We in the U.S. often take great pride in our scientific research. That is, of course, especially true of U.S. scientists, of which I am one. We have far more Nobel laureates than any other country so we think of ourselves as being the #1 science country in the world. But we have had, over the past 20 years, almost no scientific primary literature studies, either laboratory
In terms of non-thermal effects of microwave frequency (sometimes called radiofrequency) EMFs, the U.S. government published documents acknowledging the existence of large numbers of such non-thermal effects. This included the 1971 U.S. Office of Naval Medical Research Institute Report [30] and the 1981 report from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) [26]. The most recent such report acknowledging widespread non- thermal EMF effects was the NCRP report [112] published in 1986. It follows that for the past 32 years, the U.S.government has been in denial on what had been repeatedly recognized by our government and is of great importance to protecting our health. 1986 turns out to be a key year because in that year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shut down its in house research program studying non-thermal EMF effects. In 1986, the U.S. Office of Naval Research, which had been funding grants in this area, stopped funding any new grants – the already funded grants were funded to the end of the grant period but no new grants were funded past 1986. A few years later, I think it was in late 1994, a similar shutdown of grants went into effect at the NIEHS, the part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) which supports environmental health research. In 1999, the last U.S. agency that had been funding some research in this area, The Department of Energy also shut down what little research it had been funding.
The consequences of those shutdowns is that of the 17 studies on people living near cell phone towers, not a single study has been done in the U.S. Of the 23 studies of effects of genuine Wi-Fi EMFs, each of them showing effects [11], not a single study was done in the U.S. Of the over 50 studies on genuine cell phone radiation effects, only single one was done in the U.S, the NTP cell phone cancer study required by the Congress. So we have a situation where the U.S. government is encouraging EMF exposures and, in many cases, making it impossible to avoid EMF exposures while doing nothing or almost nothing to ensure our safety. There are a tiny number of studies that somehow sneak through, such as the Aldad et al study (#12 in Table 4) discussed in the preceding chapter, which was funded through the Child and Human Development Institute of the NIH, but these are few and far between.
How did these shutdowns happen? I don’t know about 1986 but have some useful information from 1994/1995.
Attacks by the Telecommunications Industry on Two U.S. Scientists
58
Dr. Henry
Lai from the University of Washington and a collaborator, NP Singh were using
the alkaline comet assay, discussed earlier in this document to measure single
stranded breaks in cellular DNA. They found a substantial elevation of the
levels following low level EMF exposure in late1994. Before that finding had
even been published, they found that they were targets of a severe attack from
the telecommunications industry. A key document providing evidence of this was
what was called the “War-Gaming” memo [113], where an executive named Norm
Sandler, head of the Corporate Communications Department of Motorola (at that
time the largest cell phone company) sent the memo to Michael Kehs of a public
relations campaign in Washington DC (dated Dec. 13, 1994), describing their
planned response to these at that time, unpublished findings. The memo stated
that “While this work raises some interesting questions about possible
biological effects, it is our understanding that there are too many uncertainties—
related to the methodology employed, the findings that have been reported and
the science that underlies them—to draw any conclusions about its significance
at this time. Without additional work in this field, there is absolutely no
basis to determine whether the researchers found what they report finding—or
that the results have anything at all to do with DNA damage or health risks,
especially at the frequencies and power levels of power levels of wireless
communication devices.
In discussing the frequency differentiation issue, we should be able to say that Lai-Singh and Sarkar were not conducted at cellular (that is cell phone) frequencies.”
(My comments are as follows: It is true that Lai/Singh used a different frequency from that used by cell phones. So the industry was correct about that. But the findings also show that the industry claims that there cannot be any non-thermal effects are wrong, and that may be more important. Singh had a reputation of being a genuine international expert on comet assays, so I doubt that methodology was a problem. If this had nothing to do with DNA damage or health risks, Motorola would not be worrying about these findings. There were at that time (1994) previously published studies of EMF effects on cellular DNA including the concurrent Sarkar findings and including findings of chromosome breaks and rearrangements reported in [30]).
Further down, the memo: “I think we have sufficiently war-gamed the Lai-Singh issue, assuming that SAG (Scientific Advisory Group, a group linked to the telecom industry) and the CTIA (the umbrella telecom lobbying, publicity and legal organization) have done their homework. We want to run this by George Carlo and fill him in on contacts we have made.”
Under Excerpts from Confidential Working Draft #3. Question and Response:
Q. How can Motorola downplay the significance of the Lai study when one of your own expert consultants is on record telling Microwave News that the results—if replicated—could throw previous notions of RF safety into question?
R. It is not a question of downplaying the significance of the Lai study. In his comments to Microwave News, Dr. Sheppard raised the key question: Can it be replicated and interpreted? We will wait and see.”
(My comments: Replication needed to be done, so that was a valid point. The interpretation was and is clear – it is that EMF exposures produce large increases in the numbers of single strand breaks in the cellular DNA.)
“Action Planned: In addition to response materials prepared by SAG (see attached copies) we will work with SAG to identify appropriate experts to comment in general on the science of DNA research, in addition to any experts SAG may be able to recommend to publicly comment on one or both of these particular studies.
In discussing the frequency differentiation issue, we should be able to say that Lai-Singh and Sarkar were not conducted at cellular (that is cell phone) frequencies.”
(My comments are as follows: It is true that Lai/Singh used a different frequency from that used by cell phones. So the industry was correct about that. But the findings also show that the industry claims that there cannot be any non-thermal effects are wrong, and that may be more important. Singh had a reputation of being a genuine international expert on comet assays, so I doubt that methodology was a problem. If this had nothing to do with DNA damage or health risks, Motorola would not be worrying about these findings. There were at that time (1994) previously published studies of EMF effects on cellular DNA including the concurrent Sarkar findings and including findings of chromosome breaks and rearrangements reported in [30]).
Further down, the memo: “I think we have sufficiently war-gamed the Lai-Singh issue, assuming that SAG (Scientific Advisory Group, a group linked to the telecom industry) and the CTIA (the umbrella telecom lobbying, publicity and legal organization) have done their homework. We want to run this by George Carlo and fill him in on contacts we have made.”
Under Excerpts from Confidential Working Draft #3. Question and Response:
Q. How can Motorola downplay the significance of the Lai study when one of your own expert consultants is on record telling Microwave News that the results—if replicated—could throw previous notions of RF safety into question?
R. It is not a question of downplaying the significance of the Lai study. In his comments to Microwave News, Dr. Sheppard raised the key question: Can it be replicated and interpreted? We will wait and see.”
(My comments: Replication needed to be done, so that was a valid point. The interpretation was and is clear – it is that EMF exposures produce large increases in the numbers of single strand breaks in the cellular DNA.)
“Action Planned: In addition to response materials prepared by SAG (see attached copies) we will work with SAG to identify appropriate experts to comment in general on the science of DNA research, in addition to any experts SAG may be able to recommend to publicly comment on one or both of these particular studies.
59
Then they
talk about Media Strategy where Motorola stays in the background with SAG and
CTIA in front.”
Three important things happened to Dr. Henry Lai at about this time [114,115]. In November 1994, before the War-Gaming memo had been written, a representative of the industry called the NIH claiming that money had been misspent from the Henry Lai grant for the DNA studies. Dr. Lai faxed the NIH an explanation which was accepted. However, the cutoff of new NIEHS funding appears to have occurred at this time, such that the industry pressure is likely to have been important. Furthermore [114] “The industry made a full-court press to discredit the DNA break study. A consistent and coordinated message was put out to marginalize Lai and Singh. For instance, in November 1994 (note: this was also before the War-Gaming memo was written), Q. Balzano, then a senior Motorola executive, wrote to us (Microwave News) that “Even if it is validated, the effects it purports to show may be inconsequential.” (My comment is that DNA breaks produced at intensity levels well below safety guidelines are not inconsequential. If they were, the industry would not be worrying so much about them). Ron Nessen, the CTIA’s top spokesman told a Florida newspaper that “It’s not very relevant.” He also tried to cast doubt on the comet assay pioneered by Singh to measure DNA breaks. It “may not be scientifically valid.” Quite a number of months later, the head of the WTR (successor organization to SAG) wrote a 6 page letter to the President of the University of Washington to try to get him to fire both Lai and Singh [114, 115]. Neither was fired, but this is what you face when you get results that the telecommunications industry does not like.
(My comments: The basic findings of the Lai and Singh studies have been replicated more than two dozen times, at this writing. There have also been many replicates of the findings of increased micronucleus formation and oxidized bases in the DNA following non-thermal EMF exposures. All of that replication and the 21 reviews that were listed in Chapter 1 each showing non-thermal cellular DNA damage have still not gotten the telecommunications industry to admit that these DNA effects are occurring. The industry apparently does not care about the replication but cares, rather, about having talking points. Furthermore, when the industry was trying to get Dr. Lai’s research funding cut off or later was trying to get both Lai and Singh fired, they were trying to prevent replication rather than encouraging it).
So Dr. Henry Lai was the first major scientist who came under vicious attack from the telecommunications industry and their allies, but he was certainly not the last. There are many such scientists including Prof. Adlkofer in Germany and Prof. Rüdinger in Austria. I know of nine others who have been attacked in the U.S. or in Europe. But here is a situation where the U.S. instead of leading world science in the right direction has been leading it into corruption. There are others.
I want to talk about another especially important case of such an attack on a U.S. scientist, that of Professor Om Gandhi. Gandhi is a professor at the University of Utah who, for many years was doing modeling of cell phone EMF exposures on the brains of humans. He was modeling such exposures for a substantial period of time of time based on the head of what was called standard anthropomorphic man (SAM). SAM was modeled from a 6 foot 2 inch, 200 pound man, a man in the upper 10% of men for head size and estimated skull thickness. He was doing such cell phone modeling for the telecommunications industry and received an important honor for this research. Because the safety guidelines are based only on thermal effects, the modeling was aimed at determining heating of the human brain by cell phone radiation.
Three important things happened to Dr. Henry Lai at about this time [114,115]. In November 1994, before the War-Gaming memo had been written, a representative of the industry called the NIH claiming that money had been misspent from the Henry Lai grant for the DNA studies. Dr. Lai faxed the NIH an explanation which was accepted. However, the cutoff of new NIEHS funding appears to have occurred at this time, such that the industry pressure is likely to have been important. Furthermore [114] “The industry made a full-court press to discredit the DNA break study. A consistent and coordinated message was put out to marginalize Lai and Singh. For instance, in November 1994 (note: this was also before the War-Gaming memo was written), Q. Balzano, then a senior Motorola executive, wrote to us (Microwave News) that “Even if it is validated, the effects it purports to show may be inconsequential.” (My comment is that DNA breaks produced at intensity levels well below safety guidelines are not inconsequential. If they were, the industry would not be worrying so much about them). Ron Nessen, the CTIA’s top spokesman told a Florida newspaper that “It’s not very relevant.” He also tried to cast doubt on the comet assay pioneered by Singh to measure DNA breaks. It “may not be scientifically valid.” Quite a number of months later, the head of the WTR (successor organization to SAG) wrote a 6 page letter to the President of the University of Washington to try to get him to fire both Lai and Singh [114, 115]. Neither was fired, but this is what you face when you get results that the telecommunications industry does not like.
(My comments: The basic findings of the Lai and Singh studies have been replicated more than two dozen times, at this writing. There have also been many replicates of the findings of increased micronucleus formation and oxidized bases in the DNA following non-thermal EMF exposures. All of that replication and the 21 reviews that were listed in Chapter 1 each showing non-thermal cellular DNA damage have still not gotten the telecommunications industry to admit that these DNA effects are occurring. The industry apparently does not care about the replication but cares, rather, about having talking points. Furthermore, when the industry was trying to get Dr. Lai’s research funding cut off or later was trying to get both Lai and Singh fired, they were trying to prevent replication rather than encouraging it).
So Dr. Henry Lai was the first major scientist who came under vicious attack from the telecommunications industry and their allies, but he was certainly not the last. There are many such scientists including Prof. Adlkofer in Germany and Prof. Rüdinger in Austria. I know of nine others who have been attacked in the U.S. or in Europe. But here is a situation where the U.S. instead of leading world science in the right direction has been leading it into corruption. There are others.
I want to talk about another especially important case of such an attack on a U.S. scientist, that of Professor Om Gandhi. Gandhi is a professor at the University of Utah who, for many years was doing modeling of cell phone EMF exposures on the brains of humans. He was modeling such exposures for a substantial period of time of time based on the head of what was called standard anthropomorphic man (SAM). SAM was modeled from a 6 foot 2 inch, 200 pound man, a man in the upper 10% of men for head size and estimated skull thickness. He was doing such cell phone modeling for the telecommunications industry and received an important honor for this research. Because the safety guidelines are based only on thermal effects, the modeling was aimed at determining heating of the human brain by cell phone radiation.
