THE MOST DANGEROUS TECHNOLOGY EVER INVENTED
Part Two There is No Dose Response for Microwave Radiation The
selling of cell phones is, and always has been, based on lies and
deception. The biggest lie is that they are “low power” devices and that
this makes them safe. That is a double lie. It is a lie because they
are not low power. If you put a cell phone -- any cell phone -- in your
hand or next to your body, you are being blasted by more microwave
radiation from your phone than you are getting from any cell tower, and
by ten billion times as much microwave radiation as you are getting from
the sun, the Milky Way, or any other natural sources. The exposure
guidelines established by the Federal Communications Commission reflect
this reality: cell towers are permitted to expose your body at a
specific absorption rate of 0.08 watts per kilogram, while cell phones
are allowed to expose your brain at a specific absorption rate of 1.6
watts per kilogram, which is twenty times higher.
And it is a lie
because low power devices are not any safer than high power devices.
The reason for this is that electromagnetic fields are not toxins in the
ordinary sense, and the rule in toxicology that a lower dose is a safer
dose does not apply to microwave radiation. As Allan Frey wrote in
1990:
“Electromagnetic fields are not a foreign substance to
living beings like lead or cyanide. With foreign substances, the greater
the dose, the greater the effect -- a dose-response relationship.
Rather, living beings are electrochemical systems that use low frequency
EMFs in everything from protein folding through cellular communication
to nervous system function. To model how EMFs affect living beings, one
might compare them to the radio we use to listen to music... If you
impose on the radio an appropriately tuned EMF or harmonic, even if it
is very weak, it will interfere with the music. Similarly, if we impose a
very weak EMF signal on a living being, it has the possibility of
interfering with normal function if it is properly tuned. That is the
model that much biological data and theory tell us to use, not a
toxicological model.”The
most thorough investigation of the blood-brain barrier effect, which
Frey discovered in 1975, was done at Lund University in Sweden beginning
in the late 1980s with various sources of microwave radiation and
later, in the 1990s and 2000s, with actual cell phones. They found not
only that there is not a dose response, but that there is an inverse dose
response for this type of injury. They exposed laboratory rats to what
is now called 2G cell phone radiation, and then they reduced the power
level of the radiation ten-fold, a hundred-fold, a thousand-fold, and
ten thousand-fold. And they found, to their surprise, that the greatest
damage to the blood-brain barrier occurred not in the rats that were
exposed at full power, but in the rats that were exposed to phones whose
radiation was reduced by a factor of ten thousand! This was the
equivalent of holding a cell phone more than one meter away from your
body. The leader of the research team, neurosurgeon Leif Salford, warned
that non-users of cell phones were being damaged by their neighbors’
cell phones, and that this technology was “the world’s largest
biological experiment ever.”
And in a further set of experiments,
published in 2003, Salford’s team exposed young rats to what is now
called a 2G cell phone, just once for two hours, either at full power,
or at two different levels of reduced power, and sacrificed them 50 days
later to examine their brains. They found that a single exposure to an
ordinary cell phone operating at normal power had permanently destroyed
up to 2% of almost all the rats. Damaged neurons dominated the picture
in some areas of their brains. When the power of the phone was reduced
ten-fold it caused brain damage in every rat. When the power of the
phone was reduced one hundred-fold, this type of permanent brain damage
was observed in half of the exposed animals.
And in still further
experiments, published in 2008, they exposed rats to a cell phone for
two hours once a week for a year, still using what is now called a 2G
cell phone. The exposed rats suffered from impaired memory, regardless
of whether they were exposed at an SAR level of 60 milliwatts per
kilogram or 0.6 milliwatts per kilogram. In other words, reducing the
power level by a factor of one hundred did not make the cell phone less
dangerous.
The
lack of a dose response has been reported over and over. Physicist Carl
Blackman spent much of his career at the Environmental Protection
Agency figuring out why not only particular frequencies but also
particular power levels of RF radiation cause calcium to flow out of
brain cells. Ross Adey at UCLA, Jean-Louis Schwartz at the National
Research Council of Canada, and Jitendra Behari at Jawaharlal University
in India reported the same thing. Geneticist Sisir Dutta, studying the
same phenomenon at Howard University in 1986, found peaks of calcium
flow at SAR levels of 2 W/kg and 1 W/kg, and also at .05, .0028, .001,
.0007, and .0005 W/kg, with some effect all the way down to .0001 W/kg.
The effect at 0.0007 W/kg SAR was quadruple the effect at 2.0 W/kg, in
other words a 3,000-fold reduction in power level resulted in a 4-fold increase in calcium disturbance. The frequency was 915 MHz, the same frequency that was later to be used for cell phones.
