cause behavioural changes, alter cognitive functions, activate a stress response, interfere with brain waves, cell growth, cell communication, calcium ion balance etc and cause single and double strand DNA breaks at EMF levels as low as 0.005w/kg”

The Canadian Human Rights Commission in 2007 recognised electrosensitivity as an environmental sensitivity:

Europe - European Governments & WiFi
France - French Government and WiFi
Europe is leading the World on its approach to Electro magnetic radiation. 
 In April 2009, 5 French senators proposed  a new French law: Everyone has the right to live in a safe environment respectful of health”.  Do we have to wait for another health disaster?


There is already a long list of environmental and health alerts which public authorities chose to ignore: asbestos, lead, dioxins, mercury, glycol ethers, radioactive pollution.  All these cases  prove that ignoring an early alarm call exposes the public to catastrophic multiple consequences.  By anticipating health effects, a long cortege of victims, social and environmental repercussions and costs could have been avoided.

Article 1 - Every person has the right to health and to protection from the harmful effects of electromagnetic radiation.

Main proposals:

  • Public exposure levels to EMFs emitted by mobile phone masts cannot exceed 0.6 v/m.
  • The Wifi function of all Wifi-equipped devices is deactivated by default. Instruction booklets contain clear and visible information about the health risks of using Wifi and preventive measures to take when it is activated.
  • Where possible, in public buildings wired connections will be obligatory for all new communications networks, except in special circumstances which are in the public interest.
  • Where possible, existing Wifi installations will be replaced by wired networks within 5 years of the promulgation of the present law.

·         In September 2008 the EU European PARLIAMENT passed the following resolution with a vote of 522 to 16.

“21. Is greatly concerned at the Bio-Initiative international report concerning electromagnetic fields, which summarises over 1500 studies on that topic and which points in its conclusions to the health risks posed by emissions from mobile-telephony devices such as mobile phones, UMTS, WiFi, Wimax and Bluetooth, and also DECT landline telephones;

·         22. Notes that the limits on exposure to electromagnetic fields which have been set for the general public are obsolete, since they have not been adjusted in the wake of Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0Hz to30 GHz), obviously take no account of developments in information and communication technologies, of the recommendations issued by the European Environment Agency or the stricter emission standards adopted for example, by Belgium, Italy and Austria, and do not address the issue of vulnerable groups, such as pregnant women, newborn babies and children

In September 2007 the EU European Environment Agency called for immediate   action to reduce exposure to radiation from WiFi and mobile phones:  []  Professor Jacqueline McGlade, the EEA’s executive director, said: “Recent research and reviews on the long-term effects of radiations from mobile communications suggest that it would be prudent for health autorities to recommend actions to reduce exposures especially to vulnerable groups such as children.

The EEA referred to the scientific review of August 2007 by the international BioInitiative Working Group of leading scientists and public health experts who looked at 2000 research studies and concluded that “the existing standards for public safety are inadequate to protect public health.”  [] (For details of the BioInitiative see accompanying document 2 on scientific papers.)

The EEA also referred to the EU funded REFLEX Study [] of 2004 which showed that non-ionising radiation could damage the genes of human cells. (See document 2.) 

Austria - Austrian Government & WiFi
 In Austria the official advice of the Public Health Department of the Salzburg region is not to use WiFi in their schools. Dr Gerd Oberfeld stated: “Based on first empirical evidence from sensitive people the signal seems to be very ‘biologically active’. The symptoms seen so far are the same seen in base station studies: headaches, concentration difficulties, restlessness, memory problems etc.” [   Dr Oberfeld was involved in the study - The microwave syndrome: a preliminary study in Spain (2003) [Navarro EA et al, (Dec 2003). The microwave syndrome: a preliminary study in Spain. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 22:161-169.]. He also worked on 2 subsequent studies. (Please see base station studies listed in document 2.) 
Germany - German Government & WiFi

In July 2007 the German government warned its citizens to avoid using WiFi.

