Wireless devices-potential cancer risk says World Health Organization

Cell phones, cell towers, wi-fi, smart meters, DECT phones, cordless phones, baby monitors and other wireless devices all emit non ionizing radio frequencies, which the World Health Organization (WHO) has just classified as a potential carcinogen. This is big news from the WHO and governments and decision makers can no longer hide behind the “no RF health effects” industry mantra.

Cindy Sage, co-editor of the Bioinitiative Report writes, ” The WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer has just issued it’s decision that non-ionizing radiofrequency radiation is classified as a 2B (Possible) Carcinogen. This is the same category as DDT, lead, and engine exhaust. This mirrors the 2001 IARC finding that extremely low frequency (ELF-EMF) that classified as a 2B (Possible) Carcinogen. This pertained to power frequency (power line and appliance) non-ionizing radiation. These two findings confirm that non-ionizing radiation should be considered as a possible risk factor for cancers; and that new, biologically-based public safety standards are urgently needed. ”

Dr. Louis Slesin has been reporting on this issue for decades. See Microwave News, for further commentary.


Lyon, France, May 31, 2011 ‐‐

“The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer1, associated with wireless phone use.

Over the last few years, there has been mounting concern about the possibility of adverse health effects resulting from exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, such as those emitted by wireless communication devices. The number of mobile phone subscriptions is estimated at 5 billion globally.
From May 24–31 2011, a Working Group of 31 scientists from 14 countries has been meeting at IARC in Lyon, France, to assess the potential carcinogenic hazards from exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. These assessments will be published as Volume 102 of the IARC Monographs, which will be the fifth volume in this series to focus on physical agents, after Volume 55 (Solar Radiation), Volume 75 and Volume 78 on ionizing radiation (X‐rays, gamma‐rays, neutrons, radio‐nuclides), and Volume 80 on non‐ionizing radiation (extremely low‐frequency electromagnetic fields).
The IARC Monograph Working Group discussed the possibility that these exposures might induce long‐term health effects, in particular an increased risk for cancer. This has relevance for public health, particularly for users of mobile phones, as the number of users is large and growing, particularly among young adults and children.
The IARC Monograph Working Group discussed and evaluated the available literature on the following exposure categories involving radiofrequency electromagnetic fields:
␣ occupational exposures to radar and to microwaves; ␣ environmental exposures associated with transmission of signals for radio, television and wireless telecommunication; and ␣ personal exposures associated with the use of wireless telephones.
International experts shared the complex task of tackling the exposure data, the studies of cancer in humans, the studies of cancer in experimental animals, and the mechanistic and other relevant data.

1 237 913 new cases of brain cancers (all types combined) occurred around the world in 2008 (gliomas represent 2/3 of these). Source: Globocan 2008

The evidence was reviewed critically, and overall evaluated as being limited2 among users of wireless telephones for glioma and acoustic neuroma, and inadequate3 to draw conclusions for other types of cancers. The evidence from the occupational and environmental exposures mentioned above was similarly judged inadequate. The Working Group did not quantitate the risk; however, one study of past cell phone use (up to the year 2004), showed a 40% increased risk for gliomas in the highest category of heavy users (reported average: 30 minutes per day over a 10‐year period).

Dr Jonathan Samet (University of Southern California, USA), overall Chairman of the Working Group, indicated that “the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk.”
“Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings,” said IARC Director Christopher Wild, “it is important that additional research be conducted into the long‐ term, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands‐free devices or texting. ”
The Working Group considered hundreds of scientific articles; the complete list will be published in the Monograph. It is noteworthy to mention that several recent in‐press scientific articles4 resulting from the Interphone study were made available to the working group shortly before it was due to convene, reflecting their acceptance for publication at that time, and were included in the evaluation.
A concise report summarizing the main conclusions of the IARC Working Group and the evaluations of the carcinogenic hazard from radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (including the use of mobile telephones) will be published in The Lancet Oncology in its July 1 issue, and in a few days online.

2 ‘Limited evidence of carcinogenicity’: A positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer for which a causal interpretation is considered by the Working Group to be credible, but chance, bias or confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence.
3 ‘Inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity’: The available studies are of insufficient quality, consistency or statistical power to permit a conclusion regarding the presence or absence of a causal association between exposure and cancer, or no data on cancer in humans are available.
4 a. ‘Acoustic neuroma risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case‐ control study’ (the Interphone Study Group, in Cancer Epidemiology, in press) b. ‘Estimation of RF energy absorbed in the brain from mobile phones in the Interphone study’ (Cardis et al., Occupational and Environmental Medicine, in press)
c. ‘Risk of brain tumours in relation to estimated RF dose from mobile phones – results from five Interphone countries’ (Cardis et al., Occupational and Environmental Medicine, in press) ”


European Resolution Calls on Governments to Reduce EMF

PACE calls on governments to ‘take all reasonable measures’ to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields

May 27, 2011

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), meeting in Kyiv at Standing Committee level, today called on European governments to “take all reasonable measures” to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields, especially to radio frequencies from mobile phones, “and particularly the exposure to children and young people who seem to be most at risk from head tumours”.

According to parliamentarians, governments should “for children in general, and particularly in schools and classrooms, give preference to wired Internet connections, and strictly regulate the use of mobile phones by schoolchildren on school premises”, and put in place information and awareness-raising campaigns on the risks of potentially harmful long-term biological effects on the environment and on human health, especially “targeting children, teenagers and young people of reproductive age”.

