Category: Science

Are EMF concerns irrational? Dr. Ted Litovitz explains

Dr. Ted Litovitz, physicist, in his presentation to members of Congress in 2001 recognizes consumer EMF concerns and he asks his listeners, “Are they irrational?” “Can an electromagnetic field have any effect at all on your body?” “Are there health effects?”

He proceeds to explain the FCC guidelines are based on heating only, and states many papers are showing biological effects below the thermal limit, including psychological changes, stress response, DNA damage, and affects on the immune system, heart, and blood brain barrier.

According to Dr. Litovitz biological effects are seen at 75,000 times below the FCC guideline! Dr. Litovitz explains the evidence of non-thermal EMF biological effects based on scientific studies, including the role genetics play.


Video by The Council on Wireless Technology Impacts.

Smart Meter Film- Take Back Your Power- Watch NOW!

Take Back Your Power, Josh Del Sol’s full length documentary film on Smart Meters is now available to watch online (72 hr. rental) or purchase.

Take Back Your Power

Utility companies are replacing electricity, gas and water meters worldwide with new generation “smart” meters at an unprecedented rate. Take Back Your Power investigates the benefits and risks of this ubiquitous “smart” grid program, with insight from insiders, expert researchers, politicians, doctors, and concerned communities. Transparency advocate Josh del Sol takes us on a journey of revelation and discovery, as he questions corporations’ right to tap our private information and erode our rights in the name of “green”. What you discover will surprise you, unsettle you, and inspire you to challenge the status quo.

Dr. Ronald Powell: “Smart Meters are a community concern”

Dr. Ronald M Powell, PhD in applied physics from Harvard wrote:  Biological Effects from RF Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposure, based on the BioInitiative 2012 Report, and the Implications for Smart Meters and Smart Appliances

This is an important document to read and to bring to policy makers.

Dr. Powell’s Biological Effects Chart was produced from a review of the medical research literature on the biological effects of electromagnetic fields (BioInitiative.org). He concludes the following five points:

  1.  The current FCC Maximum Permitted Exposure (MPE) limits are so high that they provide no protection for the public from the biological effects found in any of the 67 studies.
  2. New biologically based RF exposure limits proposed in the BioInitiative 2012 Report are 1 million times lower than current FCC limits and would protect against the biological effects found in nearly all of the 67 studies.
  3. A single Smart Meter on a home can produce RF exposure levels that caused the biological effects found in either most or many of the 67 studies, depending on the distance from the Smart Meter.
  4. A single Smart Appliance in the home can produce RF exposure levels that caused the biological effects found in nearly half or fewer of the 67 studies, depending on the distance from the Smart Appliance. Multiple Smart Appliances in a home multiply the total exposure.
  5. A single Smart Meter on a nearest neighbor’s home can produce RF exposure levels that caused the biological effects found in many of the 67 studies. A given home may have one to eight nearest neighbors, each with a Smart Meter, multiplying the total exposure in the given home.

“Smart Meters are a community concern, not just an individual concern.”-Ronald Powell, PhD Applied Physics

The section on neighbors meters, and how smart meters are a community concern is especially relevant as policy makers decide how to proceed with solutions.  Here’s an excerpt of his paper:

“A Single Smart Meter on a Neighbor’s Home Can Produce RF Power Density Levels Shown to Cause Biological Effects

For some locations in a given home, the distance to a neighbor’s Smart Meter may be less than the distance to the resident’s own Smart Meter. Thus, a neighbor’s Smart Meter may be the principal source of radiation for some locations in the given home. The Biological Effects Chart shows that a single Smart Meter can produce RF power densities found to cause biological effects even at distances greater than 20 meters, and certainly up to 100 meters. And the number of neighbors within that range can be large. A given single-­‐family home in a residential community may have one to eight nearest neighbors, and even more next nearest neighbors, all within 100 meters (328 feet) of a given home, and each with a Smart Meter.

The problem of exposure from the neighbors’ Smart Meters becomes more serious as the distances between adjacent homes, and thus the distances between adjacent Smart Meters, get smaller. So, generally speaking, residents of townhouses will receive more radiation from their neighbors’ Smart Meters than residents of single-­‐family homes. And residents of apartments will receive even more radiation from their neighbors’ Smart Meters, depending on the location of the Smart Meters in the apartment buildings.