Maria
Sadchikova and her Soviet colleagues, in the 1960s and 1970s, examined
hundreds of workers exposed to microwave radiation on the job, and
consistently found that the sickest workers were the ones who were
exposed to the lowest, not the highest power levels.
Igor
Belyaev, at Stockholm University, found that genetic effects occurred
at specific frequencies and that the magnitude of the effect did not
change with power level over 16 orders of magnitude, all the way down to
0.000000000000000001 watts per square centimeter, a level that is one
quadrillion times lower than what a cell phone delivers to one’s brain.
Dimitris
Panagopoulos, at the University of Athens, found that fruit flies
exposed to a cell phone for just one minute a day for five days produced
36 percent fewer offspring than flies that were not exposed at all.
When he exposed them to the phone for six minutes a day for five days,
it reduced the number of their offspring by 50 to 60 percent. And the
maximum effect occurred when the cell phone was about one foot away from
the flies, not when it was touching the vial that the flies were in. In
further research, he showed that the effect is due to DNA damage and
consequent cell death caused by the radiation.
In another
experiment, Panagopoulos’s colleague, Lukas Margaritis, exposed fruit
flies to various frequencies of RF radiation at exposure levels ranging
from 0.0001 watts per kilogram to 0.04 watts per kilogram, and found
that even a single exposure to any of these frequencies at any of these
power levels for just 6 minutes caused a significant amount of ovarian
cell death.
And
in further research, Margaritis’s team exposed fruit flies to a cell
phone either once for 6 minutes, once for 12 minutes, 6 minutes a day
for 3 days, or 12 minutes a day for 3 days. Under each condition the
phone tripled to sextupled the amount of ovarian cell death. And then
this team tried other sources of microwave radiation for between 10 and
30 minutes per day for up to 9 days and found that each of them reduced
the number of offspring by between 11 and 32 percent. The cell phone and
the cordless phone had the greatest effect, but the WiFi, the baby
monitor, the Bluetooth, and the microwave oven also substantially
reduced the fecundity of the flies.
The effects on insects are so
obvious that even a high school student can easily demonstrate them. In
2004, Alexander Chan, a sophomore at Benjamin Cardozo High School in
Queens, New York, exposed fruit fly larvae daily to a loudspeaker, a
computer monitor, and a cell phone for a science fair project and
observed their development. The flies that were exposed to the cell
phone failed to develop wings.
What Are We Doing to Nature?
We
are distressing and disorienting not only birds, but also, as is being
discovered, insects. It appears that all little creatures that have
antennae use them to send and receive communications electronically --
communications that are being interfered with and drowned out by the
much more powerful communications of our wireless devices.
When
honey bees perform their waggle dance to inform one another of the
location of food sources, it is not only a visual dance but an
electromagnetic one. During the dance they generate electromagnetic
signals with a modulation frequency between 180 and 250 Hz. And they
send another kind of signal, which has been called the “stop” signal, up
to 100 milliseconds long, at a frequency of 320 Hz. The stop signal is
used when the colony already has too much food, and it causes the
dancers to stop dancing and leave the dance floor. Uwe Greggers, at
Freie Universität Berlin, discovered that bees will start walking and
actively moving their antennae in response to artificially generated
electromagnetic fields that imitate these natural signals, even in the
absence of any visual or auditory cues. Bees whose antennae he had
removed or coated with wax did not respond to these signals.
Pollination
is also dependent on electromagnetic communication -- between bees and
flowers. Bees carry positive charge on their bodies from flying in the
global atmospheric electric field, while flowers, being connected to the
earth, carry a negative charge. Dominic Clarke, at the University of
Bristol, has proved that not only does this facilitate pollen transfer
from flowers to bees, but that bees sense and are attracted not only to
the colors of flowers but also to the distinct patterns of their
electric fields. The electric field of a flower diminishes immediately
after being visited by a bee, and other bees “see” this and only visit
flowers whose electric field is robust. While honey bees see the fields
with their antennae, bumble bees see the fields more with the hairs that
cover their bodies, which not only make them such distinctive creatures
but also function as a kind of antenna.
In 2007, German biologist Ulrich Warnke published an important booklet in both English and German titled Bees, Birds and Mankind: Destroying Nature by “Elektrosmog” (Bienen, Vögel und Menschen: Die Zerstörung der Natur durch ‚Elektrosmog').
In it, he reminded us that there are only two long-range forces --
gravity and electromagnetism -- that shape everything in the universe
including our bodies, and that we ignore that fact at our peril.
Electricity is the foundation of life, he warned, and “this destruction
of the foundation of life has already wiped out many species forever.”
