Dear DominiConnor,
Firstly, I do agree that the word "radiation" isn't that right word to use in this discussion. I recommend calling it "electro-magnetic fields" or EMF for short.
Apart from the above, I strongly disagree with you. It's clear that your knowledge on this subject is outdated.
As parents, naturally you want to protect your children but when it comes to electro-magnetic fields generated from appliances such as fx. DECT based baby alarms, you just aren't being given the info to make sensible descisions and take action to protect your kids.
Why am I writing this?:
My name is Henrik Eiriksson. I'm 33 and I've been studying this area intensively for the past 4 years. I've been going through the research, collaborating with scientists and as a software specialist I know alot about digital communications. You can email me at:
[email protected]
The reason that I got into this area is because my parents got sick from a 3G basestation installed 28 metres from their living quarters, and with the main beam pointing right at them at body level.
They were forced to move to a conservated area without masts in the vicinity and have since (mostly) recovered.
Back to DominiConnor's post...
In your post you claim:
"You can induce headaches by microwaves, but only by quite literally heating it up to an uncomfortable temperature."
The idea that microwaves only produce adverse health effects by thermal heating is flawed.
To our bodies as a whole, man-made electro-magnetic fields far stronger that those natural electro-magnetic fields we have evolved in, are simply: pollution.
Natural electro-magnetic fields are extremely weak and random (noise-like) in nature - they have been around us like that for billions of years and we have evolved to withstand them.
Electro-magnetic fields (I'll refer to them as EMF onwards) from cellphones, cellphone-masts, household RF kit such as DECT phones and baby alarms are millions of times higher than the natural EMF our bodies have evolved to withstand.
You claim:
"We do know that literally billions of people have been exposed to large amounts of RF over the last 50 years, and yet see little in the way of effects"
I say you are incorrect.
Only 20 years ago the most powerful sources of EMF were public TV and radio transmitters and adverse health effects and abnormal cancer rates were found in the vicinity of these transmitters. Probably the best documented case is that of the Vatican radio that was scentenced in court in 2005 to have caused cancers in the vicinity \link{http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4531247.stm\Read more here} .
We ARE seeing a massive reaction to this on a global scale. It's a "boiling frog" type scenario where our bodies can offset the effects of this EMF pollution for some time, until exhaustion starts to break us down. Have'nt you noticed the stress epidemic? depression wave? what about sleeping drug prescriptions going up 60% since 2000? Explanation follows.
The old analog radios are disappearing and today there are digital transmitters everywhere.
You fail to see the difference between the types of signal emitted then (50 years ago) and today - it's not just about signal strength.
The difference is in the radio signals "modulation". Modulation is a method of encoding information into a radio carrier wave by "sculpting" it in a certain way. Old radio transmitters produce "soft" randomly fluctuating patterns in the carrier wave and digital modulation produces "sharp" pulse-like patterns in the radio signal.
So what is the difference? Well, the question that the wireless industry never cared to ask is: "how do these sharp-cut digital radiowaves look to a living cell"? Cellphones, basestations, DECT's etc. have NEVER been pre-market tested from a biological point of view. Instead the industry just assumed that complex electro-chemical living organisms like humans somehow were immune to this new type of digitally modulated EMF. Yet the wireless industry acknowledges that:
\link{http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9605/16/cellphones/index.html\cellphones disturb pacemakers}
\link{http://www.cit.cmu.edu/default.aspx?id=331\cellphones disturb aircraft equipment}
The difference between pacemakers, aircraft equipment and your brain is that pacemakers and aircraft equipment are electrically shielded and your brain is not. There is just a layer of skull between a cellphone and your brain so why is all this effort going into protect machinery and not your precious brain? Good question.
Within the last 10 years scientists have been asking that exact question and have come up with some surprizing results.