60
Prof.
Gandhi became concerned about the fact that both the head size and skull
thickness of SAM was greater than that of most men and essentially all women
and children and consequently began modeling a typical woman and typical 10
year old child, When he did that he found that the cell phone EMF exposures to
the brain were much too high, even based on their own standards, standards that
were and are only based on heating. The timing of these events was from 1975
through 1996. I will be quoting on what occurred subsequently. I have received
permission from Dr. Devra Davis to make these quotes from pages 81 through 88
of her book Disconnect [77]. I will use a different font for those quotes so
that you can see them easily.
Based on the new work he had produced, Gandhi called for a revision of the safety standards that regulated cell phones. The industry was stunned. For years, Gandhi had been one of those on whom they had counted. If Gandhi’s work went uncontested, it would mean that children, women and men with smaller heads could not safely use some electronic devices or that these devices would have to be redesigned to emit less radio frequency radiation. The industry’s first response was to cut off all of Gandhi’s funding.
Going to p. 86 from [77]:
Gandhi explained that something has gone very wrong with standard setting in the United States in the past few years.
“Starting in the late 1980s, I chaired the committee to set standards for radio-frequency exposures before all cell phones ever existed. About a decade ago, C.K. Chou, then at the City of Hope Hospital, replaced me. Within two years, Chou had moved. He became a senior executive with Motorola—a clear conflict of interest. The committee that advises as to cell phone standards is supposed to be independent and had never before been led by someone from the very industry it advises. Under Chou’s leadership, the committee relaxed standards for cell phones as of 2005. Having spent my entire life developing models of the brain, I know how things work. I also know that what we have done here is to ratchet up exposures, without actually telling people we have done so. Today’s standards for cell phones have more than doubled the amount of radio- frequency radiation allowed into the brain.”
The next quote starts at 2002, before the more than doubling of those radiation standards (pp. 87- 88 from [77]).
By 2002 the gloves were off and the industry made it clear to Gandhi that they would take him on directly. Gandhi remembers being told by an industry colleague who was once a student and friend, “If you insist on publishing these papers saying that children get more exposed than adults and saying our test procedure is not valid, you can expect that we will not fund you.”
Gandhi replied, “I am a university professor. I don’t need your money.”
Next industry tried to place an article by Chou critiquing Gandhi’s models in the journal of which Gandhi had been editor and chief and in which he had published dozens of articles, and asked that either his (that is Gandhi’s) article criticizing the grounds for setting standards be removed, or that they be allowed to publish Chou’s rejoinder.
Based on the new work he had produced, Gandhi called for a revision of the safety standards that regulated cell phones. The industry was stunned. For years, Gandhi had been one of those on whom they had counted. If Gandhi’s work went uncontested, it would mean that children, women and men with smaller heads could not safely use some electronic devices or that these devices would have to be redesigned to emit less radio frequency radiation. The industry’s first response was to cut off all of Gandhi’s funding.
Going to p. 86 from [77]:
Gandhi explained that something has gone very wrong with standard setting in the United States in the past few years.
“Starting in the late 1980s, I chaired the committee to set standards for radio-frequency exposures before all cell phones ever existed. About a decade ago, C.K. Chou, then at the City of Hope Hospital, replaced me. Within two years, Chou had moved. He became a senior executive with Motorola—a clear conflict of interest. The committee that advises as to cell phone standards is supposed to be independent and had never before been led by someone from the very industry it advises. Under Chou’s leadership, the committee relaxed standards for cell phones as of 2005. Having spent my entire life developing models of the brain, I know how things work. I also know that what we have done here is to ratchet up exposures, without actually telling people we have done so. Today’s standards for cell phones have more than doubled the amount of radio- frequency radiation allowed into the brain.”
The next quote starts at 2002, before the more than doubling of those radiation standards (pp. 87- 88 from [77]).
By 2002 the gloves were off and the industry made it clear to Gandhi that they would take him on directly. Gandhi remembers being told by an industry colleague who was once a student and friend, “If you insist on publishing these papers saying that children get more exposed than adults and saying our test procedure is not valid, you can expect that we will not fund you.”
Gandhi replied, “I am a university professor. I don’t need your money.”
Next industry tried to place an article by Chou critiquing Gandhi’s models in the journal of which Gandhi had been editor and chief and in which he had published dozens of articles, and asked that either his (that is Gandhi’s) article criticizing the grounds for setting standards be removed, or that they be allowed to publish Chou’s rejoinder.
61
Gandhi
reports that four different peer reviews of Chou’s critique of my work
indicated that Chou’s critique of my work was ‘scientific junk.’ Only when the
editor of the journal balked did the industry finally relent. Despite this
success in beating back one attempt to discredit Gandhi’s work, the effort to
increase allowable amounts of radio frequency radiation was won on a major
front. As the new chief of the standard-setting committee, Chou masterminded
changes in the standards, and the committee, which now included a large
majority of industry experts, issued new recommendations, ignoring Gandhi’s
analysis showing that these would effectively double exposures.
(I want to comment on this. I’ve published three papers on the physics of EMF action [4,5,11]. In each of them, I have taken the industry arguments about the physics seriously. Even though it was clear that the industry arguments were wrong, because of the clear existence of so many effects that occur at non-thermal levels of exposure, the industry arguments claiming that there could only be thermal effects were substantive and therefore, had to be considered. What I find, in the previous six paragraph, is that the industry itself is ready to throw out its own arguments, when they conflict with their ability to make massive profits. The issues here are very simple. Anyone with the most elementary understanding of the geometry of the head and a high school knowledge or physics, will know that a person with a smaller head and thinner skull will be exposed to higher brain levels of radiation from cell phones.)
What is obvious about this is that the industry does not care about health impacts, as long as they can maintain some deniability. What is also obvious is that the telecommunications industry can act to systematically corrupt an organization that, in effect, regulates the telecommunications industry. That in turn means that other organizations that, in effect, regulate the industry must be scrutinized for possible corruption. Those include ICNIRP, SCENIHR, WHO, the FCC and the FDA.
When Have Somewhat Similar Things Happened in Other Situations in the U.S.?
Is this approach to obfuscating the science unusual? Not really, but it appears to be much more extreme than usual, with the telecommunications industry and EMF effects. I suggest looking at the book on “Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health” by Dr. David Michaels. I’ve cited a book review of that book here [116]. The review starts out with the statement that “Creating doubt – at least enough to derail government regulation – is an art form long practiced and highly perfected by some sectors of private industry. In the book, Professor David Michaels vividly demonstrates how each such industry channels some of its profit to ‘product defense firms’ and ‘self interested scientists’ who conduct research designed to cast doubt on the science that supports regulation.” (I will add that it also casts doubt on the science that may support lawsuits, as well.) “As a result of the doubt created, regulation is long-delayed and thousands of people (or perhaps millions) suffer and die unnecessarily.” The industries that are covered in the book include tobacco, lead, asbestos, Merck (the maker of Vioxx), global warming, chromium, beryllium, artificial butter flavoring (diacetyl, the cause of often fatal popcorn lung). I think you will see parallels with what went on with SCENIHR (Chapter 5) and with the telecommunications industry actions (this chapter). Part of the problem with these precedents, is that nobody went to prison, despite the many deaths and injuries that were perpetrated and in most of these cases, the industries involved ended up making more money than they lost in the subsequent lawsuits. The precedent has been set that you can get away with almost anything if you are big enough and powerful enough and rich enough. That
(I want to comment on this. I’ve published three papers on the physics of EMF action [4,5,11]. In each of them, I have taken the industry arguments about the physics seriously. Even though it was clear that the industry arguments were wrong, because of the clear existence of so many effects that occur at non-thermal levels of exposure, the industry arguments claiming that there could only be thermal effects were substantive and therefore, had to be considered. What I find, in the previous six paragraph, is that the industry itself is ready to throw out its own arguments, when they conflict with their ability to make massive profits. The issues here are very simple. Anyone with the most elementary understanding of the geometry of the head and a high school knowledge or physics, will know that a person with a smaller head and thinner skull will be exposed to higher brain levels of radiation from cell phones.)
What is obvious about this is that the industry does not care about health impacts, as long as they can maintain some deniability. What is also obvious is that the telecommunications industry can act to systematically corrupt an organization that, in effect, regulates the telecommunications industry. That in turn means that other organizations that, in effect, regulate the industry must be scrutinized for possible corruption. Those include ICNIRP, SCENIHR, WHO, the FCC and the FDA.
When Have Somewhat Similar Things Happened in Other Situations in the U.S.?
Is this approach to obfuscating the science unusual? Not really, but it appears to be much more extreme than usual, with the telecommunications industry and EMF effects. I suggest looking at the book on “Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health” by Dr. David Michaels. I’ve cited a book review of that book here [116]. The review starts out with the statement that “Creating doubt – at least enough to derail government regulation – is an art form long practiced and highly perfected by some sectors of private industry. In the book, Professor David Michaels vividly demonstrates how each such industry channels some of its profit to ‘product defense firms’ and ‘self interested scientists’ who conduct research designed to cast doubt on the science that supports regulation.” (I will add that it also casts doubt on the science that may support lawsuits, as well.) “As a result of the doubt created, regulation is long-delayed and thousands of people (or perhaps millions) suffer and die unnecessarily.” The industries that are covered in the book include tobacco, lead, asbestos, Merck (the maker of Vioxx), global warming, chromium, beryllium, artificial butter flavoring (diacetyl, the cause of often fatal popcorn lung). I think you will see parallels with what went on with SCENIHR (Chapter 5) and with the telecommunications industry actions (this chapter). Part of the problem with these precedents, is that nobody went to prison, despite the many deaths and injuries that were perpetrated and in most of these cases, the industries involved ended up making more money than they lost in the subsequent lawsuits. The precedent has been set that you can get away with almost anything if you are big enough and powerful enough and rich enough. That
62
may have
been sufficient to encourage the telecommunications industry to follow a
similar, although, in my opinion, much more aggressive pathway.
One question that can be asked is whether there are any major international political figures who appear to have a good understanding of the EMF/health issue? When I was asked that question, I was able to come up with only one person. That person is President Vladimir Putin of Russia. This inference comes from an interview of Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt, who practices in Seattle, by Dr. Joseph Mercola, that occurred in December 2017, an interview that was entirely focused on EMF health effects [117]. In that context Dr. Klinghardt states that a lecture that Putin gave to the Russian assembly said, "We do not need to go to war with America. America is committing collective suicide by the way they are using electricity. We just have to wait until they are all in the psychiatric hospital." When I saw that, I asked myself whether it is plausible that Vladimir Putin has a deep understanding of the neuropsychiatric effects of the EMFs? And then I thought, of course, Vladimir Putin was the head of the KGB when the latter studies reviewed by Dr. Karl Hecht [28] were being done in the Soviet Union. The most important effects that were shown to be produced by the EMFs, in those studies, were the neuropsychiatric effects. Furthermore, the Putin statement apparently shows not only a substantial understanding of those effects but also the fact that they are cumulative and become irreversible, as shown in those studies [28] and in other studies discussed in Chapter 4. One thing that I would add is that President Putin apparently practices what he preaches. He avoids smart phones [118].
It is my opinion, that the CIA and other international intelligence agencies should examine these issues very carefully to assess whether they see the kinds of threats that I see. Those agencies are very good at obtaining information from various sources and determining probable threats to national and international security. It should not be difficult to come to an assessment, especially because some of us have done much of the work that needs to be done. The threat here is self- inflicted, it is not caused by any foreign power or set of powers. But it is the most serious national or international security threat that we have faced, in my opinion, with the exception of nuclear annihilation.
Propaganda:
In the initial days of the controversy regarding cell phones, in 1993, the industry developed a huge public relations effort in the face of lawsuits and adverse press reports impacting the industry. Paul Staiano, President of Motorola General Systems stated in a 1993 ABC 20/20 interview [119] that, “Forty years of research and more than ten thousand studies have proved that cellular phones are safe.” So I asked how many studies of cell phone safety or lack there of had been published by the end of 1993. The way I did that was to search in the PubMed database under (cell phones or cellular phones or mobile phones). I found about 11,000 hits, roughly 99% of them having nothing to do with health safety, and then looked at the few studies that had been published before the end of 1993. The only study I found that had any connection with health or safety, was one on driving safety while using a cellular phone, giving equivocal results with regard to driving safety. So there, were apparently no studies done on cell phone safety at that time. Furthermore, even if there had been any studies, they could not possibly show that “cellular phones are safe.” At most they might show that there was no statistically significant evidence of an effect but that only shows that you have not proven an effect, not that you have proven the opposite. It can be seen, therefore, that this propaganda statement is complete nonsense. Furthermore, we know that the Panagopoulos et al [100] review, showed that 46 out of 48 genuine cell phone studies that they reviewed showed effects. So the facts are exactly opposite of the industry propaganda on this. If this was the beginning of propaganda in the U.S. let’s look at something much more recent.