Following the proposals of the rapporteur (Jean Huss, Luxembourg, SOC), the Assembly called on governments to provide information on potential health risks of DECT-type wireless telephones, baby monitors and other domestic appliances which emit continuous pulse waves, if all electrical equipment is left permanently on standby. They should, instead, recommend “the use of wired, fixed telephones at home or, failing that, models which do not permanently emit pulse waves”.

Governments should “reconsider the scientific basis for the present electromagnetic fields exposure standards set by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection, “which have serious limitations” and apply as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principles.

The adopted resolution underlines the fact that “the precautionary principle should be applicable when scientific evaluation does not allow the risk to be determined with sufficient certainty” and stresses that “the issue of independence and credibility of scientific expertise is crucial” to achieve a transparent and balanced assessment of potential negative impacts on the environment and human health.

The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment

Resolution 1815 (2011)1
Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe

1. The Parliamentary Assembly has repeatedly stressed the importance of states’ commitment to preserving the environment and environmental health, as set out in many charters, conventions, declarations and protocols since the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and the Stockholm Declaration (Stockholm, 1972). The Assembly refers to its past work in this field, namely Recommendation 1863 (2009) on environment and health, Recommendation 1947 (2010) on noise and light pollution, and more generally, Recommendation 1885 (2009) on drafting an additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the right to a healthy environment and Recommendation 1430 (1999) on access to information, public participation in environmental decision-making and access to justice – implementation of the Aarhus Convention.

2. The potential health effects of the very low frequency of electromagnetic fields surrounding power lines and electrical devices are the subject of ongoing research and a significant amount of public debate. According to the World Health Organisation, electromagnetic fields of all frequencies represent one of the most common and fastest growing environmental influences, about which anxiety and speculation are spreading. All populations are now exposed to varying degrees of to electromagnetic fields, the levels of which will continue to increase as technology advances.

3. Mobile telephony has become commonplace around the world. This wireless technology relies upon an extensive network of fixed antennas, or base stations, relaying information with radio frequency signals. Over 1.4 million base stations exist worldwide and the number is increasing significantly with the introduction of third generation technology. Other wireless networks that allow high-speed internet access and services, such as wireless local area networks, are also increasingly common in homes, offices and many public areas (airports, schools, residential and urban areas). As the number of base stations and local wireless networks increases, so does the radio frequency exposure of the population.

4. While electrical and electromagnetic fields in certain frequency bands have wholly beneficial effects which are applied in medicine, other non-ionising frequencies, be they sourced from extremely low frequencies, power lines or certain high frequency waves used in the fields of radar, telecommunications and mobile telephony, appear to have more or less potentially harmful, non-thermal, biological effects on plants, insects and animals as well as the human body even when exposed to levels that are below the official threshold values.

5. As regards standards or threshold values for emissions of electromagnetic fields of all types and frequencies, the Assembly recommends that the ALARA or “as low as reasonably achievable” principle is applied, covering both the so-called thermal effects and the athermic or biological effects of electromagnetic emissions or radiation. Moreover, the precautionary principle should be applicable when scientific evaluation does not allow the risk to be determined with sufficient certainty, especially given the context of growing exposure of the population, including particularly vulnerable groups such as young people and children, which could lead to extremely high human and economic costs of inaction if early warnings are neglected.

6. The Assembly regrets that, despite calls for the respect of the precautionary principle and despite all the recommendations, declarations and a number of statutory and legislative advances, there is still a lack of reaction to known or emerging environmental and health risks and virtually systematic delays in adopting and implementing effective preventive measures. Waiting for high levels of scientific and clinical proof before taking action to prevent well-known risks can lead to very high health and economic costs, as was the case with asbestos, leaded petrol and tobacco.

7. Moreover, the Assembly notes that the problem of electromagnetic fields or waves and the potential consequences for the environment and health has clear parallels with other current issues, such as the licensing of medication, chemicals, pesticides, heavy metals or genetically modified organisms. It therefore highlights that the issue of independence and credibility of scientific expertise is crucial to accomplish a transparent and balanced assessment of potential negative impacts on the environment and human health.

8. In light of the above considerations, the Assembly recommends that the member states of the Council of Europe:

8.1. in general terms:

8.1.1. take all reasonable measures to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields, especially to radio frequencies from mobile phones, and particularly the exposure to children and young people who seem to be most at risk from head tumours;

8.1.2. reconsider the scientific basis for the present electromagnetic fields exposure standards set by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection, which have serious limitations and apply “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA) principles, covering both thermal effects and the athermic or biological effects of electromagnetic emissions or radiation;

8.1.3. put in place information and awareness-raising campaigns on the risks of potentially harmful long-term biological effects on the environment and on human health, especially targeting children, teenagers and young people of reproductive age;

8.1.4. pay particular attention to “electrosensitive” persons suffering from a syndrome of intolerance to electromagnetic fields and introduce special measures to protect them, including the creation of wave-free areas not covered by the wireless network;

8.1.5. in order to reduce costs, save energy, and protect the environment and human health, step up research on new types of antennas and mobile phone and DECT-type devices, and encourage research to develop telecommunication based on other technologies which are just as efficient but have less negative effects on the environment and health;

