Wi-Fi Especially Dangerous for Young Children—Cell Phones Too

 From Alliance for Natural Health USA

March 24, 2015

Should we be concerned about radiation from our cell phones (which we carry with us everywhere) and our Wi-Fi (which is nearly ubiquitous these days)?

A review of recent studies shows reasons for caution, pointing to evidence which demonstrates that children absorb more microwave radiation (MWR) than adults. The authors also note the shortcomings in current federal regulatory policy in regard to MWR exposure.

The study, published in the Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure, says that children are at greater risk because their brain tissues are more absorbent, their skulls are thinner, and their relative size is smaller. The younger the child, the greater the risk; fetuses are particularly vulnerable to MWR.

To those who follow this issue, the potential dangers of MWR-exposure are nothing new. The UN’s International Agency for Research on Cancer calls MWR a class 2B carcinogen, which means it possibly causes cancer in humans—it’s in the same category as lead, chloroform, gasoline fumes, and the pesticide DDT. Most of the research concerns a specific type of MWR: the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF/EMF) given off by radios, televisions, microwave ovens, cell phones and Wi-Fi, and the smart meters installed in your home by the utility company.

As we noted in 2011, there have been multiple reports, mostly out of Europe’s premier research institutions, of cell phone use being linked to brain damage, early-onset Alzheimer’s, senility, DNA damage, and even sperm die-offs. But after this new study on the MWR dangers to young children, concern is mounting about the growing number of children’s toys that use Wi-Fi technology—and that’s not counting the number of kids who play with tablets or carry cell phones these days.

The study also found that adults are at a lower, but still significant, risk, echoing the findings of a 2013 case study from a team of breast cancer surgeons and pathologists who raised the possibility that nonionizing radiation from cell phone EMF exposures caused multifocal invasive breast cancer in four young women. These women, all between the ages of 21 and 39, regularly carried their smartphones directly against their breasts in their bras for up to ten hours a day, for several years. All four developed tumors in areas of their breasts immediately underlying the phones. All four had no family history of breast cancer, tested negative for BRCA1 and BRCA2, and had no other known breast cancer risks. The pathology of all four cases shows striking similarities in the tumor composition.

The article concludes with this striking warning: “The risk to children and adolescent from exposure to microwave radiating devices is considerable. Adults have a smaller but very real risk, as well.”

Given the potential dangers of long-term exposure to MWR and the near-ubiquity of cell phones and Wi-Fi devices in our society, you might think that significant steps would be taken at the policy level to adequately address these dangers. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case.

Rather than erring on the side of caution, the US seems to be moving in the opposite direction. The Federal Communication Commission (FCC), the government body responsible for regulating MWR exposure, has stated that equipping schools with Wi-Fi is a national priority; the agency plans to invest an additional $2 billion in broadband service for schools and libraries by the end of the year.

The study also notes that exposure limits in the US are inadequate. Exposure limits were set by the FCC in the 1990s, before the plethora of scientific studies showing cancer risks at levels well below the current legal exposure limit. Further, the FCC’s exposure limits are based entirely on short-term exposures, with no consideration of long-term exposures. We now have an abundance of data showing just how dangerous MWR may be.

Government warnings have been issued, but according to Forbes, most of the public is unaware of such warnings. Cell phone manual warnings make clear that an overexposure problem exists—but that is to limit legal liability, and besides, who reads cell phone manuals? Furthermore, FCC regulations state that devices should be tested under normal operating conditions—yet many MWR products, including cell phones and laptops, usually measure exposure when the device is held 20 centimeters (a little less than 8 inches) from the body. People place laptops on their laps and keep cell phones in receiving mode (rather than the presumably safe airplane mode) in their pockets and bras all the time. Most people hold their cell phones to their heads to talk, rather than using speakerphone or a headset.

Clearly, something needs to be done. The answer isn’t to throw away our cell phones and smash our wireless routers, but in our increasingly tech-intensive world, we need to do a better job of evaluating the risks of moving further and further away from nature.

At the policy level, the FCC should update its standards on MWR exposure and test products based on how they are actually used. Government officials in the US could also follow the proactive approach taken by officials in other countries to warn and protect their citizens. Belgium’s Public Health Minister, for instance, banned cell phone sales for children under seven years old. The Australian government produced a fact sheet educating citizens on how they could reduce their exposure from wireless devices. The FCC and other related agencies should work to make sure that people are aware of the possible dangers of MWR exposure.