One question that can be asked is whether there are any major international political figures who appear to have a good understanding of the EMF/health issue? When I was asked that question, I was able to come up with only one person. That person is President Vladimir Putin of Russia. This inference comes from an interview of Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt, who practices in Seattle, by Dr. Joseph Mercola, that occurred in December 2017, an interview that was entirely focused on EMF health effects [117]. In that context Dr. Klinghardt states that a lecture that Putin gave to the Russian assembly said, "We do not need to go to war with America. America is committing collective suicide by the way they are using electricity. We just have to wait until they are all in the psychiatric hospital." When I saw that, I asked myself whether it is plausible that Vladimir Putin has a deep understanding of the neuropsychiatric effects of the EMFs? And then I thought, of course, Vladimir Putin was the head of the KGB when the latter studies reviewed by Dr. Karl Hecht [28] were being done in the Soviet Union. The most important effects that were shown to be produced by the EMFs, in those studies, were the neuropsychiatric effects. Furthermore, the Putin statement apparently shows not only a substantial understanding of those effects but also the fact that they are cumulative and become irreversible, as shown in those studies [28] and in other studies discussed in Chapter 4. One thing that I would add is that President Putin apparently practices what he preaches. He avoids smart phones [118].
It is my opinion, that the CIA and other international intelligence agencies should examine these issues very carefully to assess whether they see the kinds of threats that I see. Those agencies are very good at obtaining information from various sources and determining probable threats to national and international security. It should not be difficult to come to an assessment, especially because some of us have done much of the work that needs to be done. The threat here is self- inflicted, it is not caused by any foreign power or set of powers. But it is the most serious national or international security threat that we have faced, in my opinion, with the exception of nuclear annihilation.
Propaganda:
In the initial days of the controversy regarding cell phones, in 1993, the industry developed a huge public relations effort in the face of lawsuits and adverse press reports impacting the industry. Paul Staiano, President of Motorola General Systems stated in a 1993 ABC 20/20 interview [119] that, “Forty years of research and more than ten thousand studies have proved that cellular phones are safe.” So I asked how many studies of cell phone safety or lack there of had been published by the end of 1993. The way I did that was to search in the PubMed database under (cell phones or cellular phones or mobile phones). I found about 11,000 hits, roughly 99% of them having nothing to do with health safety, and then looked at the few studies that had been published before the end of 1993. The only study I found that had any connection with health or safety, was one on driving safety while using a cellular phone, giving equivocal results with regard to driving safety. So there, were apparently no studies done on cell phone safety at that time. Furthermore, even if there had been any studies, they could not possibly show that “cellular phones are safe.” At most they might show that there was no statistically significant evidence of an effect but that only shows that you have not proven an effect, not that you have proven the opposite. It can be seen, therefore, that this propaganda statement is complete nonsense. Furthermore, we know that the Panagopoulos et al [100] review, showed that 46 out of 48 genuine cell phone studies that they reviewed showed effects. So the facts are exactly opposite of the industry propaganda on this. If this was the beginning of propaganda in the U.S. let’s look at something much more recent.
63
Berezow and
Bloom Op-Ed Document: Recommendation to Limit Maryland School Wi-Fi Is Based on
“Junk Science”
Berezow and Bloom, [120] start their 2017 op-ed with the claim that “The CEHPAC, an agency within Maryland’s Department of Health and Mental Hygeine, has recommended that schools reduce or eliminate students’ exposure to Wi-Fi because it believes wireless signals might cause cancer. This is pure, unadulterated junk science. At least three separate, major areas of scientific knowledge can unambiguously confirm that wireless radiation is completely safe (italics added).”
They continue with the physics [120], stating that “CEHPAC fails to realize that all radiation is not created equal. The energy of nuclear radiation, X-rays and UV light is high enough to damage our bodies and cause cancer. But other forms of radiation are energetically weak by comparison. They cannot cause cancer.” This argument has validity with regard to individual photons, as I stated in my first paper on the activation of VGCCs by EMFs [4], but it is completely bogus with regard to EMFs as a whole. It has been known for 70 years that a person walking in front of a high powered radar machine will rapidly die, but Berezow and Bloom claim that cannot happen because the fields are “energetically weak.” Furthermore, as discussed in Chapter 2 and elsewhere [5,11], the voltage sensor that controls the opening of the VGCCs is extraordinarily sensitive to electrical forces of EMFs, with the forces on the voltage sensor being approximately 7.2 million times greater than the forces on singly charged groups in the aqueous parts of our cells and tissues. It can be seen, therefore, that Berezow and Bloom [120] while claiming to be experts, are profoundly ignorant of the relevant physics.
Berezow and Bloom [120] state that “According to the NIH’s National Cancer Institute [121], well performed studies that included over one million people showed no connection between cell phone use and cancer.” There is no such statement in the NCI 2016 [121] document – I suggest the reader look it up – it differs substantially from the op-ed characterization of it. The NCI 2016 [121] document, states that “there is currently no consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation increases cancer risk” (sole supporting citation in NCI 2016 [121] was SCENIHR 2015 [73]). It has been shown above in Chapter 5, that SCENIHR 2015 is not a credible source of information on this and as shown, in Chapter 1, there are 35 different reviews that each provide strong evidence that EMFs do cause cancer. So claiming, that EMF causation of cancer is, in Berezow & Bloom’s words, “pure, unadulterated junk science” is nonsense. What is amazing here is that the U.S. NTP study, published by Wyde et al [122], clearly shows that cell phones do cause cancer but it was completely left out of the Berezow & Bloom statement.
Let’s go to their third “major area of scientific knowledge” – Berezow and Bloom [120] state that “the only known health effects from Wi-Fi are due to psychosomatics.” That is, “people who believe that something will make them sick will report feeling ill, even if nothing is happening externally.” Some of the Wi-Fi studies (Table 1 in [11]) are cell culture studies, some are animal model studies where EMF exposures are compared with sham exposures. While there may be a very weak argument regarding some but not other human studies when they are not done blinded, there is no argument that effects in any of the other studies are caused by “psychosomatics.” Berezow and Bloom do not look at any of the 23 studies of Wi-Fi reviewed in [11], each of which showed effects and it is clear that most of them cannot possibly be due to psychosomatics. What is surprising here, is that the trillion dollar set of telecommunication industries, having been working on their propaganda for over a quarter of a century, is unable to produce a more convincing argument.
Berezow and Bloom, [120] start their 2017 op-ed with the claim that “The CEHPAC, an agency within Maryland’s Department of Health and Mental Hygeine, has recommended that schools reduce or eliminate students’ exposure to Wi-Fi because it believes wireless signals might cause cancer. This is pure, unadulterated junk science. At least three separate, major areas of scientific knowledge can unambiguously confirm that wireless radiation is completely safe (italics added).”
They continue with the physics [120], stating that “CEHPAC fails to realize that all radiation is not created equal. The energy of nuclear radiation, X-rays and UV light is high enough to damage our bodies and cause cancer. But other forms of radiation are energetically weak by comparison. They cannot cause cancer.” This argument has validity with regard to individual photons, as I stated in my first paper on the activation of VGCCs by EMFs [4], but it is completely bogus with regard to EMFs as a whole. It has been known for 70 years that a person walking in front of a high powered radar machine will rapidly die, but Berezow and Bloom claim that cannot happen because the fields are “energetically weak.” Furthermore, as discussed in Chapter 2 and elsewhere [5,11], the voltage sensor that controls the opening of the VGCCs is extraordinarily sensitive to electrical forces of EMFs, with the forces on the voltage sensor being approximately 7.2 million times greater than the forces on singly charged groups in the aqueous parts of our cells and tissues. It can be seen, therefore, that Berezow and Bloom [120] while claiming to be experts, are profoundly ignorant of the relevant physics.
Berezow and Bloom [120] state that “According to the NIH’s National Cancer Institute [121], well performed studies that included over one million people showed no connection between cell phone use and cancer.” There is no such statement in the NCI 2016 [121] document – I suggest the reader look it up – it differs substantially from the op-ed characterization of it. The NCI 2016 [121] document, states that “there is currently no consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation increases cancer risk” (sole supporting citation in NCI 2016 [121] was SCENIHR 2015 [73]). It has been shown above in Chapter 5, that SCENIHR 2015 is not a credible source of information on this and as shown, in Chapter 1, there are 35 different reviews that each provide strong evidence that EMFs do cause cancer. So claiming, that EMF causation of cancer is, in Berezow & Bloom’s words, “pure, unadulterated junk science” is nonsense. What is amazing here is that the U.S. NTP study, published by Wyde et al [122], clearly shows that cell phones do cause cancer but it was completely left out of the Berezow & Bloom statement.
Let’s go to their third “major area of scientific knowledge” – Berezow and Bloom [120] state that “the only known health effects from Wi-Fi are due to psychosomatics.” That is, “people who believe that something will make them sick will report feeling ill, even if nothing is happening externally.” Some of the Wi-Fi studies (Table 1 in [11]) are cell culture studies, some are animal model studies where EMF exposures are compared with sham exposures. While there may be a very weak argument regarding some but not other human studies when they are not done blinded, there is no argument that effects in any of the other studies are caused by “psychosomatics.” Berezow and Bloom do not look at any of the 23 studies of Wi-Fi reviewed in [11], each of which showed effects and it is clear that most of them cannot possibly be due to psychosomatics. What is surprising here, is that the trillion dollar set of telecommunication industries, having been working on their propaganda for over a quarter of a century, is unable to produce a more convincing argument.
64
Have There
Been Individual Research Studies Designed to Fail and Therefore Corrupt the
Scientific Literature?
The first example, that I am aware of, where false science has been produced to supposedly show that an important EMF observation was unrepeatable also came from the U.S. It was described in Dr. Davis’ book [77]. Dr. Allen H. Frey (pronounced Fry) published a paper in 1975 in Annals of the New York Academy of Science showing that low intensity pulsed EMF exposures produced a breakdown of the blood-brain barrier, the barrier in the blood vessels in the brain and the brain tissue that protects the brain from toxic chemicals and also infectious agents. The methodology that he used was to inject the fluorescent dye fluorescein into the blood (IV) and then use its fluorescence to detect whether and to what extent it penetrates into the brain tissue from the blood. A subsequent paper was published in 1978 [123], using similar methodology except that the fluorescein instead of being injected into the blood, was injected by intraperitoneal (IP) injection. When a compound is injected IP, it enters the blood only slowly over a substantial period of time, so that when one does a short term experiment looking at penetration through the blood-brain barrier, essentially nothing is seen. This was a transparent attempt to claim that the studies of Dr. Frey had been repeated with negative results, but the Frey studies had not be replicated.
I am aware of many papers that were flawed like the seven studies of simulated Wi-Fi, discussed near the end of Chapter 5 that were each touted by Foster and Moulder [110]. Let me remind you of what the flaws were in those seven studies. Firstly, each of them used EMFs that were the correct frequency for Wi-Fi but differed in pulsation from genuine Wi-Fi. Each of these studies used a reverberation exposure chamber which is predicted to decrease effects by both decreasing the polarization of the EMFs and increasing the destructive interference of the EMFs. They also used tiny numbers of animals for each study group, such that any statistics would have very low power. Finally, Foster and Moulder claimed each of them showed “no effect” when one can only at best claim there was no statistically significant evidence of an effect. Given the tiny numbers, the lack of statistical significance is of very little importance. I find that this pattern has been followed in a substantial number of additional studies.
What I want to discuss here is a paper that had each of those four properties but had several additional flaws, as well. I am aware of three legal proceedings in the U.S., where the industry side of that case touted the paper to be discussed, as being a particularly strong one. This paper by Ziemann et al [124] is entitled “Absence of genotoxic potential of 902 MHz (GSM) and 1747 MHz (DCS) wireless communication signals: In vivo two-year bioassay in B6C3F1 mice. In other words, the title claims that the 902 MHz frequency, studied and the 1747 MHz frequency also studied in the paper cannot cause DNA damage or other types of genotoxicity.”