The Environment Ministry said that WiFi should be avoided and preference given to “conventional wired systems."  [ ]

This followed questions raised in Germany’s parliament, the Deutscher Bundestag, where reference was made to Professor Lawrie Challis’s statement that children should not place wireless-enabled laptops on their laps [BBC Radio 4 ‘You and Yours’ 26-02-07].  (Professor Challis is the former chairman of the UK Mobile Telecommunications Health Research Programme.) He had referred to a Swiss scientific study which showed that levels of emissions at 2 cm from a laptop were similar to that of a mobile phone. He said: “Since we advise that children should be discouraged from using mobile phones, we should also discourage children from placing their laptop on their lap when they are using wi-fi."  [Warning on wi-fi health risk to children. Daily Telegraph 28-04-2007]

Also in this parliamentary discussion it was established that the government were “..actively informing people about possibilities for the reduction of  personal exposure. This includes, among other things, information leaflets and brochures; instructional material for schools on the theme of mobile telecommunications.” It was also acknowledged that “the question about the age-dependent energy absorption and energy distribution has not yet been satisfactorily answered.” Reference was also made to their own research which was mainly on exposures and it was stated that WLAN networks can “.. definitely dominate the exposures from other telecommunications services if an appropriate distance from the transmitter (access point or terminal) is not kept.”


In 1996 the German Federal Institute for Telecommunication had commissioned a German study of 878 Russian research studies of the previous 36 years into the biological effects of high-frequency electromagnetic radiation. [Hecht K, Balzer HU, (1997). Biological effects of electromagnetic fields on humans in the frequency range 0 to 3GHz. For the German Federal Ministry for Postal Services and Telecommunication.[]

The government would have been aware of numerous appeals (See document 2) sent to them by medical doctors from around Germany such as the Bamberger Appeal of 2005. [] This stated with reference to WiFi: “Urgent suspicions of serious health damage from pulsed high frequency electromagnetic fields… at levels below guidelines.” Also the Kompetenz Initiative [www.] was signed by 56 international scientists.


Germany’s Federal Office for Radiation Protection also advises its citizens to use corded landlines wherever possible rather than mobile phones or cordless phones. [Hecht K, Balzer HU, (1997). Biological effects of electromagnetic fields on humans in the frequency range 0 to 3GHz. For the German Federal Ministry for Postal Services and Telecommunication.]

·         In June 2006 Frankfurt’s Local Education Authority banned the use of WiFi in its schools. []

They were concerned that the effects found in scientific studies included EEG changes, lack of concentration, negative influences on the hormone, immune and central nervous systems, disruption of cell communication and opening of the blood-brain barrier. It was said:  Radiation strengths which are proven to cause EEG changes have no right to be present in schools.” The teachers’ union GEW [] referred to a review of 220 peer-reviewed published studies by the ECOLOG Institute of Hanover in May 2000. [Lai H, Singh NP. (1995). Acute low-intensity microwave exposure increases DNA single-strand breaks in rat brain cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 16: 207-210.] (See document 2.)

Also reference was made to the EU REFLEX study, which showed a genotoxic effect on human cell cultures. This study followed the results found in 1995[Lai H, Singh NP. (1995). Acute low-intensity microwave exposure increases DNA single-strand breaks in rat brain cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 16: 207-210] and 1996 [Lai H, Singh NP. (1996). Single- and double-strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells after acute exposure to Radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. International Journal of Radiation Biology. 69: 513-521.] by Dr’s Lai and Singh, which used the same frequency that WiFi uses (2.4 GHz).

In March 2007 the Bavarian Parliament recommended to all schools in the Land not to use Wifi. [] The hearing in parliament stated that children should not be exposed to radiation from WiFi, stating that it was important to avoid damage in such was established in the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones 2000 (IEGMP-the Stewart Report)  [ Gabriel C (2000). Personal communication with IEGMP.]. Studies have shown that children absorb considerably more radiation, their nervous systems are still developing and they will have a longer lifetime cumylative exposure.[Gandhi OP, Lazzi G, Furse CM. (1996). Electromagnetic absorption in the human head and neck for mobile telephones. IEEE transactions on microwave theory and Techniques, 44, pp1884-1897, Oct.;; Rapporteur’s Report on Children’s Dosimetry Conference:  ]

[Gandhi OP, Lazzi G, Furse CM. (1996). Electromagnetic absorption in the human head and neck for mobile telephones. IEEE transactions on microwave theory and Techniques, 44, pp1884-1897, Oct.; [] Rapporteur’s Report on Children’s Dosimetry Conference:  ]
Sweden - Swedish Government & WiFi

·         The government of Sweden officially recognises electrosensitivity as an established medical condition.  In their schools, if only one child reacts to the presence of electromagnetic fields, then if WiFi is present it is removed.[] (If the radiation is from an external source then the classrooms are protected with shielding materials.)

