Health risks of nuclear and wireless radiation compared

An article recently published in the Environmentalist, by Cindy Sage, compares the biological effects of nuclear radiation to biological effects of common everyday wireless radiation exposures.

Nuclear radiation fallout is expected to recirculate in the environment from the Fukushima Japan disaster for another 40 years.  Meanwhile, we are surrounded with ubiquitous and harder to avoid levels of wireless radiation from cell towers, cell phones, wi-fi, DECT phones, etc.  Sage concludes that both types of  exposures present similar biological effects:

“There is long-standing scientific evidence to suggest that low-dose ionizing radiation (LD-IR) and low-intensity non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (LI-NIER) in the form of extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation share similar biological effects.”

“Reducing preventable, adverse health exposures in the newly rebuilt environment to both LD-IR and LI-NIER is an achievable goal for Japan. Recovery and reconstruction efforts in Japan to restore the communications and energy infrastructure, in particular, should pursue strategies for reduction and/or prevention of both kinds of exposures.”

Sage writes, “In both kinds of exposure (chronic, low-level), these effects include genotoxicity and DNA fragmentation with chromosome aberrations; immune and inflammatory reactions (allergic reactions and development of hypersensitivity); reduction or suppression of the immune system or disregulation of the immune system; effects on lymphocytes and increased risk for lymphoproliferative diseases;and increased risk of other cancers in adults and in children.”

Link to the science: The similar effects of low-dose ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation from background environmental levels of exposure

Airport Backscatter Scanners-Public Health at Risk

University of California at San Francisco faculty members write to John Holdren who is the Assistant to President for Science and Technology with their urgent concern about the public health threat of backscatter scanners, which are a new part of a airport passenger screening process.

Faculty members who signed the letter include doctors in biochemistry and biophysics, cancer and xray, and imaging experts. They call for a review of the scanners based on the lack of an independent safety review, and health risks to children, pregnant women, elders, and people with compromised  immune systems. They write, “This is an urgent situation as these X-ray scanners are rapidly being implemented as a primary screening step for all air travel passengers. Our overriding concern is the extent to which the safety of this scanning device has been adequately demonstrated. This can only be determined by a meeting of an impartial panel of experts that would include medical physicists and radiation biologists at which all of the available relevant data is reviewed.”


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 comments regarding the controversy over Smart Meter (radio frequency radiation-RF) safety:

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