On p. 456 of Ziemann et al [124], the authors make clear that they are studying the effects of simulated cell phone radiation, not actual cell phone radiation. You will recall that Panagopoulos et al [110] found that almost all studies of genuine cell phone radiation found effects whereas less than half of simulated cell phone studies showed effects. This raises an important question about why Ziemann et al [124] opted to study simulated cell phone radiation. Much of the funding of the Ziemann et al paper (see pp. 462-463) came from industry sources. Funding source is not a flaw but it is a reason to look at the paper particularly closely. 2. The Ziemann et al [124] study used a stainless steel exposure chamber similar to the reverberation chambers discussed in Chapter 5 of this document. The chamber is predicted, to produce lower effects because of lowered polarization and increased destructive interference 3. The study is described as being a two year study of radiation effects. However the cells examined for micronuclei (their marker for genotoxicity (cellular DNA damage)), were mouse erythrocytes (red blood cells), and such
The first example, that I am aware of, where false science has been produced to supposedly show that an important EMF observation was unrepeatable also came from the U.S. It was described in Dr. Davis’ book [77]. Dr. Allen H. Frey (pronounced Fry) published a paper in 1975 in Annals of the New York Academy of Science showing that low intensity pulsed EMF exposures produced a breakdown of the blood-brain barrier, the barrier in the blood vessels in the brain and the brain tissue that protects the brain from toxic chemicals and also infectious agents. The methodology that he used was to inject the fluorescent dye fluorescein into the blood (IV) and then use its fluorescence to detect whether and to what extent it penetrates into the brain tissue from the blood. A subsequent paper was published in 1978 [123], using similar methodology except that the fluorescein instead of being injected into the blood, was injected by intraperitoneal (IP) injection. When a compound is injected IP, it enters the blood only slowly over a substantial period of time, so that when one does a short term experiment looking at penetration through the blood-brain barrier, essentially nothing is seen. This was a transparent attempt to claim that the studies of Dr. Frey had been repeated with negative results, but the Frey studies had not be replicated.
I am aware of many papers that were flawed like the seven studies of simulated Wi-Fi, discussed near the end of Chapter 5 that were each touted by Foster and Moulder [110]. Let me remind you of what the flaws were in those seven studies. Firstly, each of them used EMFs that were the correct frequency for Wi-Fi but differed in pulsation from genuine Wi-Fi. Each of these studies used a reverberation exposure chamber which is predicted to decrease effects by both decreasing the polarization of the EMFs and increasing the destructive interference of the EMFs. They also used tiny numbers of animals for each study group, such that any statistics would have very low power. Finally, Foster and Moulder claimed each of them showed “no effect” when one can only at best claim there was no statistically significant evidence of an effect. Given the tiny numbers, the lack of statistical significance is of very little importance. I find that this pattern has been followed in a substantial number of additional studies.
What I want to discuss here is a paper that had each of those four properties but had several additional flaws, as well. I am aware of three legal proceedings in the U.S., where the industry side of that case touted the paper to be discussed, as being a particularly strong one. This paper by Ziemann et al [124] is entitled “Absence of genotoxic potential of 902 MHz (GSM) and 1747 MHz (DCS) wireless communication signals: In vivo two-year bioassay in B6C3F1 mice. In other words, the title claims that the 902 MHz frequency, studied and the 1747 MHz frequency also studied in the paper cannot cause DNA damage or other types of genotoxicity.”
On p. 456 of Ziemann et al [124], the authors make clear that they are studying the effects of simulated cell phone radiation, not actual cell phone radiation. You will recall that Panagopoulos et al [110] found that almost all studies of genuine cell phone radiation found effects whereas less than half of simulated cell phone studies showed effects. This raises an important question about why Ziemann et al [124] opted to study simulated cell phone radiation. Much of the funding of the Ziemann et al paper (see pp. 462-463) came from industry sources. Funding source is not a flaw but it is a reason to look at the paper particularly closely. 2. The Ziemann et al [124] study used a stainless steel exposure chamber similar to the reverberation chambers discussed in Chapter 5 of this document. The chamber is predicted, to produce lower effects because of lowered polarization and increased destructive interference 3. The study is described as being a two year study of radiation effects. However the cells examined for micronuclei (their marker for genotoxicity (cellular DNA damage)), were mouse erythrocytes (red blood cells), and such
65
erythrocytes
have a lifespan of only about 30 days; because of the inherent instability of
micronuclei in replicating cells, such micronuclei in erythrocytes may possibly
be generated over at most a 30 day period. It is misleading to describe this as
a two year study when only the last 30 days are relevant to generating the marker
being studied. 4. In rats and humans, erythrocytes containing micronuclei are
selectively removed from circulation very quickly (see p. 459 of Ziemann et al
[124]). While Ziemann et al claim that mice do not have a similar mechanism for
selective rapid removal, the only citation that they provide is a study
published by Chaubey et al (1993) showing that this was apparently true with
Swiss mice; Ziemann et al [124] chose to use B6C3F1/CrlBR mice, a different
inbred mouse strain which may well behave quite differently from Swiss mice. It
follows from this that we have no idea whether the strain studied is similar to
Swiss mice with regard to selective removal of erythrocytes containing
micronuclei.
5. Ziemann et al [124] show that male and female mice behave quite differently with regard to levels of micronuclei (Tables I and III in [124]); however in their experimental study (Figure 2), males and females were combined in doing the statistics. What that inevitably does is to produce greater variations in micronuclei levels within different animal groups, making it substantially more difficult to detect any statistical significance among different animal groups in the study. It also means that it is important to use similar ratios of males and females in the experimental groups and we have no idea whether this was done or not. 6. In section A of Figure 2, there were only 8 animals in each group studied. In section B of Figure 2, there are only 5 to 9 animals in each animal group studied. These tiny numbers mean that there is only extremely low statistical power to detect any effects of EMF exposure and therefore these tiny studies make it almost impossible to say anything at all about the results. 7. The Ziemann et al study [124] provide none of their raw data; consequently we are in a situation where we have no way of judging whether their statistical analysis was done properly. We also have no way to use any such data as part of a meta-analysis of multiple studies, which may have much more power than do any single study (particularly such a tiny one). Consequently, the lack of statistical significance they report, cannot be properly assessed by the reader. 8. When one does a study looking at the possible effects of some variables, in this case a couple of simulated cell phone radiation studies, the most you can say about an apparent negative result is that “we did not see any statistically significant effects.” When you have tiny studies such a described under 7 above, then the lack of statistical significance tells you almost nothing. But even with a very large study such as with thousands of mice including hundreds in each experimental group, all you can say is that “we did not see any statistically significant effects.” 9. What do Ziemann et al conclude? They state in their title that there is an “Absence of genotoxic potential of 902 MHz (GSM) and 1747 (DCS) wireless communication signals.” Did they study these EMFs in all organisms and all cell types? No of course not. Did they study all possible pulsation patterns of these two frequency EMFs? No of course not. Did they study all types of genotoxicity found following low-intensity EMF exposures? No, just one, micronuclei in erythrocytes in an inbred strain of mice. This title alone should tell any competent scientist that the paper is deeply flawed, completely apart from the preceding 8 flaws, with each of the 8 adding substantially to the flaws in this paper.
George Carlo Letter
Dr. George Carlo is an interesting and controversial figure who has both a law degree (JD) and a PhD in, I believe, epidemiology. He had worked in the telecommunications industry for years as head of the SAG and then WTR research arms. Dr. Carlo wrote an important letter to the heads of the telecommunications companies on October 7, 1999. The letter he sent to the head of AT&T is available on the internet [125]. In his book [126] Carlo lists all of the people sent the letter and also provides the text of the letter.
5. Ziemann et al [124] show that male and female mice behave quite differently with regard to levels of micronuclei (Tables I and III in [124]); however in their experimental study (Figure 2), males and females were combined in doing the statistics. What that inevitably does is to produce greater variations in micronuclei levels within different animal groups, making it substantially more difficult to detect any statistical significance among different animal groups in the study. It also means that it is important to use similar ratios of males and females in the experimental groups and we have no idea whether this was done or not. 6. In section A of Figure 2, there were only 8 animals in each group studied. In section B of Figure 2, there are only 5 to 9 animals in each animal group studied. These tiny numbers mean that there is only extremely low statistical power to detect any effects of EMF exposure and therefore these tiny studies make it almost impossible to say anything at all about the results. 7. The Ziemann et al study [124] provide none of their raw data; consequently we are in a situation where we have no way of judging whether their statistical analysis was done properly. We also have no way to use any such data as part of a meta-analysis of multiple studies, which may have much more power than do any single study (particularly such a tiny one). Consequently, the lack of statistical significance they report, cannot be properly assessed by the reader. 8. When one does a study looking at the possible effects of some variables, in this case a couple of simulated cell phone radiation studies, the most you can say about an apparent negative result is that “we did not see any statistically significant effects.” When you have tiny studies such a described under 7 above, then the lack of statistical significance tells you almost nothing. But even with a very large study such as with thousands of mice including hundreds in each experimental group, all you can say is that “we did not see any statistically significant effects.” 9. What do Ziemann et al conclude? They state in their title that there is an “Absence of genotoxic potential of 902 MHz (GSM) and 1747 (DCS) wireless communication signals.” Did they study these EMFs in all organisms and all cell types? No of course not. Did they study all possible pulsation patterns of these two frequency EMFs? No of course not. Did they study all types of genotoxicity found following low-intensity EMF exposures? No, just one, micronuclei in erythrocytes in an inbred strain of mice. This title alone should tell any competent scientist that the paper is deeply flawed, completely apart from the preceding 8 flaws, with each of the 8 adding substantially to the flaws in this paper.
George Carlo Letter
Dr. George Carlo is an interesting and controversial figure who has both a law degree (JD) and a PhD in, I believe, epidemiology. He had worked in the telecommunications industry for years as head of the SAG and then WTR research arms. Dr. Carlo wrote an important letter to the heads of the telecommunications companies on October 7, 1999. The letter he sent to the head of AT&T is available on the internet [125]. In his book [126] Carlo lists all of the people sent the letter and also provides the text of the letter.
66
Carlo was,
at that time the soon to be retiring head of the WTR, which was the
CTIA/telecommunications industry research arm. In the letters to the heads of
the telecommunications industry companies, Carlo discusses the types of
evidence arguing that cell phones do apparently cause cancer and that they do
cause DNA damage to our cellular DNA. The DNA damage, suggested that the
apparent cancer causation was real. Carlo continues the letter as follows
[125]:
“Today, I sit here extremely frustrated and concerned that appropriate steps have not been taken by the wireless industry to protect consumers during this time of uncertainty about safety.” Continuing further down, Carlo adds:
“Alarmingly, indications are that some segments of the industry have ignored the scientific findings suggesting potential health effects, have repeatedly and falsely claimed that wireless phones are safe for all consumers including children, and have created an illusion of responsible follow up by calling for and supporting more research. The most important measures of consumer protection are missing: complete and honest factual information to allow informed judgment by consumers about assumption of risk; the direct tracking and monitoring of what happens to consumers who use wireless phones; and, the monitoring of changes in the technology that could impact health.
I am especially concerned about what appear to be actions by a segment of the industry to conscript the FCC, the FDA and WHO with them in following a non-effectual course that will likely result in a regulatory and consumer backlash.”
This is an important letter for several reasons. After October 7, 1999 the heads of the telecommunications companies or, for that matter anyone else at those companies, could no longer legitimately claim that they did not know there were serious health concerns with cell phones, with targeting cell phones to young children, or with increasing allowable cell phone exposure radiation. The last of these was done a few years later, as you have already seen.
The concerns Carlo expresses about the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) and the FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Adminstration) are particularly important in the U.S., because both the FCC and the FDA had already been given important regulatory roles when the Carlo letter was written. The FCC had been given the power of regulating the location of cell phone towers by the 1996 telecommunications act, which also prohibited, as I understand it, any state or local government from protecting their people’ s health by regulating cell phone tower positioning. In other words, the 1996 telecommunications act de facto stated that the U.S. Federal government valued telecommunication industry profits over every single health impact of microwave frequency radiation, no matter how serious it is, to the American people. There have been several subsequent pieces of legislation that have made the situation still worse. The FDA had been given the power to regulate radiation emissions from cell phones and other devices that emit microwave/radiofrequency radiation, with cell phone regulation apparently being shared with the FCC.
What Can We Say About the FCC?
There was a very informative document about the FCC published by the Safra Institute for Ethics at Harvard University [127] entititled “Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission Is Dominated by the Industries It Presumably Regulates.” One of the sections in that document shows why both the FCC role and the telecommunications industry role were so important with regard to the 1996 telecommunications act:
“Today, I sit here extremely frustrated and concerned that appropriate steps have not been taken by the wireless industry to protect consumers during this time of uncertainty about safety.” Continuing further down, Carlo adds:
“Alarmingly, indications are that some segments of the industry have ignored the scientific findings suggesting potential health effects, have repeatedly and falsely claimed that wireless phones are safe for all consumers including children, and have created an illusion of responsible follow up by calling for and supporting more research. The most important measures of consumer protection are missing: complete and honest factual information to allow informed judgment by consumers about assumption of risk; the direct tracking and monitoring of what happens to consumers who use wireless phones; and, the monitoring of changes in the technology that could impact health.
I am especially concerned about what appear to be actions by a segment of the industry to conscript the FCC, the FDA and WHO with them in following a non-effectual course that will likely result in a regulatory and consumer backlash.”