France - French Government & WiFi

·         In January 2008 the French Health Ministry issued a warning against excessive mobile phone use, especially by children, in view of studies indicating long-term dangers.[]  Parents are advised that they should prevent children from using mobiles for longer than 6 minutes.

·         Also a decision was made that there should be a moratorium on the use of WiFi in Paris libraries after 40% of the librarians reported adverse health effects. []

·         In March 2002 Dr Roger Santini had presented a paper to a French Parliamentary Office: Arguments in favour of applying the precautionary principle to counter the effects of mobile phone base stations. [R Santini. (2002). Arguments in favour of applying the precautionary principle to counter the effects    of mobile phone base stations. Hearing on 6 March 2002 at France’s Parliamentary Office for Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Alternatives.] This important overview paper, with 37 scientific references, included studies in which biological effects are reported in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations and other transmitters. Dr Santini referred to the Latvian study of school children in which the pulsed signal was of a similar intensity to WiFi. This has relevance because it showed that “..motor function, memory and attention significantly differed between the exposed and control groups.” (See document 2, Kolodynski AA and Kolodynska VV. [Kolodynski AA, Kolodynska VV. (1996). Motor and psychological functions of school children living in the area of the Skrunda Radio Location Station in Latvia. Sci Total Environ. 1996 Feb 2: 180(1):87-93.])

Austria - Austrian Government & WiFi

·         In August 2005 The Vienna Chamber of Doctors warned of the “high radiation exposure” of WiFi. They also stated that; “Children under 16 years should not use mobile phones.” [ reason they gave for their position was:

“..the recently presented REFLEX study in which a definite genotoxic effect of mobile phone radiation was proven.”  They also referred to other studies: “Previous earlier animal experiments already showed a dose-dependant genotoxic effect under high frequency radiation. Two epidemiological studies showed a three-to-four fold increased risk for auditory nerve cancers after ten years of mobile phone use.” 

Britain - British Government & WiFi

·         Concerns in Britain.

Sir William Stewart was formerly a Chief Scientific Advisor to the Government and is now the Chairman of the Health Protection Agency. In 2000 he chaired a report on mobile phones and health, known as The Stewart Report. He also appeared on Panorama, WiFi- a warning signal? in May 2007 to air his concerns. He said:

There may be changes, for example, in cognitive function. Secondly, there were some indications that their may be cancer inductions. Thirdly there were some molecular biology changes within the cell. [14]

The Stewart Report recommended a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phones and to the sighting of masts near to schools due to the scientific uncertainties. Most importantly the report stated:

“…Children may be more vulnerable because of their developing nervous systems, the greater absorption of energy in the tissues of the head and a longer lifetime of exposure.  [15]

In fact a five year old absorbs up to 60% more radiation per kilo of body weight than an adult. [16] It was for this reason that he recommended that the beam of maximum intensity from a mast should not fall on any part of the school grounds without the agreement of the school and the parents. The UK Government’s Spectrum Management Advisory Group advised that WiFi should be treated with the same precautions due to the similarity between the two technologies. [17]

Professor Lawrie Challis, Vice Chairman on The Stewart Report, has stated that children should not place WiFi enabled laptops on their knees. [18]

Professor Dennis Henshaw, Professor of human radiation effects at Bristol University has called for an enquiry into the dangers of WiFi wireless internet technology. In an interview with The Independent newspaper he said he was concerned because; “This technology is being wheeled out without any checks and balances.” [19]


Phillip Parkin, General Secretary of Voice [20] (formerly The Professional Association of Teachers,) has also spoken out in strong opposition to WiFi in schools. The Association of Teachers and Lecturers have also expressed their concerns. Many schools have decided not to install or to remove their WiFi systems. Following is a quote from Ian Thompson, the Headmaster of Ballinderry Primary School in Northern Ireland; [21]

Outside Europe.