We cannot immerse our world, he said, in a sea of electromagnetic
radiation that is up to 10,000,000,000 times as strong as the natural
radiation that we evolved with without destroying all of life. He
summarized the research that he and others had done with honey bees. It
is no wonder, wrote Warnke, that bees are disappearing all over the
world.
They began disappearing at the dawn of the radio age. On
the small island lying off England’s southern coast where Guglielmo
Marconi sent the world’s first long-distance radio transmission in 1901,
the honey bees began to vanish. By 1906, the island, then host to the
greatest density of radio transmissions in the world, was almost empty
of bees. Thousands, unable to fly, were found crawling and dying on the
ground outside their hives. Healthy bees imported from the mainland
began dying within a week of arrival. In the following decades, Isle of
Wight disease spread along with radio broadcasting to the rest of Great
Britain, and to Italy, France, Switzerland, Germany, Brazil, Australia,
Canada, South Africa, and the United States. In the 1960s and 1970s its
name changed to “disappearing disease.” It became urgent in the late
1990s with the wireless revolution, and became a worldwide emergency by
2006, when it was renamed “colony collapse disorder.” Today not only
domestic bees, but all wild bees, are in danger of extinction.
Amphibians
are not only disappearing, but large numbers of amphibian species have
already gone extinct, even in the most remote, pristine areas of the
world -- pristine, that is, except for communication towers and radar
stations emitting microwave radiation. Amphibians are the most
vulnerable of all classes of animals on the planet to electromagnetic
radiation, and they have been dwindling and going extinct since the
1980s. When I looked into this in 1996, every species of frog and toad
in Yosemite National Park was disappearing. In the Monteverde Cloud
Forest Preserve of Costa Rica, the famous and highly protected golden
toad had gone extinct. Eight of thirteen frog species in a Brazilian
rainforest preserve had gone extinct. The famous gastric-brooding frog
of Australia was extinct. Seventy-five species of the colorful harlequin
frogs that once graced streams in the tropics of the Western Hemisphere
were extinct. Today, more than half of all known kinds of frogs,
salamanders and caecilians (snake-like amphibians), amounting to 4,300
species, are either extinct or in danger of extinction.
In 1996,
when cell towers marched into remote areas of the United States, mutant
frogs began turning up by the thousands in lakes, streams and forests
all across the American Midwest. Their deformed legs, extra legs,
missing eyes, misplaced eyes, and other genetic mistakes were
frightening school children out on field trips.
In 2009, wildlife
biologist Alfonso Balmori did a simple, obvious experiment on the
balcony of an apartment in Valladolid, Spain not far from a cell tower,
an experiment that proved what was happening: he raised tadpoles in two
identical tanks, except over one of them he draped a thin layer of
fabric that was woven with metallic fibers, which admitted air and light
but kept out radio waves. The results shocked even Balmori: in a period
of two months, 90 percent of the tadpoles in the tank without the
shielding had died, versus only 4 percent in the shielded tank.
Similar shielding experiments have confirmed, in spades, what is happening to birds, and what is happening to our forests.
Scientists
at the University of Oldenburg in Germany were shocked to find,
beginning in 2004, that the migratory songbirds they had been studying
were no longer able to orient themselves toward the north in spring and
toward the southwest in autumn. Suspecting that electromagnetic
pollution might be responsible, they did for their birds what Balmori
did for his tadpoles a few years later: they shielded the aviary from
radio waves during the winter with aluminum sheeting. “The effect on the
birds’ orientation capabilities was profound,” wrote the scientists.
The birds all oriented toward the north the following spring.
And
in 2007, in a backyard laboratory in the foothills of Colorado’s Rocky
Mountains, Katie Haggerty decided to do the same experiment with aspen
seedlings. She wanted to find out if radio waves were responsible for
the decline of aspen trees all over Colorado that had begun in 2004. She
grew 27 aspen trees -- nine without any screening, nine with aluminum
window screening around their pots which kept out radio waves, and nine
with fiberglass screening which kept out just as much light but let in
all the radio waves. After two months, the new shoots of the
radio-shielded aspens were 74 percent longer, and their leaves 60
percent larger, than those of either the mock-shielded or the unshielded
aspens. And in the fall, the shielded trees had large, healthy leaves
in brilliant fall colors that aspens are famous for: bright orange,
yellow, green, dark red, and black. The mock-shielded and unshielded
trees had small leaves in drab yellow and green, covered with gray and
brown areas of decay. The only thing that had changed in Colorado’s
Rocky Mountains in 2004 was the installation of a new emergency
communication system called the Digital Trunked Radio System composed of
203 radio towers whose transmissions covered every square inch of the
state. (to be continued) |
No comments:
Post a Comment