Dr. David Carpenter talks about wireless cancer risks and what you can do to protect your family

Watch this short interview with Dr. David Carpenter, co-author of the Bioinitiative Report and director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University of Albany.

Dr. Carpenter talks about cell phones and brain cancer risk, children’s risk, high intensity pulses from smart meters, 60 HZ fields, radio towers, Obama supported wifi in schools and electrosensitivity.

He says, “the evidence is overwhelming” that cell phones increase your risk of brain cancer, and children are at 5 fold greater risk. He says, “Children are by far the most vulnerable.” Regarding wifi in schools, “everyone will be adversely affected.” The interview concludes with some solutions on what you can do to protect yourself and children.

Will it soon be too late? Cancer expected to increase by 70% in the next 20 years according to WHO

Commentary by Dr. Olle Johansson, translated from Swedish:

DEBATE. The World Health Organization [WHO] has released a bleak future forecast. The number of new cancer cases is expected to increase from 14 million to 25 million per year over the next 20 years – an increase of 70 percent.

“Despite encouraging progress, the report shows that we can not treat ourselves out of the cancer problem,” said Christopher Wild, co- author of the report. But one question lingers for me:  Why does WHO themselves not consider another possible cause of this avalanche, a cause that they themselves have warned about and predicted? Let me explain.

Today, various wireless devices flood our homes, schools and other workplaces. The issues around all of these sources of radiation are numerous. Adults are not at all certain that all this radiation is harmless, they are not at all sure that wireless technology is without risk. To this one can add numerous studies and investigations, expert reports and commentaries arise which in summary say that “there is a strong suspicion of damage.”

These texts also emphasize the need for the use of the Precautionary Principle and this even stronger after the WHO has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields – from mobile phones, tablets , etc. – as possibly carcinogenic (Class 2B). Thus, the idea that these techniques would be safe, we can immediately cross out – not even the WHO believes it – and they still have a category into which such proven safe exposures would fall (Class 4 – proven non-human carcinogen).

The question now is instead what we accept the risk to cost in terms of health care, disability and premature death.

It should be noted that this is an addition to the earlier (2001) WHO 2B cancer classification of power-frequency electromagnetic fields (thus including common household current ) – which are also emitted at high levels from handheld gadgets such as tablet devices (iPad etc.) and mobile phones – as a risk factor specifically for childhood leukemia. Given that in 2001 the WHO was already very close, voting 9 to 11, to move it to 2A (thus the higher cancer class ) and considering all the new knowledge that has accumulated since 2001, I maintain that today one should definitely classify the relationship between childhood leukemia and power-frequency electromagnetic fields in the much more serious 2A (“probably carcinogenic”) category.

Why not debate this?

There was a time when people did not understand that radioactivity from radium, uranium and plutonium, medical x-rays and ultraviolet light actually hurts us and can even kill us. You could see shoe-fitting x-ray machines in childrens’ shoe shops in Sweden as late as the end of the 1940s and elderly people will remember the glowing radioactive wristwatches that were popular in the 1950s. About the same time we began to understand that even the sun’s beautiful and warm rays can damage our cells and their genetic material with the development of skin cancer as a result. Today we warn everyone, even for the weakest of ultraviolet light, which we call UVA, especially if you’re a child with fair skin and light hair.

Against this background one might wonder: Can our cells and molecules that are now suddenly exposed to an environmental exposure from power-frequent magnetic fields, microwaves, radio and TV signals, etc. which have never before existed, or if it has, with an immediate increase of one million million million times stand it at all? The radiation goes right through us, and our – and other organisms’ – cells and molecules have no protection at all against it.

I’m afraid, very afraid, that we will soon have to write a new report titled “Too Late Lessons from Early Warnings” …

Article in pdf format

Olle Johansson is Associate Professor and Assistant Professor in Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm. From the original in Swedish published 12 Feb. 2014 by Newsvoice.

Can cell phones cause autism?

Most people do not know that cell phones and wireless devices can affect unborn children. A new study (part one), (part two) reports that exposures from electromagnetic fields and wireless radiation may contribute to autism.  Autism now affects about one in 88 children with a staggering cost estimated at $137 billion per year in the US.

In the 1970’s, before widespread use of cell phones autism was a comparatively rare health issue. Today, autism is so prevalent that the Centers for Disease Control call it a national health crisis.