Russia - Russian Government and WiFi
In Russia scientists have been studying the effects of low-level microwave radiation for decades. (In 1997 Professor Karl Hecht made a review of 878 Russian studies which was prepared for the German government and covered the period 1960-1996) (See document 2.) 
The Russian National Committee on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (RNCNIRP) in 2002 gave the following precautionary recommendations: 
  1. Children under the age of 16 should not use mobile phones.
  2. Pregnant women should not use mobile phones.
  3. The duration of calls should be limited to a maximum of three minutes, and after making a call the user should wait a minimum of 15 minutes before making another call.
  4. Manufacturers of mobile phones should give the above information  together with the radiation exposure levels of each phone. 

.table_d2e897 { border: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 204); width: 100%; }.table_d2e897 td { border: 0px none rgb(0, 0, 0); }

USA - American Government and WiFi
A report of January 2008 by the U.S. National Research Council, and compiled at the request of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, urges more research into the long-term dangers of mobile phones and other wireless communication systems. []

Australia - Australian Government & WiFi

·         A report in December 2007 by the Australian Democrats, Joining the Dots, noted a sudden worldwide increase over the last 15 years in a number of illnesses which they said could correlate with the sudden explosion in wireless communication technology. []  This was followed in January 2008 by a study at the Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research which confirmed that mobile phones cause a change in brain function by altering alpha brainwaves.

Go To Top Of This Page


Let's Celebrate Our Successes

The town council of Hérouville-Saint-Clair (Calvados-Normandy) is going to remove the wi-fi network (wireless Internet) in its schools before the end of the year, it announced on Monday, four days after the launch of the "Radiation Round Table" in Paris. 

W.E.E.P. needs your help fundraising 

On May 27th, 2009 the WEEP group (Canadian Initiative to Stop Wireless Electrical, and Electromagnetic Pollution),in collaboration with PACT of Richmond Hill (Precautionary Approach to Cellular Transmissions) are hosting Dr Martin Blank, from the college of physicians and surgeons at Columbia University, for an information session/press conference in Toronto. Dr Blank is one of the authors of the BioInitiative Report that has been so central to the recent promise of regulatory change in Europe. ( Dr Blank will be presenting the scientific basis of the BioInititiave report, as well as all the studies on the risks of EMF in the recent issue of the journal Pathophysiology, of which he is the issue editor.

We are inviting press, scientists, environmental organizations, labour organizations, doctors groups, etc, and hope to use this event to raise awarness as well as to put pressure on Health Canada to change the far too lax electromagnetic emission standards enshrined in Canada's Safety Code 6.  The European Parliament has recently voted on the need to drastically reduce emissions levels to protect human health and environmental integrity. We would like the Canadian Government to follow their lead.

The entire event is costing WEEP about $4000 and we've raised $1500 or so in the last weeks. We are hoping that you will consider making a donation to help pay for this important initiative. 
As we are an offshoot of the Breast Cancer Research and Education Fund, donations to WEEP receive charitable receipts back for tax purposes. Donations can be made out to 'WEEP - Breast Cancer Research and Education Fund' and mailed to Dr. David Fancy, Department of Dramatic Arts, Brock University, St Catharines, Ontario, L2R 6K1. We will get a receipt sent out to you shortly thereafter, and we will also keep you posted on the details of  the event so you can attend if you are able.

We recognize that many of you, who are electrically sensitive, are most likely quite financially challenged.  We ask that you do not send money, but rather use your limited funds to keep on staying as healthy as possible.  If you are able to fund-raise in your community, we would be very pleased at any effort that you make to raise funds.  You may also send us an email of best wishes if you like, and we can give them over to Dr. Blank.