So Smart Meters are a community concern, not just an individual concern. To resolve the problems of RF exposure for a given home, it will be necessary to address all of the Smart Meters near that home. Smart Appliances, too, contribute to this concern. While, individually, they have a lower RF power output than a Smart Meter, the Smart Appliances of neighbors can also increase the RF exposure in the given home.

Fortunately, some states have offered an individual OPT OUT from the installation of a Smart Meter. While such an OPT OUT is very helpful, and is definitely the vital first step, the data on biological effects discussed here suggest the limitations of such an OPT OUT in resolving the problem of excess radiation from Smart Meters. There is no substitute for a roll back of all Smart Meters at the community level, or higher.”

“There is no substitute for a roll back of all Smart Meters at the community level, or higher.”-Ronald Powell, PhD Applied Physics

Canadian Health Authority warns about cell phone/ fertility risks

Screen shot 2013-08-01 at 7.31.12 AMThe BC Centre for Disease Control (BC CDC)  recommends that men keep cell phones out of their pants pocket and limit mobile phone use.  The report confirms that there is consistent evidence that exposure to testes is associated with reduced sperm count, motility, concentration and altered cell structure.

In its report, Radiofrequency Toolkit for Environmental Health Practitioners,  the BC CDC states that “the epidemiological studies of men assessed for infertility were consistent in demonstrating decreased sperm motility associated with increased use of mobile phones”.

In the need to understand how harm is caused by exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RF), the review panel noted that “oxidative stress seems one of the more plausible mechanisms of RF-induced sperm damage.”

While the BC CDC report downplays scientific connections between wireless and health, for example cell phones and head tumors, they do offer strategies for “minimizing personal exposure to RF”, including “replacing wireless RF devices, such as phones with hard wired”.

Radiation Research Trust launched a campaign to warn about cell phone fertility risks: Save the Male- Your Future is in Your Hands.  They write, “Research has shown a consistent link between mobile phone exposure and adverse health effects on male fertility and sperm viability.”

Distracted Walking

Cell Phone Use Not Just Dangerous for Drivers, Study Finds

More than 1,500 pedestrians were estimated to be treated in emergency rooms in 2010 for injuries related to using a cell phone while walking, according to a new nationwide study.

The number of such injuries has more than doubled since 2005, even though the total number of pedestrian injuries dropped during that time.  Researchers believe that the actual number of injured pedestrians is actually much higher than these results suggest.

“If current trends continue, I wouldn’t be surprised if the number of injuries to pedestrians caused by cell phones doubles again between 2010 and 2015,” said Jack Nasar, co-author of the study and professor of city and regional planning at Ohio State University.  Nasar conducted the study with Derek Troyer, a former graduate student at Ohio State.  It appears in the August 2013 issue of the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention.

The researchers used data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, a database maintained by the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC), which samples injury reports from 100 hospitals around the country.  They examined data for seven years (from 2004 to 2010) involving injuries related to cell phone use for pedestrians in public areas.

A wide variety of injuries were reported.  One 14-year-old boy walking down a road while talking on a cell phone fell 6 to 8 feet off a bridge into a rock-strewn ditch, suffering chest and shoulder injuries.  A 23-year-old man was struck by a car while walking on the middle line of a road and talking on a cell phone, injuring his hip.

Nasar said a more accurate count of injuries to walkers might come from comparing distracted walking to distracted driving, which has been much more heavily studied.  If the pedestrian numbers are similar to those for drivers, then there may have been about 2 million pedestrian injuries related to mobile phone use in 2010.

“It is impossible to say whether 2 million distracted pedestrians are really injured each year.  But I think it is safe to say that the numbers we have are much lower than what is really happening,” Nasar said.

As might be expected, young people are the most likely to be injured by distracted walking.  The 21- to 25-year-old age group led the way, with 1,003 total injuries during the seven years covered by this study.  The 16- to 20-year-olds were not far behind, with 985 total injuries.

“As more people get cell phones and spend more time using them, the number of injuries is likely to increase as well. Now people are playing games and using social media on their phones too,” he said.

Nasar said he believes the best way to reverse these numbers is to start changing norms for cell phone use in our society.  And that starts with parents.  “Parents already teach their children to look both ways when crossing the street.  They should also teach them to put away their cell phone when walking, particularly when crossing a street.”