8.2. concerning the private use of mobile phones, DECT phones, WiFi, WLAN and WIMAX for computers and other wireless devices such as baby phones:

8.2.1. set preventive thresholds for levels of long-term exposure to microwaves in all indoor areas, in accordance with the precautionary principle, not exceeding 0.6 volts per metre, and in the medium term to reduce it to 0.2 volts per metre;

8.2.2. undertake appropriate risk-assessment procedures for all new types of device prior to licensing;

8.2.3. introduce clear labelling indicating the presence of microwaves or electromagnetic fields, the transmitting power or the specific absorption rate (SAR) of the device and any health risks connected with its use;

8.2.4. raise awareness on potential health risks of DECT-type wireless telephones, baby monitors and other domestic appliances which emit continuous pulse waves, if all electrical equipment is left permanently on standby, and recommend the use of wired, fixed telephones at home or, failing that, models which do not permanently emit pulse waves;

8.3. concerning the protection of children:

8.3.1. develop within different ministries (education, environment and health) targeted information campaigns aimed at teachers, parents and children to alert them to the specific risks of early, ill-considered and prolonged use of mobiles and other devices emitting microwaves;

8.3.2. for children in general, and particularly in schools and classrooms, give preference to wired Internet connections, and strictly regulate the use of mobile phones by schoolchildren on school premises;

8.4. concerning the planning of electric power lines and relay antenna base stations:

8.4.1. introduce town planning measures to keep high-voltage power lines and other electric installations at a safe distance from dwellings;

8.4.2. apply strict safety standards for sound electric systems in new dwellings;

8.4.3. reduce threshold values for relay antennas in accordance with the ALARA principle and install systems for comprehensive and continuous monitoring of all antennas;

8.4.4. determine the sites of any new GSM, UMTS, WiFi or WIMAX antennas not solely according to the operators’ interests but in consultation with local and regional government officials, local residents and associations of concerned citizens;

8.5. concerning risk assessment and precautions:

8.5.1. make risk assessment more prevention oriented;

8.5.2. improve risk-assessment standards and quality by creating a standard risk scale, making the indication of the risk level mandatory, commissioning several risk hypotheses and considering compatibility with real life conditions;

8.5.3. pay heed to and protect “early warning” scientists;

8.5.4. formulate a human rights oriented definition of the precautionary and ALARA principles;

8.5.5. increase public funding of independent research, inter alia through grants from industry and taxation of products which are the subject of public research studies to evaluate health risks;

8.5.6. create independent commissions for the allocation of public funds;

8.5.7. make the transparency of lobby groups mandatory;

8.5.8. promote pluralist and contradictory debates between all stakeholders, including civil society (Aarhus Convention).

1 Text adopted by the Standing Committee, acting on behalf of the Assembly, on 27 May 2011 (see Doc. 12608, report of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, rapporteur: Mr Huss).

Smart Meters-Shame on You Grandpa

by Howard Glasser

CPUC President Michael R. Peevey

Good Morning Mr. Peevey. George Orwell had you and the industry you purport to regulate beat by 62 years. His book Nineteen Eighty-Four was published in 1949. If you haven’t read it, you really should. If you read it in high school or college, you may want to pick it up and read it again. It told of the future you are creating for yourself and us, your wife, your children and their children. You are leaving behind a legacy of terror Mr. Peevey.

The decisions you’re making now are probably the most crucial decisions you’ve ever made when it comes to how they will affect the lives of not only this generation, but the lives of generations to come. Albert Einstein said “It has become appalling obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.” Such is the case here and I’d like you to take a hard look at that irrespective of the expectations of an industry to which you’ve become Godfather.

Besides being President of the CPUC, you’re a husband and father of three children and a grandfather and I’m sure that means a lot to you. I’m not prying but I am curious to learn a little about the man behind the desk.

I’m speaking to Michael Peevey the father and Grandpa. I’d like you to consider what kind of world you’re leaving behind for those you love. It’s hard to believe that in your heart of hearts given what you know and the facts that surround you, that you would commit your loved ones and the good people of California, indeed the fine people of this country to a faulted technology fraught with hazards.

According to medical reports such as the physician’s peer review of the California Council on Science and Technology on the health impacts of Smart Meters, these devices have been found to cause brain tumors, tinnitus, acoustic neuromas, childhood leukemia, neurodegenerative diseases, DNA damage and cognitive impairment. Smart Meter radiation slows motor skills, reduces learning ability, heats body tissue, lowers the immune system and does damage to the blood-brain barrier that prevents toxins from entering the brain. Even if only half of this were true, what kind of a Grandpa would protect an industry that shows such little regard for public health and safety?

At the CPUC meeting March 24th, PG&E and their attorneys took over 75 pages to say Show Me the Money. Oh they said it in legalize, the language of champions but let’s be completely honest Mr. Peevey. It’s about the money. Money is driving this; the agenda, this rollout, this rush to deploy. This skullduggery. It’s about money and greed and power.

Not green power but the power that’s wielded over a citizenry stripped of its rights and that you would see buried to meet deadlines and increase corporate profits while leaving us in the rubble of PG&E’s twisted machinations. It’s about how our money finds its way in to a utility company’s pockets which should come as no surprise to anyone because what isn’t about money these days whether it’s lobbying money or laundered money or campaign funding or pork barrels or bailouts? It is and always has been about the money.