In our research we found this letter to The Aufitor General of Canada from a concerned Citizen

Re: Conflict of Interest -- Health Canada
It was with great interest I learned that your Office has alleged conflict of interest in several departments of Government. One concerns a consultant who worked on a strategy for greenhouse emissions and later worked for organizations that received grants from the program.
In June, 2008, I and my husband submitted a petition (#255) to your Office alleging conflict of interest in Health Canada. It included many examples of scientists either having received funding from or being affiliated with telecommunications industries. Some of these scientists are responsible for determining the safety of devices sold by these industries or the electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitted by these devices. Others are "experts" whose research is used by Health Canada’s scientists as bases for decisions. I provided many examples of Health Canada scientists refusing to consider independent studies by credible scientists which demonstrate that EMR can and does contribute to major health problems.
One, Dr. James McNamee , research scientist, Consumer & Clinical Radiation Protection Bureau, Health Canada, is the new EMR specialist on the editorial board of Radiation Research. He has published three negative papers on microwave genotoxicity in Radiation Research. McNamee also has written a review paper with Moulder on cell phones and cancer. Vijayalaxmi, McNamee and Maria Scarfi, an Italian researcher, are authors on 14 of the 42 negative genotox papers. Ten of their 14 negative papers were published in
Radiation Research. (Microwave News, July 31, 2006)
Dr. McNamee is on the Board of Directors for the Bioelectromagnetics Society, with his term ending 2008. ( This Society’s newsletter is funded by Motorola, and its editor is Dr. Mays Swicord, director of EMR research for Motorola. (Microwave News, July 2004)
In reply to my request for examples of what Health Canada considers credible studies showing that there are no adverse health effects from non-thermal RF radiation, on March 17, 2008, Dr. McNamee sent me the following list:
a) Krewski D, Glickman BW, Habas RW, Habbick B, Lotz WG, Mandeville R, Prato FS, Salem T. Weaver DF. Recent advances in research on radiofrequency fields and health: 2001-2003. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 10:287-318 (2007)
b) Valberg PA, van Deventer TE, Repacholi MH. Workgroup report: base stations and wireless networks-radiofrequency (RF) exposures and health consequences. EnvironHealth Perspect. 115:416-424 (2007)
c) Moulder JE, Foster KR, Erdreich LS, McNamee JP. Mobile phones, mobile phone base stations and cancer: a review. Int J Radiat Biol. 81:189-203 (2005)
d) Vijayalaxmi, Obe G. Controversial cytogenic observations in mammalian somatic cells exposed to radiofrequency exposure. Radiat Res. 162:481-496 (2004)
e) Ahlbom A, Green A, Kheifets L., Savitz D, Swerdlow A; ICNIRP. Epidemiology of health effects of radiofrequency exposure. Enviro Health Perspect. 112:1741-1754 (2004)
I decided to apply Dr. McNamee's "vigilant surveillance" to the quality and integrity of some of his sources:
a) D. Krewski is Director of the R. Samuel McLaughlin Centre for Population Risk Assessment, University of Ottawa.. According to CBC's Marketplace, Nov. 25, 2003, the Canadian Wireless and Telecommunication Association (CWTA),a cell phone industry lobby group along with its members invested $1 million to help establish the R. Samuel McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment at the University of Ottawa, where Dr. Krewski is doing his cellphone research. The head of the CWTA, Peter Barnes, told CBC that the million dollars his lobby group gave to Krewski's centre has no strings attached.
Dr. Krewski also holds the position of Chair of the scientific advisory group of the Wireless Information Research Centre (WIRC). According to CBC News, Nov. 25, 2003, the WIRC is funded by the Canadian Wireless and Telecommunication Association.
Another of his positions is that of Director of IARC, the Canadian Interphone Study. Canada is the only country of the 13 participants that accepts funding from the telecommunications industry. "Krewski has about $1million to fund his part of the IARC research, most of it came from the Canadian Wireless and Telecommunications Association, the cellphone industry lobby group." (CBC News, Nov. 25, 2003)
According to the University of Ottawa Gazette, May 10, 2001, "The Canadian project has received a grant from the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA), which is being administered through the university-industry partnership program of the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR). CIHR is expected to fund half, with the CWTA funding the remainder. "Industry has a responsibility to contribute to health research on their products, to address questions about potential health risks associated with wireless telecommunications," he says. "The university-industry partnership program that CIHR has set up is exactly designed for this purpose."
In addition, "Roger Poirier, the man who negotiated the million dollar deal, is a consultant on the big cellphone study for IARC," as reported by CBC News, Nov. 25, 2003.
The World Health Organization (WHO), according to many observers, is closely associated with the industries they are supposed to be researching. According the WHO 2005 Annual Report, Krewski acted as the Principal Investigator in the epidemiological study of cellular telephones and head and neck cancer which was funded by CIHR and CWTA, with the databases created and coordinated by the McLaughlin Centre.
In the same WHO Report is documentation that Dr. Krewski, along with R. Habash and M. Repacholi, was the principal investigator for the study on Electromagnetic Fields and Health which was funded by the CWTA and CIHR ($850,000).