This is an important letter for several reasons. After October 7, 1999 the heads of the telecommunications companies or, for that matter anyone else at those companies, could no longer legitimately claim that they did not know there were serious health concerns with cell phones, with targeting cell phones to young children, or with increasing allowable cell phone exposure radiation. The last of these was done a few years later, as you have already seen.
The concerns Carlo expresses about the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) and the FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Adminstration) are particularly important in the U.S., because both the FCC and the FDA had already been given important regulatory roles when the Carlo letter was written. The FCC had been given the power of regulating the location of cell phone towers by the 1996 telecommunications act, which also prohibited, as I understand it, any state or local government from protecting their people’ s health by regulating cell phone tower positioning. In other words, the 1996 telecommunications act de facto stated that the U.S. Federal government valued telecommunication industry profits over every single health impact of microwave frequency radiation, no matter how serious it is, to the American people. There have been several subsequent pieces of legislation that have made the situation still worse. The FDA had been given the power to regulate radiation emissions from cell phones and other devices that emit microwave/radiofrequency radiation, with cell phone regulation apparently being shared with the FCC.
What Can We Say About the FCC?
There was a very informative document about the FCC published by the Safra Institute for Ethics at Harvard University [127] entititled “Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission Is Dominated by the Industries It Presumably Regulates.” One of the sections in that document shows why both the FCC role and the telecommunications industry role were so important with regard to the 1996 telecommunications act:
67
Section
332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Act remarkably, and that adverb seems inescapably best
here, wrests zoning authority from local governments. Specifically, they cannot
cite health concerns about the effects of tower radiation to deny tower
licenses so long as the towers comply with FCC regulations.
Congress Silences Public
Section 322(c)(7)(B0(iv) of the Communications Act Provides:
No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.
In preempting local zoning authority – along with the public’s right to guard its own safety and health, Congress unleashed an orgy of infrastructure build-out. Emboldened by the government green light and the vast consumer appetite for wireless technology, industry has had a free hand in installing more than 300,000 sites. Church steeples, schoolyards, school rooftops, even trees can house these facilities.
What, then are the consequences of all of this? The 17 studies that have been done on people living near cell phone towers show that many people within 300 meters (about 1000 feet) of a cell phone tower are afflicted by six of the health effects found in those many reviews listed in Chapter 1. Two of those effects have not been looked at. According to this literature, people living within 300 meters of cell phone towers suffer from widespread neuropsychiatric effects, cellular DNA damage, cancer, oxidative stress, elevated apoptosis (cell death), and hormonal effects. They also suffer from cardiac effects like those discussed in Chapter 3 and from hypertension and also anemia. The two extremely well documented EMF health effects that have not been looked at are the reproductive effects and the high levels of intracellular calcium. That does not tell us these are not also caused in people living near cell phone towers, just that no one has looked. Roughly 30% of the people in this country live within 300 meters of a cell phone tower so the impact on health is major. But few know about this and the media and our government, including especially the FCC and FDA are keeping it all a deep dark secret. Not a single one of these 17 studies have been done in the U.S. Consequently, when the U.S. has ensured that we are irradiated by well over 300,000 of these cell phone towers, it has done absolutely nothing to determine what the consequences of exposure are. Of course we are impacted not only by cell phone towers near where we live but also near where we work or go to school and to some extent, when we are driving around town. These high levels of exposure are not necessary. Switzerland has safety guidelines that are 100 times more stringent than ours, Russia has safety guidelines that are 1000 times more stringent than ours. The health effects we see now will no doubt rise much further in the future without any increasing exposure, because many of these effects are cumulative, eventually becoming irreversible.
I would encourage you to look at the whole FCC as a captured agency document [127] – it can be downloaded at no cost from the internet [127]. It is very interesting and adds considerably to my short comments here regarding corruption.
So what does the FCC have to say about EMF effects on its web site [128]? I have copied some relevant sections as follows:
Congress Silences Public
Section 322(c)(7)(B0(iv) of the Communications Act Provides:
No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.
In preempting local zoning authority – along with the public’s right to guard its own safety and health, Congress unleashed an orgy of infrastructure build-out. Emboldened by the government green light and the vast consumer appetite for wireless technology, industry has had a free hand in installing more than 300,000 sites. Church steeples, schoolyards, school rooftops, even trees can house these facilities.
What, then are the consequences of all of this? The 17 studies that have been done on people living near cell phone towers show that many people within 300 meters (about 1000 feet) of a cell phone tower are afflicted by six of the health effects found in those many reviews listed in Chapter 1. Two of those effects have not been looked at. According to this literature, people living within 300 meters of cell phone towers suffer from widespread neuropsychiatric effects, cellular DNA damage, cancer, oxidative stress, elevated apoptosis (cell death), and hormonal effects. They also suffer from cardiac effects like those discussed in Chapter 3 and from hypertension and also anemia. The two extremely well documented EMF health effects that have not been looked at are the reproductive effects and the high levels of intracellular calcium. That does not tell us these are not also caused in people living near cell phone towers, just that no one has looked. Roughly 30% of the people in this country live within 300 meters of a cell phone tower so the impact on health is major. But few know about this and the media and our government, including especially the FCC and FDA are keeping it all a deep dark secret. Not a single one of these 17 studies have been done in the U.S. Consequently, when the U.S. has ensured that we are irradiated by well over 300,000 of these cell phone towers, it has done absolutely nothing to determine what the consequences of exposure are. Of course we are impacted not only by cell phone towers near where we live but also near where we work or go to school and to some extent, when we are driving around town. These high levels of exposure are not necessary. Switzerland has safety guidelines that are 100 times more stringent than ours, Russia has safety guidelines that are 1000 times more stringent than ours. The health effects we see now will no doubt rise much further in the future without any increasing exposure, because many of these effects are cumulative, eventually becoming irreversible.
I would encourage you to look at the whole FCC as a captured agency document [127] – it can be downloaded at no cost from the internet [127]. It is very interesting and adds considerably to my short comments here regarding corruption.
So what does the FCC have to say about EMF effects on its web site [128]? I have copied some relevant sections as follows:
68
At
relatively low levels of exposure to RF radiation, i.e., levels lower than
those that would produce significant heating, the evidence for production of
harmful biological effects is ambiguous and unproven. Such effects, if they
exist, have been referred to as "non-thermal" effects. A number of
reports have appeared in the scientific literature describing the observation
of a range of biological effects resulting from exposure to low levels of RF
energy. However, in most cases, further experimental research has been unable
to reproduce these effects. Furthermore, since much of the research is not done
on whole bodies (in vivo), there has been no determination that such effects
constitute a human health hazard. It is generally agreed that further research
is needed to determine the generality of such effects and their possible relevance,
if any, to human health. In the meantime, standards-setting organizations and
government agencies continue to monitor the latest experimental findings to
confirm their validity and determine whether changes in safety limits are
needed to protect human health. (Back to Index)
CAN PEOPLE BE EXPOSED TO LEVELS OF RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION THAT COULD BE HARMFUL?
Studies have shown that environmental levels of RF energy routinely encountered by the general public are typically far below levels necessary to produce significant heating and increased body temperature. However, there may be situations, particularly in workplace environments near high-powered RF sources, where the recommended limits for safe exposure of human beings to RF energy could be exceeded. In such cases, restrictive measures or mitigation actions may be necessary to ensure the safe use of RF energy. (Back to Index)
CAN RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION CAUSE CANCER?
Some studies have also examined the possibility of a link between RF exposure and cancer. Results to date have been inconclusive. While some experimental data have suggested a possible link between exposure and tumor formation in animals exposed under certain specific conditions, the results have not been independently replicated. Many other studies have failed to find evidence for a link to cancer or any related condition. The Food and Drug Administration has further information on this topic with respect to RF exposure from mobile phones at the following Web site: FDA Radiation- Emitting Products Page . (Back to Index)
Let’s look at the first paragraph. In the third and fourth sentence, they state that there have been non-thermal effects reported but then say that “in most cases they have not been reproduced.” Is that true? No. The 79 reviews listed in Chapter 1 have each found repeated studies documenting one or more of the EMF effects. You can’t get a review published without multiple studies. And the fact that so many of these effects have been repeatedly reviewed, over many years shows that similar patterns of evidence have been found over long periods of time. The FCC provides not one iota of evidence on its claims, despite the fact that such a claim of inability to reproduce findings absolutely requires extensive documentation to be scientifically valid. This difference in documentation, means that any one of those 79 reviews listed in Chapter 1 is vastly more scientific in showing the falsity of the FCC statement than is the FCC statement itself, which is completely undocumented.
CAN PEOPLE BE EXPOSED TO LEVELS OF RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION THAT COULD BE HARMFUL?
Studies have shown that environmental levels of RF energy routinely encountered by the general public are typically far below levels necessary to produce significant heating and increased body temperature. However, there may be situations, particularly in workplace environments near high-powered RF sources, where the recommended limits for safe exposure of human beings to RF energy could be exceeded. In such cases, restrictive measures or mitigation actions may be necessary to ensure the safe use of RF energy. (Back to Index)
CAN RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION CAUSE CANCER?
Some studies have also examined the possibility of a link between RF exposure and cancer. Results to date have been inconclusive. While some experimental data have suggested a possible link between exposure and tumor formation in animals exposed under certain specific conditions, the results have not been independently replicated. Many other studies have failed to find evidence for a link to cancer or any related condition. The Food and Drug Administration has further information on this topic with respect to RF exposure from mobile phones at the following Web site: FDA Radiation- Emitting Products Page . (Back to Index)
Let’s look at the first paragraph. In the third and fourth sentence, they state that there have been non-thermal effects reported but then say that “in most cases they have not been reproduced.” Is that true? No. The 79 reviews listed in Chapter 1 have each found repeated studies documenting one or more of the EMF effects. You can’t get a review published without multiple studies. And the fact that so many of these effects have been repeatedly reviewed, over many years shows that similar patterns of evidence have been found over long periods of time. The FCC provides not one iota of evidence on its claims, despite the fact that such a claim of inability to reproduce findings absolutely requires extensive documentation to be scientifically valid. This difference in documentation, means that any one of those 79 reviews listed in Chapter 1 is vastly more scientific in showing the falsity of the FCC statement than is the FCC statement itself, which is completely undocumented.
69
Let’s go on
to the cancer claim at the bottom of the copied section. The FCC states that “A
number of reports have appeared in the scientific literature describing the
observation of a range of biological effects resulting from exposure to low levels
of RF energy. However, in most cases, further experimental research has been
unable to reproduce these effects. Furthermore, since much of the research is
not done on whole bodies (in vivo), there has been no determination that such
effects constitute a human health hazard.” You will note here that there are no
specifics, nor were there any specifics on the section discussed in the
previous paragraph. What we have here are completely undocumented FCC claims,
with no specifics whatsoever and claims that are clearly contradicted by each
of the 35 reviews on cancer causation by EMF exposure. They are also clearly
contradicted by the 21 reviews on cellular DNA damage following EMF exposures,
something that the FCC says nothing about. It has been known for decades, that
the process of carcinogenesis (cancer causation) usually starts with one or
more mutations in the cellular DNA, mutations that can be caused by each of the
three types of cellular DNA damage known to be caused by EMF exposure.
The sort of pattern seen here, where we have gross generalizations followed by no or completely inadequate documentation goes on with the industry propaganda [119,120] as discussed earlier, as well as in the Speit/Schwarz discussion from early in Chapter 5. What you see in each of those cases is everything falls apart when you look carefully at the facts. The situation with the FCC statements is very similar. There can be little doubt that the FCC is acting as a propaganda organization here, as strongly suggested by the George Carlo letter [125,126] and the FCC as a captured agency [127] document.
Three questions: Does the FCC know that these statements that it has made are not factual? Does it know how non-thermal EMF effects actually are produced? Does it know that its safety guidelines do not protect our health? That answer to all three of these questions is yes. How do I know? I know because I did a PowerPoint presentation to the FCC in September 2016 which presented findings in each of these important areas. My account of that presentation, written two days after it occurred, follows:
Professor Emeritus Martin L. Pall presented Powerpoint presentation on the main mechanism of action of non-thermal microwave frequency EMFs to the FCC
I met with Julius Knapp, Chief of OET, Martin Doczkat, Branch Chief, OET/Technical Analysis Branch, and Ed Mantiply Engineer OET/Associate Chief at the Federal Communications Commission on September 21, 2016 to present a Powerpoint presentation and answer questions. The presentation showed that non-thermal microwave and lower frequency EMFs act via voltage-gated calcium channel (VGCC) activation. The most important findings demonstrating this mechanism are that various effects produced by such non-thermal exposures can be blocked or greatly lowered by calcium channel blockers, drugs that are highly specific for blocking VGCCs. The reason why such low intensity non-thermal exposures activate the VGCCs is because the voltage sensor of the VGCCs is exquisitely sensitive to the electrical forces produced by these EMFs. The forces on the voltage sensor are calculated to be about 7.2 million times higher than are the forces on singly charged chemical groups in the aqueous phases of the cell. This very high level sensitivity also predicts that the safety guidelines allow us to be exposed to EMF intensities that are approximately 7.2 million times too high.