It’s hard to believe that you would defend an industry that pretends to be green but is green only as in the color of money. Is there anything that you, the Smart Grid Industry, the CPUC and PG&E would NOT do for money Mr. Peevey?

Any good salesman or politician can tell you that if you want to sell something, give it a good name like Smart and make it the “green” thing to do.  Don’t get me wrong. I’m as environmentally conscious as the next one but the Smart Grid movement is not about going green or conserving energy or reducing greenhouse gas emissions or saving Polar Bears. It’s about raising rates, increasing profits and selling the data it collects. The utility companies aren’t doing this for your health or for the environment.

We hear a lot of talk these days about the need for transparency as if it’s so hard to see through what’s going on so I’ll just come right to the bottom line. Mr. Peevey this is your chance of a lifetime if you take it to be a real hero for your children and their children, for California and for America. You will either be remembered as the man who set fire to our freedom and watched it burn or who ran in to the burning building and carried us out.

Howard Glasser

Kelseyville CA



Smart Meters: unregulated, unsafe…

In a recent Federal Communications Commission (FCC) letter to Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, Julias Knapp, the FCC Chief of Office of Engineering and Technology, responds to an inquiry from the EMF Safety Network. The letter downplays the need for FCC oversight and regulation of their own installation RF safety conditions stating, “The grants of equipment authorization routinely list the four conditions cited by EMF [Safety Network] for the broad class of transmitters that include most Smart Meters….adherence to those conditions is not necessarily required for Smart Meters to achieve compliance with our RF exposure guidelines….the utility is responsible for ensuring compliance with any installation conditions listed on the grant of equipment authorization .”

In addition the FCC falsely claims, “the devices normally transmit for less than one second a few times a day and consumers are normally tens of feet or more from the meter face…”

See the following video about Smart Meter radiation. Listen to the clicks to see how often the meters are transmitting, and compare that to the FCC claims.

The California Department of Public Health on RF Health Impacts

The California Council on Science and Technology (CCST)Health Impacts of Radio Frequency From Smart Meters final report was released on March 31, 2011. The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) comments challenged the CCST, stating, “CDPH suggests further review of the literature on non-thermal effects, which is complicated and controversial, but does not support a claim of no non-thermal health effects from radio frequency electromagnetic fields.”

CDPH also provided the following links to documents regarding the controversy over Smart Meter (radio frequency radiation-RF) safety:

In addition to the following three studies, CDPH sent the following 3 study references to the CCST:

Electromagnetic Fields and DNA Damage: Phillips, J.L.; Singh, N.P.; Lai, H.;

Pathophysiology 16(2009) 79-88

Electromagnetic Fields and the Induction of DNA Strand Breaks: Ruiz-

Gomez, M.J.; Martinez-Morillo, M.; Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine

28:201-214, 2009

Radiofrequency and Extremely Low-Frequency Electromagnetic Field Effects

on the Blood-Brain Barrier: Nittby, H.; Grafstrom, G.; Eberhardt, J.L.;

Malmgren, L.; Brun, A.; Persson, B.R.R.; Salford, L.; Electromagnetic

Biology and Medicine 27:103-126, 2008

Other Comments to CCST Smart Meter Study http://www.ccst.us/projects/smart2/

FCC’s Inadequate Response to Smart Meter Complaint

On November 4, 2010, I filed a complaint with the FCC, and yesterday received the following response.

You are receiving this email in response to your inquiry to the FCC.

Dear Ms. Maurer,

Thank you for contacting the Federal Communications Commission.

This letter is in response to your complaint, 10-C00258888, filed with the FCC.

PG&E’s SmartMeter program is part of a statewide effort driven by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to upgrade California’s energy infrastructure with automated metering technology. This technology will enable new programs that help California energy customers use less energy and save money.

The SmartMeter system uses programmable solid-state meter technology that provides two-way communication between the meter at your home or business and the utility, using secure wireless network technology records hourly meter reads and periodically transmits the reads via a dedicated radio frequency (RF) network back to PG&E.

Please reference PG&E’s web site concerning questions about potential health effects related to radio frequency (RF) emissions from the meters,http://www.pge.com/myhome/edusafety/systemworks/rf/.

The California Council on Science and Technology released a preliminary study entitled “Health Impacts of Radio Frequency from Smart Meters”. You may view this study at: http://www.ccst.us/publications/2011/2011smartA.pdf.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has adopted Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits for radio transmitters of all types, including SmartMeters. The FCC standard provides a currently accepted factor of safety against known thermally induced health impacts of smart meters and other electronic devices in the same range of RF emissions. Exposure levels from smart meters are well below the thresholds for such effects.

There is no evidence that additional standards are needed to protect the public from smart meters.

For questions concerning this study, you may wish to contact the California Council on Science and Technology, 1130 K Street, Suite 280, Sacramento, California 95814. Phone: (916) 492 0996. E-mail: ccst@ccst.us

Thank you for your inquiry.

Brenda Althoff

Consumer Advocate and Mediation Specialist

Federal Communications Commission

Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau

Representative Number : TSR22

Complaint Sent:

“PG&E is deploying radio frequency radiation (RF) smart

meters throughout its service territory in California. PG&E

claims there are no health impacts and states they are safe

because they comply with FCC Safety Standards. PG&E has

not provided realistic RF specifications like the peak RF power

at one foot. We need accurate RF emissions information for

their Smart Meters.