b) John Moulder is an industry consultant, and, according to Microwave News, July 31, 2006, "has a lucrative consulting practice on EMFs and health. Over the years, Moulder has earned hundreds of thousands of dollars disputing the existence of adverse EMF health effects, even those accepted by most other members of the EMF community."
He has worked for Radiation Research since the early 1990s and is now senior editor of it. "Over the last 16 years, only one positive paper on microwave genotoxicity has appeared in Radiation Research.... 80% of the negative papers (17 out of 21) published in Radiation Research were paid for by either industry or the U.S. Air Force."
Microwave News is "meticulously researched and thoroughly documented."
Time Magazine, July 30, 1990
" the most authoritative journal on ELF fields and health." Fortune Magazine, Dec. 31, 1990

"the world's most authoritative source on EMF health risks." Washington Journalism Review, Jan/Feb 1991
c) Obe G. Vijayalaxmi, together with Moulder and some colleagues from Washington University and the U.S. Air Force had published a review paper that dismissed any possible connection between cell phones and cancer. This was published in Radiation Research. After Moulder had moved up to senior editor in 2001, he recruited Vijayalaxmi of the University of Texas in San Antonio to join the Radiation Research editorial board. Vijayalaxmi is the lead author on seven of the negative microwave-genotox papers. All were funded by the U.S. Air

Force, Motorola or a combination of the two. (Microwave News, July 31, 2006)
Dr. Vijayalaxmi is treasurer for the Bioelectromagnetics Society, and will be until 2010.
Many surveys confirm that money-source influences results of research. One done by Harvard University Medical School was reported in the New York Times, June 10, 2008. In another one, Dr. Henry Lai in 2006, reported on 326 studies on EMR, finding that where the results were of no biological harm, 72% were industry funded. Of those showing biological harm, only 33% received industry funding. Yet Health Canada replied to my charges with, "The fact that some studies are either directly or indirectly funded, in whole or in part, from the wireless industry or any other sources does not constitute a valid reason to dismiss these research findings outright."
Dr. James McNamee of Health Canada supports the use of industry-funded research, arguing that the number of studies which show no biological harm outnumber those showing harm. Therefore, using the "weight of evidence" argument, he supports the current stance.
Ms. Fraser, please explain to me how this evidence, and more which I could provide, does not warrant an investigation into conflict of interest. Is our health not as important as natural resources? For years, experts have questioned Health Canada’s competence and independence, yet it continues to fail to fulfill its mandate of protecting Canadians. It is well past the time for you and your office to investigate why Health Canada appears to be working for the corporations rather than the citizens of Canada.

Do Mobile Phones Cause Cancer?
- Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy Says  [(for full context see ]

I am a retired lecturer in Biology from Imperial College London.

There is no doubt that prolonged exposure to mobile phone radiation does cause DNA damage in some cell lines. We cannot expect all cell lines to behave in the same way because of natural biological variability. We are all the products of thousands of genes that interact in countless ways so that each one of us is both physically and biochemically unique. We do not all get the same side effects from taking a medicinal drug and we cannot therefore expect to respond in the same way to electromagnetic insults.

Also, it is not a valid argument to say that because we do not understand the mechanism by which the DNA damage occurs, then it cannot happen. However, if you want a plausible mechanism visit . In essence it says that the loss of structurally important calcium ions weakens cell membranes and makes them more inclined to develop temporary pores and leak. When this happens to lysosome membranes, they leak digestive enzymes that then damage the cell's DNA.