Dr. HerbertCindy SageCo-authors Dr. Martha Herbert and Cindy Sage have integrated the results of over 550 scientific studies that report biological effects of electromagnetic radiation and wireless exposures, and of common biology and brain problems in autism.

Many of the behavioral and biological characteristics seen in autism are similar or identical to those produced by typical daily exposures to cell and cordless phone radiation, cell towers, baby monitors, wireless tablets, WI-FI and other sources of pulsed electromagnetic radiation. But, personal choices can make a big difference in lowering exposure for pregnant women, infants and the whole family.

Dr. Martha Herbert, PhD, MD of Harvard Medical School and a pediatric neurologist with Massachusetts General Hospital says “such exposures can have a disorganizing effect on the brain’s ability to learn and remember, and can be destabilizing to immune and metabolic function”.

Children are more vulnerable than adults to environmental toxins, and can be affected in-utero as well as during the rapid growth of early childhood. Brain and nervous system in young children appear to be particularly sensitive.

The CHE EMF Working Group hosted a teleconference call with Cindy Sage and Dr. Herbert:   Listen to this Call

Physicians group says smart meters effect health: “The evidence is irrefutable.”

aaemAn international organization of physicians and scientists recognize smart meters are harming people’s health.  They say, “The evidence is irrefutable.” and call for further research, accommodations and avoidance of smart meters.  This new statement is based on a review of cases by Dr. Lamech in Australia. Here’s their recently adopted statement: Smart Meter Case Series

“Founded in 1965 as a non-profit medical association, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) is an international organization of physicians and scientists interested in the complex relationship between the environment and health.

AAEM physicians and physicians world wide are treating patients who report adverse, debilitating health effects following the installation of smart meters, which emit electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) and radiofrequencies (RF).

The peer reviewed, scientific literature demonstrates the correlation between EMF/RF exposure and neurological, cardiac, and pulmonary disease as well as reproductive disorders, immune dysfunction, cancer and other health conditions. The evidence is irrefutable. Despite this research, claims have been made that studies correlating smart meter emissions with adverse health effects do not exist.

The AAEM has received a case series submitted by Dr. Federica Lamech, MBBS, Self- Reporting of Symptom Development from Exposure to Wireless Smart Meters’ Radiofrequency Fields in Victoria.  AAEM supports this research. It is a well documented 92 case series that is scientifically valid. It clearly demonstrates adverse health effects in the human population from smart meter emissions.

The symptoms reported in this case series closely correlate not only with the clinical findings of environmental physicians, but also with the scientific literature. Many of the symptoms reported including fatigue, headaches, heart palpitations, dizziness and other symptoms have been shown to be triggered by electromagnetic field exposure under double blind, placebo controlled conditions.  Symptoms in this case series also correlate with the Austrian Medical Association’s Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of EMF Related Health Problems.

It is critically important to note that the data in this case series indicates that the “vast majority of cases” were not electromagnetically hypersensitive until after installation of smart meters. Dr. Lamech concludes that smart meters “may have unique characteristics that lower people’s threshold for symptom development”.

This research is the first of its kind, clearly demonstrating the correlation between smart meters and adverse health effects.

Based on the findings of this case series, AAEM calls for:

  • Further research regarding smart meter health effects
  • Accommodation for health considerations regarding smart meters.
  • Avoidance of smart meter EMF/RF emissions based on health considerations, including the option to maintain analog meters.
  • A moratorium on smart meters and implementation of safer technology
  • Physicians and health care providers to consider the role of EMF and RF in the disease process, diagnosis and treatment of patients.

Passed by the Board of Directors of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine October 23, 2013

Please note: Smart Meter case series research to be released upon publication”

Children need special protection from EMFs- Dr. Martin Blank

Dr. Martin Blank has PhD degrees from Columbia University in physical chemistry, and  from the University of Cambridge in colloid science.  He is a retired Associate Professor of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics at Columbia University Medical School, and now a Special Lecturer in the department.  His research includes  health effects of electromagnetic radiation.

Doctors weigh in on dangers of Wi-Fi

This is one of the best TV news coverage on wireless risks for children. I apologize for the ad, but the video is worth waiting for. The commentary by the newscasters is great. Watch till the end, and hopefully the video won’t be changed or removed. Already the script has a disclaimer by the school system.

FOX5 Vegas – KVVU

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.

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