“People are reporting health impacts from RF smart meters,

including sleep problems, headaches, anxiety, tinnitus, ear pain

and more. There are people who are EHS and immune

compromised and this is a huge threat to their homes and

health. See stories here:


“Since the FCC is the jurisdictional body that regulates RF

emissions we call on you to impose an immediate moratorium

on PG&E Smart Meters.”

EMF and RF World Concerns Summary

The following is a compilation of what government, public health and environment organizations and officials, independent scientists, health advocacy groups and activists are advocating around the world in response to the proliferation of electromagnetic fields, and especially 2.4 GHZ microwave radiation.

International Resolutions Advocating a Precautionary Approach to the Use and Expansion of Wireless Technologies:

Vienna resolution 1998 http://www.icems.eu/docs/resolutions/Vienna_Resolution_1998.pdf

Salzburg Austria Resolution 2000:http://www.salzburg.gv.at/salzburg_resolution_e.pdf

Catania Italy 2002 http://www.emrpolicy.org/faq/catania.pdf

Benevento Italy Resolution 2006 http://www.icems.eu/benevento_resolution.htm

London Resolution 2007: http://www.icems.eu/docs/resolutions/London_res.pdf

Venice Italy Resolution 2008 http://www.icems.eu/resolution.htm

Porto Alegre Resolution 2009: http://www.icems.eu/docs/resolutions/Porto_Alegre_Resolution.pdf

Wingspread Conference on the Precautionary principle: http://www.sehn.org/wing.html


European Environmental Agency advises the precautionary principle for wi-fi: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/radiation-risk-from-everyday-devices-assessed


German Government advises against wi-fi: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/germany-warns-citizens-to-avoid-using-wifi-401845.html


France National Library and several other Paris libraries are wi-fi-free http://www.next-up.org/pdf/FranceNationalLibraryGivesUpWiFi07042008.pdf


(USA) Progressive Librarians Guild recommends the precautionary principle for wireless exposures in libraries. June 2008. http://progressivelibrariansguild.org/content/wifiresolution.shtml

UK: The Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) with 160,000 members has called for a government investigation into the biological and thermal effects of “wi-fi” networks. http://news.scotsman.com/education/39Wifi-in-schools-may-give.5156371.jp

France: Paris City Council launched a study on wi-fi June 2008 (in french) http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2008/06/16/wi-fi-le-conseil-de-paris-lance-une-etude-sur-les-risques-sanitaires_1058950_651865.html#ens_id=1053227

Penang Malaysia to study health effects of Wi-Fi. October 2008http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/5250937/

England: Health Protection Agency launches study on health effects of wi-fi Oct 2007: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/oct/13/internet.internetphonesbroadband

Austria medical association pressing for a ban on wi-fi in schools http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1549944/Warning-on-wi-fi-health-risk-to-children.htm

Herouville St Claire Normandy removes Wi-Fi from schoolshttp://freepage.twoday.net/stories/5670096/

USA: Sebastopol CA. City Council chooses the precautionary principle and terminates contract for free city wide Wi-Fi: http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080324/NEWS/803240314/1033/NEWS

Canada: July 2008 City Council of Thorold rescinds city wide wi-fi contract: http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1097589

European Parliament Sept 2008 voted 522 to 16 to adopt text: “is greatly concerned at the Bio-Initiative international report concerning EMFs, which summarises over 1500 studies on that topic and which points in its conclusions to the health risks posed by emissions from mobile-telephony devices such as mobile telephones, UMTS, WiFi, WiMax and Bluetooth, and also DECT landline ” “”The limits on exposure to electromagnetic fields [EMFs] which have been set for the general public are obsolete.” http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/122208.php

England: Teachers union call to suspend WiFi in schools: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1039235/Suspend-wi-fi-schools-says-union-chief-following-reports-causes-ill-health.html

Ireland: Jan 2008 The City of Dublin Ireland did not install wi-fi due to a EU law: http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0109/wifi.html

Wi-fi code for Welch Schools http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/child-safety-fears-prompt-wifi-code-for-welsh-schools-403255.html

Bavarian federal state parliament advised schools against Wi-fi. (current link unavailable) Frankfurt, Germany: Bans Wi-Fi in public schools (in German) http://www.icems.eu/docs/deutscher_bundestag.pdf

Hospital Techies urge limits on ‘white space’ Wi-Fi.http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9930441-7.html

Spain: Ecologists in Action statement on WiFi: http://www.ecologistasenaccion.org/spip.php?article11598


Dr. Magda Havas open letter to schools and teachers on Wi-Fi health risks: http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/09_Havas_WiFi_schools.pdf

Austrian health director Dr. Gerd Oberfeld advising against wi-fi  http://www.antennafreeunion.org/salzburg.pdf

Sweden Prof. Olle Johansson scientisit wi-fi letter: http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/pdfs/20070723_wifi_olle.pdf

Dr. George Carlo wi-fi videohttp://www.mcs-international.org/red_alert_1_wifi_schoolchildren.html

Green party MEP/ concern with wi-fi in schools: http://www.carolinelucasmep.org.uk/2007/10/12/green-meps-demand-investigation-into-wifi-in-schools-after-study-links-electro-magnetic-fields-and-cancers/