Having said that, most of the severely damaged cells will die naturally, but others may remain as clones of aberrant but benign cells that increase in number with increasing exposure to the radiation. However, we would expect some to be genetically unstable and mutate, with natural selection favoring the more rapidly growing and aggressive ones until we get a full-blown cancer. But even then, the immune system should be able to nip it in the bud; that is until the immune system fails due to old age or is compromised in some way. Consequently, the likelihood of developing mobile phone-related cancer will depend on genotype, duration of exposure and the state of the immune system.

However, the reported effects of living within a few hundred metres of a base station cannot be explained so easily. The low signal strength at this distance demands an exquisitely sensitive mechanism to detect the radiation. Unfortunately (for us) there is such a mechanism. It lies in the magnetically sensitive pigment cryptochrome. The cryptochromes are a family of pigments present in virtually all animals, plants and some bacteria. They are used to sense the presence of light, or the direction of the Earth's magnetic field in animals that use it for navigation. They also form an integral part of the biological clock that controls their circadian rhythms.

Put very simply, cryptochromes can measure magnetic fields because they absorb light and use its energy to drive an electron between two parts of the molecule to form a pair of magnetic free radicals. The electron then finds its way back, but the process is delayed by any external magnetic field, so that the amount of pigment in the free radical form at any one time is a measure of the field. Much of the cryptochrome is in the eye, where its different orientations in the curve of the retina probably enables migratory animals to "see" the field possibly, as an extra colour superimposed on their fields of vision.

Ritz et al. demonstrated this very clearly, when they showed that robins were able to orient in the geomagnetic field when given light of the wavelengths absorbed by cryptochrome. However, even more significantly, they found that oscillating electromagnetic fields within the range 0.1-10MHz at 0.085 microtesla (about 500 times weaker than the Earth's steady field) completely disrupted the system and the birds were unable to orient. (Ritz et al. Nature. Vol. 249 13th May 2004). It may be significant that this range of frequencies includes the bit-rates (rates of transmission of individual digital pulses) of many forms of digital wireless communications, including mobile phones, DECT cordless phones and Wifi. It seems likely that these forms of low level radiation may also interfere with the birds' ability to navigate.

We humans have no natural ability to navigate using the Earth's magnetic field, and we sense light to synchronise our circadian rhythms using melanopsin. But we still have cryptochromes, much of it concentrated in the pineal gland, where, in conjunction with the suprachiasmatic nucleus, it appears to regulate the biological clock that leads to the rhythmic production of melatonin. Much of the work on the biological clock has been done on mutants of the fruit fly Drosophila, and this too appears to be affected by magnetic fields (see Yoshii et al. 2009 ). They did not test oscillating fields, but a 300microtesla steady field could alter the rhythm of the clock or even stop it altogether.

The main significance of the biological clock for humans is that it controls our natural circadian rhythms, which enable us to anticipate the coming of dawn and dusk and diverts our body's resources to meet the demands of the new conditions. Many aspects of metabolism are controlled in this way; for example, during the day they are diverted to physical activity, but at night they are diverted more to the immune system and repair. If the rhythm were to fail or become weakened in amplitude, no process controlled by the clock would ever be able to function with maximum power. In particular, the immune system may never be able to summon the overwhelming power that is sometimes needed to overcome infection or cancer cells before they get out of control.

There is considerable anecdotal evidence for a weakened circadian rhythm in people living close to mobile phone masts, which include tiredness and loss of concentration during the day and poor sleep at night. The disruption of melatonin production during prolonged exposure to power line fields has been reviewed by Henshaw and Reiter (Bioelectromagnetics Supplement 7S86-S97 (2005)) and they argue that the effect on the rhythm may be similar to light.

The notion that weak electromagnetic fields have an effect similar to light is disturbing to say the least. In a paper reviewing the disruption of circadian rhythms in shift workers and others exposed to nighttime illumination Navara and Nelson. (J Pineal Research 2007 ( report an increased risk of breast and other cancers and a whole range of other health effects including insulin resistance, coronary heart disease, hypertension and myocardial infarction.

This clearly needs further investigation, but on present evidence, people living, and in particular sleeping, near a mobile phone base station may be at far greater risk of developing cancer than someone who just makes the occasional brief mobile phone call.


Printer-friendly version of this page Email this message to a friend

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!


Donate to CureZone

CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with

Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2021

0.391 sec, (15)