In a nutshell, what happens is this:
The cells in our bodies are constantly reacting to their surroundings, both chemically and electrically. Our cells have evolved within the natural EMF of this planet (weak and noiselike) so that acts as the cells "baseline". If you place a cell within a non-random EMF as fx. a precisely pulsing cellphone signal, then within 1 second of exposure, the cell goes into a "stress mode" and starts producing stress-reaction signal chemicals. This is a simple survival mechanism and has a short-term beneficial effect because it mobilizes the bodies "fight-or-flight" mechanisms but in the long run (with chronic exposure) it will lead to exhaustion and the onset of dangerous stress and disease. EMF exposure problems begin to manifest themselves by diffuse symptoms such as stress, fatigue, depression, sleep pattern disturbances, difficulty recovering from disease.
So I say, based on the science I've studied: EMF of a non-thermal level is a disease catalyst.
Of course, people are different so reactions take more or less time to become evident but I sure don't recommend subjecting children to chronic exposure such as constantly pulsing DECT transmitters. DECT transmitters pulse contantly even though no calls are taking place.
Most people react to the above with: "if research has been finding adverse health effects for a decade, then why haven't I heard about this?".
Another really good question.
Dr. George Carlo, the lead scientist of the 28 million dollar american research effort into cellphones and health explained it this way:
The government auctioned off frequency bands for cellphone use at enormous prices. The bids started in the billions and naturally alot of I-owe-you's were signed by the wireless industry. Government budgets are depending on revenue from telecommunications so in order to balance, they need to help the wireless industry expand. This is done through industry-biased legislation such as making sure that the public cannot object to cellphone transmitters "on a health basis". Now as the post-market scientific research is showing adverse health effects the government and industry are trapped together in a huge lie and a sea of denial.
Have you ever heard a industry spokesperson or a government official expand on their knee-jerk explanation: "there is no scientific evidence relating cellphones with [insert health effect here]" ?
They always get the last word in the media, call for more research despite all the existing research already incriminating them, and they never back any of their statements up with evidence or references to evidence.
Check out this link:
\link{http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/07/us_gov_wireless_auctions\US gov optimistic on wireless auctions}
and I recommend listening to this podcast with Dr. George Carlo:
\link{http://www.realham.com/arch/heal/Jan-12-2006-at-08-00PM---Heal_The_Cause.mp3<a class="break-all" href="http://www.realham.com/arch/heal/Jan-12-2006-at-08-00PM---Heal_The_Cause.mp3}" rel="nofollow noindex" target="_blank">www.realham.com/arch/heal/Jan-12-2006-at-08-00PM---Heal_The_Cause.mp3}
(click the above link, or paste it into your media player to stream it)
You state:
"Indeed the only reputable effect anyone seems to have found is that blood flow to the brain seems to be mildly increased, with slightly beneficial effects."
I disagree. In 1994 and again, in 2002, Dr. Leif Salford from Lund University in Stockholm, Sweden found that non-thermal levels of EMF at intensities 1000 times under EU regulations caused a breakdown in the blood-brain-barrier. Blood vessels in the brain are specialized. They form a super-tight barrier that allows only certain body chemicals to cross into the brain-tissue itself. The swedish research discovered that non-thermal pulsed EMF causes leakage in the blood-brain-barrier allowing cancer-promoting toxins (from tobacco, pesticides, air pollution, etc.) to enter the brain from the bloodstream.
\link{http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/507112.stm\Link (from 1999)}
\link{http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2728149.stm\Link (from 2003)}
The blood flow increase effect you describe is believed to be caused by cells over-production of Nitric-Oxide when exposed to digital EMF. Cells producing Nitric-Oxide is a part of the cells "fight-or-flight" stress response to digital EMF (as previously mentioned) and Nitric-Oxide is known to function as a blood-vessel relaxing agent.
When you state:
"Also digital gear is more modern, that means that the bad things are less likely to occur."
What on earth do you mean by that?? Modern things are less likely to harm you - just because they are "modern"?
MNHQ