(USA) Dr. Mercola wireless warning: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/06/21/are-you-allergic-to-wireless-internet.aspx?source=nl

(Canada) Dr. Magda Havas Report opposing Wi-Fi in San Francisco:  http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/07_Havas_WiFi-SNAFU.pdf

The Gathering Brainstorm: http://www.mast-victims.org/resources/docs/ecologist_wi-fi_article.pdf

Dr. Jeff Fawcett: WiFi Blues: http://ezinearticles.com/?The-WiFi-Blues&id=169261

Wi-Fi in Schools UK resource  http://www.wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/wireless+technologies+and+young+people+Jan2011.pdf

“Wireless Networks (Wi-Fi) Consumer Health and Safety Advice” EMFacts handout  http://www.emfacts.com/wifi/

Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy on wi-fi in schools: http://www.emfacts.com/2011/11/dr-andrew-goldsworthy-on-wi-fi-in-schools/

Other EMF and RF Actions and Concerns

Bioinitiative Report:  http://www.bioinitiative.org

Bioinitiative Report video with co-author Cindy Sage http://www.youtube.com/v/7tZDor-_co0

Lichtenstein adopts Bioinitiative RF safety standard .6 volts per meter: http://www.next-up.org/pdf/Liechtenstein_confirms_its_intention_to_adopt_BioInitiative_standard_06Vm_09_06_2009.pdf

Brussels determines new EMR safety standard of 3 volts per meterhttp://www.next-up.org/Newsoftheworld/Belgique.php#2

2009: The European Parliament passed the EMF Resolution calling for caution on the use and expansion of electromagnetic fields, particularly radiofrequency exposure from wireless technologies. The resolution was endorsed by an overwhelming margin of 559 members in favor, 22 opposed, and 8 abstaining. The EP calls on member states to follow the example of Sweden to recognize ES as a disability and grant adequate protection as well as equal opportunities. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2009-0216+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

French Health and Security Agency (Afsset) recommend reducing exposure to mobile phones and other portable wireless devices. OCT 2009 http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/limit-exposure-to-mobile-phones-french-health-authority-1803449.html

2009:Breast Cancer Fund: Policy and Research Recommendations: Reduce Exposure to Radiation state-of-the-evidence-2008

(USA) NIEHS and NIOSH classified EMF’s as a hazardous substance, alongside dioxins and lead.  NIEHS advocates prudent avoidance of EMF’s. http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/atoz/index.cfm

Prudent avoidance has been adopted in Australia, Sweden, and several U.S. states, including California, Colorado, Hawaii, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Wisconsin. http://www.who.int/peh-emf/meetings/southkorea/en/Leeka_Kheifets_principle_.pdf

Collaborative on Health and the Environment CHE EMF statement http://www.healthandenvironment.org/wg_emf_news/772

California EMF program 7 million dollar gov’t mandated study. up to 95% certainty leukemia caused by EMF’s. Up to 80% certainty brain cancer related to EMF’s. Advocate prudent avoidance of EMF’s. http://www.ehib.org/topic.jsp?topic_key=7

2009 Counties of LA (CA), Pima (AZ) City of Portland Oregon, Cities of Sebastopol, Albany and Glendale CA pass resolutions requesting the federal government repeal section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.and/or requesting the FCC to update RF studies http://www.cloutnow.org/localres/

Chinese breakthrough study how EMFs promote childhood leukemia.  http://www.microwavenews.com/XRCC1.html

European Union adopts ALDE report adivsing the precautionary principle for EMF’shttp://www.alde.eu/index.php?id=42&L=2&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=9559&cHash=2fec11e0cc

USA, NJ. Sussex County school to close due to unsafe power lines near playground: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/09/sussex_county_school_to_close.html

(NZ) Dr. Neil Cherry: http://www.neilcherry.com/

(USA) Dr. Louis Slesin: http://www.microwavenews.com

(Canada) Dr. Magda Havas:www.magdahavas.com www.magdahavas.org

Dr. Martin Blank video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6wLFeIrCtU

Electrical Sensitivity

Germany 2002: Freiberger Appeal signed by 30,000 doctors http://freiburger-appell-2012.info/en/home.php?lang=EN

2005 Ireland IDEA Irish doctors concern over EMR health effects http://www.ideaireland.org/emririshresearch.htm

Switzerland: Dr. Rau Paracelsus Health Clinic : treats 10,000 people annually. They assess health in light of EMF exposure. Although health issues are multi factorial, his assessment is EMFs are a hidden factor in many illnesses: http://www.paracelsus.ch/welcome

US Access Board: Report on Indoor Environmental Quality Released http://access-board.gov/news/ieq.htm

Dr. Christine Aschermann: Observations from a Psychotherapy Practice on Mobile Telecommunications and DECT Telephones: http://emfsafetynetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Aschermann2009.pdf

Nordic Council of Ministers: The Nordic Adaptation of Classification of Occupationally Related Disorders (Diseases and Symptoms) to ICD-10 ed. by F Levy and A Wannag. 2000. Lists Electromagnetic intolerance as an occupational disorder. http://www.nordclass.uu.se/verksam/NordICD10.pdf

France Eco village white zone for EHS recovery http://www.zoneblanche.fr/index-eng.html