The sort of pattern seen here, where we have gross generalizations followed by no or completely inadequate documentation goes on with the industry propaganda [119,120] as discussed earlier, as well as in the Speit/Schwarz discussion from early in Chapter 5. What you see in each of those cases is everything falls apart when you look carefully at the facts. The situation with the FCC statements is very similar. There can be little doubt that the FCC is acting as a propaganda organization here, as strongly suggested by the George Carlo letter [125,126] and the FCC as a captured agency [127] document.
Three questions: Does the FCC know that these statements that it has made are not factual? Does it know how non-thermal EMF effects actually are produced? Does it know that its safety guidelines do not protect our health? That answer to all three of these questions is yes. How do I know? I know because I did a PowerPoint presentation to the FCC in September 2016 which presented findings in each of these important areas. My account of that presentation, written two days after it occurred, follows:
Professor Emeritus Martin L. Pall presented Powerpoint presentation on the main mechanism of action of non-thermal microwave frequency EMFs to the FCC
I met with Julius Knapp, Chief of OET, Martin Doczkat, Branch Chief, OET/Technical Analysis Branch, and Ed Mantiply Engineer OET/Associate Chief at the Federal Communications Commission on September 21, 2016 to present a Powerpoint presentation and answer questions. The presentation showed that non-thermal microwave and lower frequency EMFs act via voltage-gated calcium channel (VGCC) activation. The most important findings demonstrating this mechanism are that various effects produced by such non-thermal exposures can be blocked or greatly lowered by calcium channel blockers, drugs that are highly specific for blocking VGCCs. The reason why such low intensity non-thermal exposures activate the VGCCs is because the voltage sensor of the VGCCs is exquisitely sensitive to the electrical forces produced by these EMFs. The forces on the voltage sensor are calculated to be about 7.2 million times higher than are the forces on singly charged chemical groups in the aqueous phases of the cell. This very high level sensitivity also predicts that the safety guidelines allow us to be exposed to EMF intensities that are approximately 7.2 million times too high.
70
The
actions produced by such VGCC activation go mainly through the excessive
intracellular calcium levels produced by such activation. Excessive calcium
acts via three main pathways to produce effects in the body. Therapeutic
effects are produced through the nitric oxide signaling pathway whereas many
pathophysiological effects are produced by the peroxynitrite/oxidative stress
pathway. Excessive calcium signaling also produces pathophysiological effects.
Numerous effects produced following non- thermal EMF exposures can be produced
by these pathways including oxidative stress, cellular DNA damage, cancer,
widespread neuropsychiatric effects, breakdown of the blood brain barrier,
lowered male and female fertility and various endocrine (that is hormonal)
changes.
It has long been known that pulsed EMFs are usually much more biologically active than are non-pulsed (or continuous wave) EMFs and this difference appears to be consistent with the VGCC mechanism. Because all wireless communication devices communicate via pulsations, such devices may be of special concern.
Three concerns were expressed with regard to 5G: 1. The stronger absorption of the very high frequencies involved require the setting up of vast numbers of antennae, making it essentially impossible to avoid damaging exposures. 2. The stronger absorption suggests that these EMFs may be particularly active in activating the VGCC voltage sensor. 3. The very high level and complexity of pulsations also may make for much more biological damage via VGCC activation.
There was substantial discussion of the need for biological safety testing. That discussion focused on the using cells in culture that have high densities and different types of VGCCs. Responses can be monitored by either monitoring intracellular calcium levels or by measuring nitric oxide production using a nitric oxide electrode.
Martin L. Pall Professor Emeritus martin_pall@wsu.edu
We had what would be considered in diplomatic circles a good and productive meeting, but since that time the FCC has doubled down on their positions, pushed much further on 5G, leading us to the mega-crisis situation which we are faced with now. Instead of actually testing 5G radiation biologically for safety, using the methods that were discussed in that meeting, the FCC has instead opted to put out tens of millions of 5G antennae without any biological safety testing of genuine 5G radiation. That is the insanity that we are in.
What About the FDA?
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was given the power to regulate devices that emit microwave frequency EMFs. This was not an unreasonable decision, given that the FDA was already regulating the safety of medical devices, where one can argue that there are similar challenges involved. The FDA was given this responsibility without any additional funding. So obviously, it was and is distinctly limited in what it can do.
What the FDA did was to issue a Letter of Intent for Proposed Collaboration in Mobile Phone Research between the Food and Drug Administration and the Cellular Telecommunications
It has long been known that pulsed EMFs are usually much more biologically active than are non-pulsed (or continuous wave) EMFs and this difference appears to be consistent with the VGCC mechanism. Because all wireless communication devices communicate via pulsations, such devices may be of special concern.
Three concerns were expressed with regard to 5G: 1. The stronger absorption of the very high frequencies involved require the setting up of vast numbers of antennae, making it essentially impossible to avoid damaging exposures. 2. The stronger absorption suggests that these EMFs may be particularly active in activating the VGCC voltage sensor. 3. The very high level and complexity of pulsations also may make for much more biological damage via VGCC activation.
There was substantial discussion of the need for biological safety testing. That discussion focused on the using cells in culture that have high densities and different types of VGCCs. Responses can be monitored by either monitoring intracellular calcium levels or by measuring nitric oxide production using a nitric oxide electrode.
Martin L. Pall Professor Emeritus martin_pall@wsu.edu
We had what would be considered in diplomatic circles a good and productive meeting, but since that time the FCC has doubled down on their positions, pushed much further on 5G, leading us to the mega-crisis situation which we are faced with now. Instead of actually testing 5G radiation biologically for safety, using the methods that were discussed in that meeting, the FCC has instead opted to put out tens of millions of 5G antennae without any biological safety testing of genuine 5G radiation. That is the insanity that we are in.
What About the FDA?
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was given the power to regulate devices that emit microwave frequency EMFs. This was not an unreasonable decision, given that the FDA was already regulating the safety of medical devices, where one can argue that there are similar challenges involved. The FDA was given this responsibility without any additional funding. So obviously, it was and is distinctly limited in what it can do.
What the FDA did was to issue a Letter of Intent for Proposed Collaboration in Mobile Phone Research between the Food and Drug Administration and the Cellular Telecommunications
71
Industry
Association (CTIA), [129] Dated October 20, 1999. This would involve a
Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA). Later in their Letter
of Intent, it states under Initial Research Under the CRADA [129]: “The first
study to be conducted would follow up on the findings of studies previously
conducted by WTR but not yet published using the micronucleus assay, a test
which detects structural effects on genetic material. Research data in the
literature from RF exposure studies using the micronucleus assay are
conflicting, and warrant follow-up study.” You will see here that the FDA is
accepting the industry claim that these studies are conflicting even though,
having been done under different circumstances, they are not.
The basic approach of the CRADA was that the industry would fund any research to be done and decide what research should be done by whom and how and what information would be published subsequently.
You may recall that Dr. George Carlo wrote a very important letter to the heads of the telecommunications companies, described earlier. That letter was dated two weeks before the date of the letter or intent. Carlo’s letter stated: “I am especially concerned about what appear to be actions by a segment of the industry to conscript the FCC, the FDA and WHO... .” Carlo who had been up to that point, an industry insider, and apparently had reason to think that the FDA had been corrupted, or what he called conscripted by parts of the telecommunications industry two weeks before the letter of intent was written. I don’t think this is definitive evidence that the FDA has been corrupted, and it can even be argued that it is not evidence at all. But it does suggest, however, that we need to look further into this issue.
Let’s go on to the results of this CRADA [130]. The FDA reports the following findings from the CRADA: “FDA’s cooperative research and development agreement (CRADA) with the Cellular Communication & Internet Association (CTIA) has resulted in research projects focused on two topics - mechanistic studies related to genotoxicity and exposure assessment studies. All studies funded through the CRADA have been completed, and no association was found between exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation from cell phones and adverse health effects.” I have been unable to get copies of these studies and therefore cannot comment on them.
The CRADA also lead to a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) workshop on EMFs that lead, in turn, to a 2008 NAS report. That 2008 NAS report can be accessed from [130]. It is a useful report, in my view, albeit one that leaves out much of what was already known in 2008. It does not say that there are no clear non-thermal effects and specifically calls for study of the neurological effects, suggesting that “that neural networks are a sensitive biological target.” It also calls for much research on biophysical or biochemical molecular mechanism(s) that may lead to the non-thermal effects. It also calls for much more study on cancer. There has been a large amount of progress in each of these three areas since 2008, including of course the identification of VGCC activation as the most important but not necessarily the only biophysical mechanism. The problem with regard to the FDA is that as far as one can tell, the FDA has paid no attention to either the 2008 report or to the subsequent progress we have had in these several areas.
Let’s shift our attention to what the FDA currently says about the impacts of these EMFs? On their web site [131], the FDA states the following:
Is there a connection between certain health problems and exposure to radiofrequency fields via cell phone use?
The results of most studies conducted to date indicate that there is not. In addition, attempts to replicate and confirm the few studies that did show a connection have failed.
The basic approach of the CRADA was that the industry would fund any research to be done and decide what research should be done by whom and how and what information would be published subsequently.
You may recall that Dr. George Carlo wrote a very important letter to the heads of the telecommunications companies, described earlier. That letter was dated two weeks before the date of the letter or intent. Carlo’s letter stated: “I am especially concerned about what appear to be actions by a segment of the industry to conscript the FCC, the FDA and WHO... .” Carlo who had been up to that point, an industry insider, and apparently had reason to think that the FDA had been corrupted, or what he called conscripted by parts of the telecommunications industry two weeks before the letter of intent was written. I don’t think this is definitive evidence that the FDA has been corrupted, and it can even be argued that it is not evidence at all. But it does suggest, however, that we need to look further into this issue.
Let’s go on to the results of this CRADA [130]. The FDA reports the following findings from the CRADA: “FDA’s cooperative research and development agreement (CRADA) with the Cellular Communication & Internet Association (CTIA) has resulted in research projects focused on two topics - mechanistic studies related to genotoxicity and exposure assessment studies. All studies funded through the CRADA have been completed, and no association was found between exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation from cell phones and adverse health effects.” I have been unable to get copies of these studies and therefore cannot comment on them.
The CRADA also lead to a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) workshop on EMFs that lead, in turn, to a 2008 NAS report. That 2008 NAS report can be accessed from [130]. It is a useful report, in my view, albeit one that leaves out much of what was already known in 2008. It does not say that there are no clear non-thermal effects and specifically calls for study of the neurological effects, suggesting that “that neural networks are a sensitive biological target.” It also calls for much research on biophysical or biochemical molecular mechanism(s) that may lead to the non-thermal effects. It also calls for much more study on cancer. There has been a large amount of progress in each of these three areas since 2008, including of course the identification of VGCC activation as the most important but not necessarily the only biophysical mechanism. The problem with regard to the FDA is that as far as one can tell, the FDA has paid no attention to either the 2008 report or to the subsequent progress we have had in these several areas.
Let’s shift our attention to what the FDA currently says about the impacts of these EMFs? On their web site [131], the FDA states the following:
Is there a connection between certain health problems and exposure to radiofrequency fields via cell phone use?
The results of most studies conducted to date indicate that there is not. In addition, attempts to replicate and confirm the few studies that did show a connection have failed.
72
According
to current data, the FDA believes that the weight of scientific evidence does
not show an association between exposure to radiofrequency from cell phones and
adverse health outcomes. Still, there is a consensus that additional research
is warranted to address gaps in knowledge, such as the effects of cell phone
use over the long-term and on pediatric populations.
There was a similar statement made by the FCC, in previous section, and also similar statement was made by Samsung, one of world’s largest producers of cell phones which reads a follows [132]:
Over the past 15 years, scientists have conducted hundreds of studies looking at the biological effects of radio frequency energy emitted by cell phones. While some researchers have reported biological changes associated with RF energy, these studies have failed to be replicated. The majority of studies published have failed to show an association between between exposure to radio frequency from a cell phone and health problems.
Neither the FDA statement nor the Samsung statement give us any idea what possible effects are being considered here, what literature was used for such a consideration. These statements are completely undocumented and therefore must be viewed as being unscientific. In Chapter 1, 79 reviews were given that each showed the existence of one or more effects. Eignt different of effects were each documented in from 12 to 35 reviews. Such reviews must be extensively documented or one cannot get them published. Any one of those reviews provides, therefore, a much stronger argument for presence of one or more effects than do the FDA, FCC and Samsung statements put together arguing for the opposite. One thing that is strange about the FDA statement is that they are talking specifically about cell phones even though they are tasked with regulating safety on all such microwave/radiofrequency devices. What I have done below is to put together the 16 reviews which are completely or largely focused on cell phone radiation effects so that we can see what specific effects have been found to be caused by cell phone radiation. I will summarize those effects below.