2008: Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_sensitivity

Sweden: FEB Electrosensitivity: http://www.feb.se/index_int.htm

The City of Colwood, BC Canada has declared August 2009 Electromagnetic Sensitivity Awareness month:http://colwood.fileprosite.com/FileStorage/0F1380D9502E4153B38C355BAB43124F-Mayors%20Press%20Release%20-%20EMS%20Sensitivity%20Month.pdf

Netherlands Electrohypersensitivity Questionaire Survey Results: http://www.stichtingehs.nl/images/stories/EHS/supplement_8.pdf

Dutch EHS Foundation: http://www.stichtingehs.nl/content/view/64/1/

Canada: Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution News: http://www.weepinitiative.org/index.html

China internet addiction youth  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4327258.stm

South Korea govt study  internet addiction/ Millions of youth at risk. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/technology/18rehab.html

Spain: children treated for cell phone addiction: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7452463.stm

Canadian Human Rights commission: policy on environmental sensitivitieshttp://www.environmentalhealth.ca/summer07humanrights.html

Guideline of the Austrian Medical Association for the diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses There has been a sharp rise in unspecific, often stress associated health problems that increasingly present physicians with the challenge of complex differential diagnosis. A cause that has been accorded little attention so far is increasing electrosmog exposure at home, at work and during leisure activities, occurring in addition to chronic stress in personal and working life. It correlates with an overall situation of chronic stress that can lead to burnout. How can physicians respond to this development?

Cell Towers/ Antennas

CHILE 4 December 2009 The Appeal Court in Rancagua confirms the demolition of a mobile phone mast in Santa Cruz, Chile. http://www.nextup.org/pdf/Emol_Appeal_Court_Chile_confirms_demolition_mobile_phone_mast_in_Santa_Cruz_04_12_2009.pdf

Cell-Phone Towers and Communities: The Struggle for Local Control B. Blake Levitthttp://arts.envirolink.org/arts_and_activism/BlakeLevitt.html

2009 Botswana Africa: A controversial cell phone tower erected on the royal Phuthadikobo Hill has been destroyed by the villagers.http://www.mmegi.bw/index.php?sid=1&aid=189&dir=2009/October/Monday12

Botswana Africa: Bakgatla, BTA, radiation and public safety http://sundaystandard.info/news/news_item.php?NewsID=5984&GroupID=5

UK EM Radiation Research Trustee Eileen O’Connor Report on base stations: http://www.radiationresearch.org/pdfs/20061101_base_stations_health_concerns.pdf

2009 USA CA. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a local government’s authority to deny antennas in public rights-of-way for aesthetic reasons. The case is Sprint PCS Assets, L.L.C. v. City of Palos Verdes Estateshttp://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/10/13/05-56106.pdf http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ugly-telecoms26-2009oct26,0,5439620.story

2009 Hunnington Beach California: City leaders vote to move controversial cell phone tower http://www.ocregister.com/articles/city-phone-cell-2378582-tower-mobile

International Association of Firefighters moratorium of cell tower siting on Fire stations http://www.iaff.org/hs/Facts/CellTowerFinal.asp

The American Bird Conservancy, Forest Conservation Council and Friends of the Earth brought a lawsuit against the FCC and the Federal Court Ordered Cell Tower Safeguards for Migrating Birds http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/releases/080219.html

Israel bans antenaes on residences: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/916666.html

Portugal opposes Cell tower http://www.portugalresident.com/portugalresident/showstory.asp?ID=28969

Taiwan removes 1500 cell towers near schools: http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/2007/11/06/129715/1500-cellphone.htm

Ukiah CA. rejects cell tower: http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080222/NEWS/802220314/1033/NEWS01

USA: Two radio towers in Washington State toppled  http://www.rickross.com/reference/animal/animal116.html

Panama: Companies in need of antennas must share structures to hold them:http://www.laestrella.com.pa/online/impreso/2008/11/01/cell-phone-antenna-installations-to-be-controlled.asp

Oregon, USA city school board unplugs cell towers:http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/09/west_linnwilsonville_school_bo.html

New Zealand citizens video appeal to Government (opposing cell towers) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw6av2W60KA

Los Angeles unified school district policy restricts cell sites on LA USD property and requires new schools to avoid siting near cell sites http://www.lausd.k12.ca.us/lausd/board/secretary/html/agendas/mt/mt06-27-00.html

2009 Los Angeles Unified School District adopted a resolution that includes a statement in favor of repealing the Telecommunication Act of 1996’s preemption of consideration of health and environmental effects of wireless facilities. http://cloutnow.org/lausd/

USA: CA: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a 3-Judgepanel’s earlier decision and ruled that a wireless siting ordinance enacted by San Diego County is not preempted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.