Table 5: Reviews on Cell Phone Effects and the Effects Found in Each
There was a similar statement made by the FCC, in previous section, and also similar statement was made by Samsung, one of world’s largest producers of cell phones which reads a follows [132]:
Over the past 15 years, scientists have conducted hundreds of studies looking at the biological effects of radio frequency energy emitted by cell phones. While some researchers have reported biological changes associated with RF energy, these studies have failed to be replicated. The majority of studies published have failed to show an association between between exposure to radio frequency from a cell phone and health problems.
Neither the FDA statement nor the Samsung statement give us any idea what possible effects are being considered here, what literature was used for such a consideration. These statements are completely undocumented and therefore must be viewed as being unscientific. In Chapter 1, 79 reviews were given that each showed the existence of one or more effects. Eignt different of effects were each documented in from 12 to 35 reviews. Such reviews must be extensively documented or one cannot get them published. Any one of those reviews provides, therefore, a much stronger argument for presence of one or more effects than do the FDA, FCC and Samsung statements put together arguing for the opposite. One thing that is strange about the FDA statement is that they are talking specifically about cell phones even though they are tasked with regulating safety on all such microwave/radiofrequency devices. What I have done below is to put together the 16 reviews which are completely or largely focused on cell phone radiation effects so that we can see what specific effects have been found to be caused by cell phone radiation. I will summarize those effects below.
Table 5: Reviews on Cell Phone Effects and the Effects Found in Each
Review on Cell Phone Effects
|
Effects Found
|
La
Vignera S, Condorelli RA, Vicari E, D'Agata R, Calogero AE. 2012 Effects of
the exposure to mobile phones on male reproduction: a review of the
literature. J Androl 33:350-356.
|
Multiple
effects on male reproduction
|
Makker
K, Varghese A, Desai NR, Mouradi R, Agarwal A. 2009 Cell phones: modern man's
nemesis? Reprod Biomed Online 18:148-157.
|
Cellular
DNA damage, neurological/neuropsychiatric effects, apoptosis
|
Yakymenko
IL, Sidorik EP, Tsybulin AS. 1999 [Metabolic changes in cells under
electromagnetic radiation of mobile communication systems]. Ukr Biokhim Zh
(1999), 2011 Mar-Apr:20-28.
|
Apoptosis,
increased oxidative stress, increased intracellular calcium
|
K Sri
N. 2015 Mobile phone radiation: physiological & pathophysiological
considerations. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol 59:125-135.
|
Male
infertility, cellular DNA damage, lowered melatonin, increased stress protein
expression
|
Nazıroğlu
M, Yüksel M, Köse SA, Özkaya MO. 2013 Recent reports of Wi-Fi and mobile
phone-induced
|
Oxidative
stress, male and female reproductive signaling dysfunction
|
73
radiation
on oxidative stress and reproductive signaling pathways in females and males.
J Membr Biol 246:869- 875.
|
|
Yakymenko
I, Sidorik E. 2010 Risks of carcinogenesis from electromagnetic radiation and
mobile telephony devices. Exp Oncol 32:729-736.
|
Cancer,
cellular DNA damage, apoptosis; higher cancer incidence on ipsilateral side
of the head, not contralateral
|
Zhang
J, Sumich A, Wang GY. 2017 Acute effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic
field emitted by mobile phone on brain function. Bioelectromagnetics 38:329-
338. doi: 10.1002/bem.22052.
|
Neurological
dysfunction
|
Kundi
M, Mild K, Hardell L, Mattsson M. 2004 Mobile telephones and cancer – a
review of the epidemiological evidence. J Toxicol Env Health, Part B
7:351-384.
|
Cancer
– epidemiological review
|
Hardell
L, Carlberg M, Soderqvist F, Hansson Mild K. 2008 Meta-analysis of long-term
mobile phone use and the association with brain tumors. Int J Oncol 32:1097-
1103.
|
Cancer
– meta-analysis on long-term cell phone use and brain tumors
|
Hardell
L, Carlberg M. 2013 Using the Hill viewpoints from 1965 for evaluating
strengths of evidence of the risk for brain tumors associated with use of
mobile and cordless phones. Rev Environ Health 28:97-106. doi:
10.1515/reveh-2013-0006.
|
Mobile
and cordless phone radiation caused brain cancer based on the Hill criteria
for causation (most important criteria for causation in epidemiology)
|
Hardell
L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. 2013 Use of mobile phones and cordless phones
is associated with increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma.
Pathophysiology 2013;20(2):85-110.
|
Mobile
and cordless phone exposures associated with increased risk of glioma and
acoustic neuroma; higher cancer increase on ipsilateral side of the head
|
Davis
DL, Kesari S, Soskolne CL, Miller AB, Stein Y. 2013 Swedish review
strengthens grounds for concluding that radiation from cellular and cordless
phones is a probable human carcinogen. Pathophysiology 20:123-129.
|
Cell
phone and cordless phone radiation are a probable carcinogens; cancer
increase on ipsilateral side of the head, not contralateral side
|
Morgan
LL, Miller AB, Sasco A, Davis DL. 2015 Mobile phone radiation causes brain
tumors and should be classified as a probable human carcinogen (2A). Int J
Oncol 46(5): 1865-1871.
|
Mobile
phone radiation causes brain tumors and should be classified as a probable
human carcinogen
|
Bielsa-Fernández
P, Rodríguez-Martín B. 2017 [Association between radiation from mobile phones
and tumour risk in adults]. Gac Sanit. 2017 Apr 12. pii:
S0213-9111(17)30083-3. doi: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2016.10.014.
|
Association
between mobile phone risk and tumor risk
|
Prasad
M, Kathuria P, Nair P, Kumar A, Prasad K. 2017 Mobile phone use and risk of
brain tumours: a systematic review of association between study quality,
source of funding, and research outcomes. Neurol Sci. 2017 Feb 17. doi:
10.1007/s10072-017-2850-8.
|
The
association between mobile phone use and brain cancer is higher in
independently funded studies than in industry funded studies
|
Miller
A. 2017 References on cell phone radiation and cancer.
https://ehtrust.org/references-cell-phone-radio-
|
This
is a bibliography of studies on cell phone radiation and cancer – most
|
74
frequency-radiation-cancer/
(Accessed Sept. 9, 2017)
|
support
the view that cell phones do cause cancer
|
The effects
of specifically cell phone radiation that have been found in these reviews
(Table 5) include: lowered male reproductive function, lowered female
reproductive function, increased cellular DNA damage,
neurological/neuropsychiatric effects, increased stress protein synthesis,
increased intracellular calcium, apoptosis, lowered melatonin, oxidative
stress, cancer (10 reviews) and specifically increased ipsilateral cancer (3
reviews). So there are 11 different cell phone effects where there is
substantial enough evidence to warrant publication in one or more review
articles. Each of these effects has been shown to occur in response to other
microwave frequency EMFs and therefore should be considered to be caused by
EMFs more broadly.
The summary of Table 4, Chapter 5, the genuine cell phone primary literature studies that fell into the 2009-2013 time frame, started as follows: “If you look through the studies described in Table 4, you will see multiple studies in oxidative stress/free radical damage, on changes in tissue structure (sometimes called remodeling), on cellular DNA damage, on male fertility (and also one on female fertility), on behavioral changes and on neurological changes. There is also one study on insulin/type 2 diabetes (hormonal effect). It follows from this that five of the effects that were extensively documented in large numbers of reviews (Chapter 1) are further demonstrated to be produced by cell phone radiation in these studies. In addition the tissue remodeling and proteomic changes discussed in Chapter 3 are also further demonstrated here.”
It can be seen from Tables 4 & 5 and the preceding two paragraphs, that there is a vast amount of literature on repeatedly found effects of cell phone radiation, effects which make a mockery of the completely undocumented and non-specific FDA claims to the contrary.
Let’s look at another part of the FDA statement which also shows similarities to statements made elsewhere [131]:
The biological effects of radiofrequency energy should not be confused with the effects from other types of electromagnetic energy.
Very high levels of electromagnetic energy, such as is found in X-rays and gamma rays can ionize biological tissues. Ionization is a process where electrons are stripped away from their normal locations in atoms and molecules. It can permanently damage biological tissues including DNA, the genetic material.
The energy levels associated with radiofrequency energy, including both radio waves and microwaves, are not great enough to cause the ionization of atoms and molecules. Therefore, RF energy is a type of non-ionizing radiation. Other types of non-ionizing radiation include visible light, infrared radiation (heat) and other forms of electromagnetic radiation with relatively low frequencies.
This is almost identical to another Samsung statement and also to an FCC statement that I have not copied. Here is the Samsung statement [133]:
The biological effects of RF energy should not be confused with the effects from other types of electromagnetic energy.
The summary of Table 4, Chapter 5, the genuine cell phone primary literature studies that fell into the 2009-2013 time frame, started as follows: “If you look through the studies described in Table 4, you will see multiple studies in oxidative stress/free radical damage, on changes in tissue structure (sometimes called remodeling), on cellular DNA damage, on male fertility (and also one on female fertility), on behavioral changes and on neurological changes. There is also one study on insulin/type 2 diabetes (hormonal effect). It follows from this that five of the effects that were extensively documented in large numbers of reviews (Chapter 1) are further demonstrated to be produced by cell phone radiation in these studies. In addition the tissue remodeling and proteomic changes discussed in Chapter 3 are also further demonstrated here.”
It can be seen from Tables 4 & 5 and the preceding two paragraphs, that there is a vast amount of literature on repeatedly found effects of cell phone radiation, effects which make a mockery of the completely undocumented and non-specific FDA claims to the contrary.
Let’s look at another part of the FDA statement which also shows similarities to statements made elsewhere [131]:
The biological effects of radiofrequency energy should not be confused with the effects from other types of electromagnetic energy.
Very high levels of electromagnetic energy, such as is found in X-rays and gamma rays can ionize biological tissues. Ionization is a process where electrons are stripped away from their normal locations in atoms and molecules. It can permanently damage biological tissues including DNA, the genetic material.
The energy levels associated with radiofrequency energy, including both radio waves and microwaves, are not great enough to cause the ionization of atoms and molecules. Therefore, RF energy is a type of non-ionizing radiation. Other types of non-ionizing radiation include visible light, infrared radiation (heat) and other forms of electromagnetic radiation with relatively low frequencies.
This is almost identical to another Samsung statement and also to an FCC statement that I have not copied. Here is the Samsung statement [133]:
The biological effects of RF energy should not be confused with the effects from other types of electromagnetic energy.
75
Very
high levels of electromagnetic energy, such as is found in X-rays and gamma
rays, can ionize biological tissues. Ionization is a process where electrons
are stripped away from their normal locations in atoms and molecules. It can
permanently damage biological tissues including DNA, the genetic material.
The energy levels associated with radio frequency energy, including both radio waves and microwaves, are not great enough to cause ionization of atoms and molecules. Therefore, RF energy is a type of non-ionizing radiation. Other types of non-ionizing radiation include visible light, infrared radiation (heat), and other forms of electromagnetic radiation with relatively low frequencies.
While RF energy does not ionize particles, large amounts can increase body temperatures and cause tissue damage. Two areas of the body, the eyes and the testes, are particularly vulnerable to RF heating because there is relatively little blood flow in them to carry away excess heat.
The three paragraphs from the FDA statement are word for word identical to the first three paragraphs of the Samsung statement. The last paragraph in the Samsung statement was deleted from the FDA statement. It is clear from this that either the FDA statement is derived from the earlier industry statement rather than the other way around or both are derived from a previous statement similar to the Samsung statement.
These types of statements have given rise to shorter statements that are all something like the following:
Non-ionizing radiation consists of photons that do not have enough energy to break chemical bonds including the chemical bonds of DNA.
All of these statements are technically correct. They are also highly misleading. They are often falsely interpreted as meaning that there cannot be any effects of non-ionizing, non-thermal EMF exposures including indirect effects. There are many possible indirect effects that may occur, given the complexity of biology. But our situation goes way beyond that, because we know that most of the effects are produced via VGCC activation which produces, as downstream effects, the free radical breakdown products of peroxynitrite (Fig. 1, Chapter 2). Those free radical breakdown products attack DNA, proteins and other biological constituents in ways that are very similar to the ways in which ionizing radiation attack these same molecules. Ionizing radiation was shown by Arthur Compton, who won the Nobel prize in physics in 1927, for showing that ionizing radiation produces large numbers of free radicals through what has become known as Compton scattering, with those free radicals being responsible for most of the biological effects of ionizing radiation. So the often repeated industry claim that ionizing radiation is dangerous but non-ionizing radiation is not, is wrong – both of them produce similar effects mediated through free radical generation. However the dangers of non-ionizing radiation may eclipse the dangers of ionizing radiation under some conditions because of something that is discussed early in Chapter 5, at the end of the Speit/Schwarz discussion. There are three processes which occur in the sequence by which EMF activation leads to peroxynitrite breakdown product radicals, each of which have high levels of amplification (each discussed on p. 29 in Chapter 5). Thus potentially and I believe actually microwave frequency EMFs can produce under suitable conditions, much more efficient free radical production than occurs from a similar energy level of ionizing radiation.