2002 letter from the EPA (Environment Protection Agency)  stating the FCC’s standards are “thermally based, and do not apply to chronic, non-thermal exposure situations”: http://www.emrpolicy.org/litigation/case_law/docs/noi_epa_response.pdf

Overloading of Towns and Cities with Radio Transmitters (Cellular Transmitter): a hazard for the human health and a disturbance of eco-ethics by Karl Hecht, Elena N. Savoleyhttp://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/niemr/hechtvortrag070724englisch.pdf

The Ecologist: Mobile Phones Could lead to bee decline: http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/269118/mobile_phones_could_lead_to_bee_decline.html

Bees, Birds and Mankind: Destroying Nature by Electrosmog by Dr. Ulrich Warnke: http://www.kompetenzinitiative.net/broschuerenreihe/brochure-series/english/bees-birds-and-mankind.html

Mt. Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center: Health effects from cell tower radiation: http://www.mountshastaecology.org/Archive/Health_Effects_from_Cell_Phone_Tower_Radiation.html

Organic Consumers Association:  http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_6388.cfm

Cell Phones

The Canadian Public Health Officer, David Butler-Jones, advised Canadians to limit their and their children’s use of cell phones until science resolves uncertainties about long term health effects. http://www.organicconsumers.org/Politics/cellphone071505.cfm

June 2008: France 20 top scientists warn about cell phones and brain cancer

July 2008 Study: Prenatal Cell Phone Exposure Tied to Children’s Behavior http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/07/29/us-prenatal-cell-phone-idUSTON97595120080729

England:2000, the UK Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones chaired by Sir William Stewart, reports that “a precautionary approach be adopted until more robust scientific information becomes available.” http://www.iegmp.org.uk/documents/iegmp_6.pdf

UK Health protection advises children under 16 to limit their use of mobile phone. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4196762.stm

Russian National Committee on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection advises against cell phones for 18 years and under http://emfsafetynetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/mobile-and-children-RNC.pdf

India: limit cell phone use for youth under 16  http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14695318

Israel: Health Ministry calls for parents to limits kids cell phone use:http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1006175.html

India: ban on children and pregnant women in TV ads for cell phoneshttp://www.bi-me.com/main.php?id=21423&t=1&c=33&cg=4&mset=

2004, the European Union’s EMF REFLEX Research Project is released, showing that mobile phone radiation (radiofrequency radiation) damages DNA in human cells. omega.twoday.net/stories/436261

Madhya Pradesh, India: Bans cell phones in schools: http://www.indiaenews.com/education/20080718/132841.htm

Australia: Cell phone warning http://au.todaytonight.yahoo.com/video#

French Ministry of Health cell phone warning  http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/02/us-france-mobiles-idUSL0223157720080102

Canada, Toronto Public Health is advising children and teens to limit the time they spend on cellphones until more is known about potential health effects. Toronto Star, Ontario. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2008/07/12/dial_back_cellphone_use_city_officials_tell_parents.html

USA: July 2008 University of Pittsburg’s Cancer Intistute Dr. Ron Herberman’s memo to staff / Cell phone warning:http://www.post-gazette.com/downloads/20080722upci_cellphone_memo.pdf

USA September 2008 Rep. Dennis Kucinich holds Congressional Hearing on Cell Phone Health Effects http://edition.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/09/25/cellphones.cancer/index.html?iref=24hours

September 2008 Economist commentary on the Interphone Study ” Mobile Madness”: http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12295222

The Belgian Foundation against Cancer (www.cancer.be) issued a warning
concerning mobile phone use “Calling in the car increases risk of cancer” http://www.expatica.com/be/news/local_news/Calling-in-the-car-increases-risk-of-cancer.html

Finland: The Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK) has recommended restricting the use of mobile phones by children:http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/2009/01/authority_recommends_restricting_childrens_use_of_mobiles_466353.html

2009 National Safety Council calls for a nationwide ban on cell phones while driving: http://www.nsc.org/Pages/NationalSafetyCouncilCallsforNationwideBanonCellPhoneUseWhileDriving.aspx

World Health Organization Interphone study Results Update WHO INTERPHONE results update Oct. 2008

Lyon France advertising campaign against cell phones for kids under 12

USA Boston: Cell phone Ban After Boston Trolley Crashhttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/10/us/10boston.html

Mobile phones to be banned in French primary schools to limit health risk http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/mobile-phones-banned-in-french-schools-over-radiation-fears-26539161.html

How Susceptible are Genes to Mobile Phone Radiation? by Prof. Franz Adlkofer, Prof. Igor Y. Belyaev, Vladislav M. Shiroff, and Dr. Karl Richter http://www.icems.eu/docs/howsusceptiblearegenes.pdf

Mobile phone use ‘raises children’s risk of brain cancer five fold’: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mobile-phone-use-raises-childrens-risk-of-brain-cancer-fivefold-937005.html

Dr. Vini Kharuna Brain Surgeon: “Mobile Phones and Brain Tumours- A Public Health Concern”http://www.brain-surgery.us/mobph.pdf

“Cell Phones and Brain Tumors”15 reasons for concern http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/reasons_us.pdf

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) who works to protect children and kids from toxic chemicals in our food, water, air, and the products we use every day, released a 40 page report titled:  “Cell Phone Radiation-Science Review on Cancer Risks and Children’s Health”  http://static.ewg.org/reports/2012/cellphones/2009-cellphoneradiation-fullreport.pdf

The FCC advice to consumers about the use of cell phones. http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/mobilephone.html

U.S. bans truckers, bus drivers from texting while driving:

Time magazine: How Safe is Your Cell Phone? http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1969732,00.html

Warning, Your Cell Phone May Be Hazardous To Your Health: GQ Magazine http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-radiation?currentPage=1

Updated 6/30/2013 by Sandi Maurer  EMF Safety Network PO Box 1016 Sebastopol CA 95473  www.emfsafetynetwork.org

The internet can change quickly and information that was available sometimes is unavailable. If a link is not accessing an article you can try copy and pasting keywords and searching for it online.