The energy levels associated with radio frequency energy, including both radio waves and microwaves, are not great enough to cause ionization of atoms and molecules. Therefore, RF energy is a type of non-ionizing radiation. Other types of non-ionizing radiation include visible light, infrared radiation (heat), and other forms of electromagnetic radiation with relatively low frequencies.
While RF energy does not ionize particles, large amounts can increase body temperatures and cause tissue damage. Two areas of the body, the eyes and the testes, are particularly vulnerable to RF heating because there is relatively little blood flow in them to carry away excess heat.
The three paragraphs from the FDA statement are word for word identical to the first three paragraphs of the Samsung statement. The last paragraph in the Samsung statement was deleted from the FDA statement. It is clear from this that either the FDA statement is derived from the earlier industry statement rather than the other way around or both are derived from a previous statement similar to the Samsung statement.
These types of statements have given rise to shorter statements that are all something like the following:
Non-ionizing radiation consists of photons that do not have enough energy to break chemical bonds including the chemical bonds of DNA.
All of these statements are technically correct. They are also highly misleading. They are often falsely interpreted as meaning that there cannot be any effects of non-ionizing, non-thermal EMF exposures including indirect effects. There are many possible indirect effects that may occur, given the complexity of biology. But our situation goes way beyond that, because we know that most of the effects are produced via VGCC activation which produces, as downstream effects, the free radical breakdown products of peroxynitrite (Fig. 1, Chapter 2). Those free radical breakdown products attack DNA, proteins and other biological constituents in ways that are very similar to the ways in which ionizing radiation attack these same molecules. Ionizing radiation was shown by Arthur Compton, who won the Nobel prize in physics in 1927, for showing that ionizing radiation produces large numbers of free radicals through what has become known as Compton scattering, with those free radicals being responsible for most of the biological effects of ionizing radiation. So the often repeated industry claim that ionizing radiation is dangerous but non-ionizing radiation is not, is wrong – both of them produce similar effects mediated through free radical generation. However the dangers of non-ionizing radiation may eclipse the dangers of ionizing radiation under some conditions because of something that is discussed early in Chapter 5, at the end of the Speit/Schwarz discussion. There are three processes which occur in the sequence by which EMF activation leads to peroxynitrite breakdown product radicals, each of which have high levels of amplification (each discussed on p. 29 in Chapter 5). Thus potentially and I believe actually microwave frequency EMFs can produce under suitable conditions, much more efficient free radical production than occurs from a similar energy level of ionizing radiation.
76
The FDA may
have had a long history of playing fast and loose with the truth. For example,
Microwave News article published in 2003, provides this account of what
occurred at the FDA in 1993 [134]:
1993 FDA Memo Data “Strongly Suggest” Microwaves Can Promote Cancer.
In the spring of 1993 at the height of the public concern over cell phone brain
tumor risks, the Food and Drug Adminstration (FDA) biologists concluded [134] that the available data “strongly suggest” that microwaves can “accelerate the development of cancer.” This assessment is from an internal agency memo recently obtained by Microwave News under the Freedom of Information Act.
“Of approximately eight chronic animal experiments known to us, five resulted in increased numbers of malignancies, accelerated progression of tumors, or both” wrote Drs. Mays Swicord and Larry Cress of FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) in Rockville, MD. They also pointed to other evidence from laboratory (in vitro) studies which supported cancer risk.
Yet in its public statements at that time, the agency played down these findings [134]. For instance in a Talk Paper issued in early February, the FDA stated that there was “limited evidence that suggests that lower levels (of microwaves) might cause adverse effects.”
“A few studies suggest that (microwave) levels (from cellular phones) can accelerate the development of cancer in laboratory animals,” the FDA added [134], “but there is much uncertainty among scientists about whether these results apply to the use of cellular phones.”
I have three comments. Firstly, if you look at the 35 citations in the list on cancer causation in Chapter 1, you will see that there are 8 citations (#s 2-7 & 15 & 19) which provide similar evidence of stimulation of tumor promotion, four of which (#s 3-6) were published around 1993, the time of the FDA memo and public statement described above. Therefore, there was a substantial literature including peer-reviewed primary literature and review articles which produced similar conclusions to those of the FDA internal memo. The importance of the memo is that the FDA knew about these findings and opted to cover them up.
Secondly if you compare the rhetoric in the 1993 memo with the first quote from the current FDA web site quoted in this section, you will see some striking similarities. They both first refer to “a few studies” which are not identified, followed by raising uncertainties and then finally raising doubt as to whether these findings apply to cell phone radiation. The pattern of the FDA rhetoric has not changed much in 25 years.
If one includes the middle statement also quoted from the FDA web site, we have three FDA statements each of which downplays any biological effects and each of which are strongly rebutted by extensive peer-reviewed independent scientific literature. I’m not sure we can say the FDA has been corrupted by the industry, but what we can say is that it has been functioning as if it has been corrupted for 25 years.
In mid-2009 Margaret A. Hamburg, the new commissioner of the FDA, and Joshua M. Sharfstein, her principal deputy commissioner, published a commentary article in the New England Journal of Medicine [135] which included the following:
1993 FDA Memo Data “Strongly Suggest” Microwaves Can Promote Cancer.
In the spring of 1993 at the height of the public concern over cell phone brain
tumor risks, the Food and Drug Adminstration (FDA) biologists concluded [134] that the available data “strongly suggest” that microwaves can “accelerate the development of cancer.” This assessment is from an internal agency memo recently obtained by Microwave News under the Freedom of Information Act.
“Of approximately eight chronic animal experiments known to us, five resulted in increased numbers of malignancies, accelerated progression of tumors, or both” wrote Drs. Mays Swicord and Larry Cress of FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) in Rockville, MD. They also pointed to other evidence from laboratory (in vitro) studies which supported cancer risk.
Yet in its public statements at that time, the agency played down these findings [134]. For instance in a Talk Paper issued in early February, the FDA stated that there was “limited evidence that suggests that lower levels (of microwaves) might cause adverse effects.”
“A few studies suggest that (microwave) levels (from cellular phones) can accelerate the development of cancer in laboratory animals,” the FDA added [134], “but there is much uncertainty among scientists about whether these results apply to the use of cellular phones.”
I have three comments. Firstly, if you look at the 35 citations in the list on cancer causation in Chapter 1, you will see that there are 8 citations (#s 2-7 & 15 & 19) which provide similar evidence of stimulation of tumor promotion, four of which (#s 3-6) were published around 1993, the time of the FDA memo and public statement described above. Therefore, there was a substantial literature including peer-reviewed primary literature and review articles which produced similar conclusions to those of the FDA internal memo. The importance of the memo is that the FDA knew about these findings and opted to cover them up.
Secondly if you compare the rhetoric in the 1993 memo with the first quote from the current FDA web site quoted in this section, you will see some striking similarities. They both first refer to “a few studies” which are not identified, followed by raising uncertainties and then finally raising doubt as to whether these findings apply to cell phone radiation. The pattern of the FDA rhetoric has not changed much in 25 years.
If one includes the middle statement also quoted from the FDA web site, we have three FDA statements each of which downplays any biological effects and each of which are strongly rebutted by extensive peer-reviewed independent scientific literature. I’m not sure we can say the FDA has been corrupted by the industry, but what we can say is that it has been functioning as if it has been corrupted for 25 years.
In mid-2009 Margaret A. Hamburg, the new commissioner of the FDA, and Joshua M. Sharfstein, her principal deputy commissioner, published a commentary article in the New England Journal of Medicine [135] which included the following:
77
"One
of the greatest challenges facing any public health agency is that of risk
communication. ... The FDA's job is to minimize risks through education,
regulation, and enforcement. To be credible in all these tasks, the agency must
communicate frequently and clearly about risks and benefits—and about what
organizations and individuals can do to minimize risk. When, like the FDA,
Americans must make choices about medication, devices, foods, or nutrition in
the absence of perfect information, the FDA cannot delay in providing
reasonable guidance —guidance that informs rather than causes unnecessary
anxiety. For these communications to have credibility, the public must trust
the agency to base its decisions on science."
These were and are laudable goals. As far as I can tell, with regard to EMF effects, the FDA has failed to base either its communications or its decisions on science.
Summary of Chapter 6
In the areas discussed in Chapter 6 what used to be the primacy of U.S. science has completely disintegrated. It has disintegrated because of the cessation of U.S. government funding for either experimental studies or epidemiological studies. It has disintegrated due to attacks on U.S. and International scientists, attacks that started in the U.S. with the attacks on Dr. Henry Lai. It has disintegrated because of aggressive industry propaganda, propaganda that has no connection with the real science. It has disintegrated because of the outright corruption of the committee to set standards for radio-frequency exposures and the FCC and the possible and de facto corruption of the FDA. The telecommunications industry has been aware of much of the problems with their approach since the 1999 letter to them from George Carlo. The FCC has been aware of much more of the science since my presentation to them in September 2016. The FDA has been aware of contrary findings since 1993. Each of them has, if anything, doubled down on their fictions since those respective times.
Many of these things are going on internationally; however the U.S. has often been leading the world in these processes. All of the actions we have seen to corrupt the science and public understanding of the science have the effect of making it vastly more difficult for individuals impacted by the EMFs to protect themselves from further harm. We have many effects that are cumulative and become irreversible as they become more severe, effects that impact at a minimum, tens of millions of Americans and hundreds of millions of people elsewhere in the world. Industrial and regulatory organizations make it difficult or impossible for people to have scientifically valid information also make it difficult or impossible for people to protect themselves from the accumulation of these effects, leading to severe irreversible effects. Each of the organizations involved, both U.S. and international that collaborate in this process, have important responsibility for the consequences. I think damage goes way beyond tens and hundreds of millions of people, because I think we are looking at cumulative severe impact on our brain function, on our reproductive function and on our DNA, and that these, in turn will lead to the crash of every single technologically advanced country on earth, barring a major change in course. That will happen fairly quickly, in my opinion, even without 5G but 5G will greatly speed up the process and perhaps even add new egregious effects
Chapter 7: The Great Risks of 5G: What We Know and What We Don’t Know
These were and are laudable goals. As far as I can tell, with regard to EMF effects, the FDA has failed to base either its communications or its decisions on science.
Summary of Chapter 6
In the areas discussed in Chapter 6 what used to be the primacy of U.S. science has completely disintegrated. It has disintegrated because of the cessation of U.S. government funding for either experimental studies or epidemiological studies. It has disintegrated due to attacks on U.S. and International scientists, attacks that started in the U.S. with the attacks on Dr. Henry Lai. It has disintegrated because of aggressive industry propaganda, propaganda that has no connection with the real science. It has disintegrated because of the outright corruption of the committee to set standards for radio-frequency exposures and the FCC and the possible and de facto corruption of the FDA. The telecommunications industry has been aware of much of the problems with their approach since the 1999 letter to them from George Carlo. The FCC has been aware of much more of the science since my presentation to them in September 2016. The FDA has been aware of contrary findings since 1993. Each of them has, if anything, doubled down on their fictions since those respective times.
Many of these things are going on internationally; however the U.S. has often been leading the world in these processes. All of the actions we have seen to corrupt the science and public understanding of the science have the effect of making it vastly more difficult for individuals impacted by the EMFs to protect themselves from further harm. We have many effects that are cumulative and become irreversible as they become more severe, effects that impact at a minimum, tens of millions of Americans and hundreds of millions of people elsewhere in the world. Industrial and regulatory organizations make it difficult or impossible for people to have scientifically valid information also make it difficult or impossible for people to protect themselves from the accumulation of these effects, leading to severe irreversible effects. Each of the organizations involved, both U.S. and international that collaborate in this process, have important responsibility for the consequences. I think damage goes way beyond tens and hundreds of millions of people, because I think we are looking at cumulative severe impact on our brain function, on our reproductive function and on our DNA, and that these, in turn will lead to the crash of every single technologically advanced country on earth, barring a major change in course. That will happen fairly quickly, in my opinion, even without 5G but 5G will greatly speed up the process and perhaps even add new egregious effects
Chapter 7: The Great Risks of 5G: What We Know and What We Don’t Know
No comments:
Post a Comment