If you are concerned about MWR exposure, there are some simple steps that you can take in your home to protect your family:

• Because of particular dangers to the fetus, pregnant women should avoid exposing their fetus to MWR.
• Avoid using baby monitors on cribs.
• Women and girls should avoid putting cell phones in their bras.
• Hold cell phones 15 centimeters (about 6 inches) away from your ear to limit exposure—that is, use the speakerphone function or else headphones with a microphone.
• When not in use, try not to keep your phone on your person. A cell phone is always radiating unless it’s turned off.
• Teach kids to limit cell phone use when they can, and to use alternatives like landlines and Skype, which don’t emit MWR.
• Wi-Fi routers should be placed where people, especially children, spend the least amount of time.
• Consider hardwiring your computers to the modem via Ethernet instead of using Wi-Fi (that’s what we do at the ANH-USA offices).
• Opt-out of installing smart meters in your home (though this may be difficult in some states).

In response to public and governmental concern, the World Health Organization (WHO) has established the International Electromagnetic Fields Project to assess the scientific evidence of possible adverse health effects from electromagnetic fields. WHO will conduct a formal risk assessment of all studied health outcomes from RF fields exposure by 2016.

Dr. Mercola, in a powerful article on RF/EMF dangers, reported an interesting suggestion from a panel of experts: EMF-free zones where children, pregnant women (or those hoping to conceive), and others sensitive to EMFs, can be protected. It’s an excellent first step for protecting the most vulnerable members of our society.

Considering how much wireless technology and other MWR-emitting devices have been woven into our everyday lives, it’s important to act now to protect our family and loved ones.

Original article:

http://www.anh-usa.org/wi-fi-especially-dangerous-for-young-children%E2%80%94cell-phones-too-2/

Video: Health Effects of Microwave Radio Exposures, by Paul Dart MD FCA

This July 2013 presentation by Paul Dart MD FCA is a useful, science-rich resource to inform city councils and utilities who are considering ‘smart’ or ‘advanced’ meter deployment, with an understanding of the significant associated public health risks and liabilities.

Following this meeting, several public hearings, and several community screenings of Take Back Your Power, the Eugene Water & Electric (EWEB) voted unanimously to curb ‘smart’ meter installations, byscaling back to an ‘opt-in’ program, whereby ratepayers would need to provide explicit written permission to have a ‘smart’ meter deployed on their home.

This video focuses in on the rF health-related issue exclusively, and does not fully address the switching-mode power supply / dirty electricity issue; nor the surveillance, cost increases, associated fire and hacking risks, or other downsides associated with the ‘smart’ metering program.

https://youtu.be/_d4NOfTOUDA

Austrian study finds link to cancer, cell phone tower exposure at levels also found in Framingham schools

It was the study’s objective to determine whether cancer cases that became known in the eastern part of Hausmannstätten or Vasoldsberg, respectively, represent a cluster with regard to timing and location as well as whether they might be associated with the mobile phone base station, which operated as a car phone service from 1984 to 1997.

The analog mobile phone base station under study was part of the national C-Network, installed by the Austrian post and communications authority and operated according to the Nordic Mobile Telephone 450 (NMT 450) standard. The cell radii of this network were usually up to 30 km. The area under study was defined as a circle with a 1,200-m radius around the former transmitter. With the help of the provincial government of Styria (GIS Steiermark) and the municipalities of Hausmannstätten and Vasoldsberg, n=2,543 potential study participants could be located and personally invited to participate in the study.

By applying limiting exposure conditions such as the assumption of a latency period, an “after-effect period” and a 5-year minimum exposure period, three different case-control samples were compiled. Sample A (67 cases/1242 controls) and B (67 cases/646 controls) included living and deceased cases, sample C (28 cases/56 controls) living cases only.

Based on the selected exposure period limits, the distance assessment for the range from 0 to 200 m around the transmitter in comparison to the area from 201 to 1,200 m showed a significantly increased cancer risk for all three samples, which makes for a distinct incidence with regard to location. The incidence was particularly pronounced for breast and brain tumors.

The essential assessment focused on the relationships between the RF radiation exposure levels from the transmitter and cancer risk. The risk (odds ratio=OR) was assessed for the exposure categories 10-100 µW/m², 100-1000 µW/m² and greater than 1000 µW/m² (1 mW/m²) in relation to the reference category less than 10 µW/m², all of which apply to outdoor levels.

For all models, the analysis revealed significantly increased risk ratios. Compared to the reference category (<10 µW/m²), the cancer risk for all cancer sites in the highest exposure category (>1000 µW/m²) was 5 to 8 times higher, depending on the sample. Similar to the distance assessment, the cancer cases were again most pronounced for the cancer sites breast and brain.

Incidentally, the wifi radiation measured from the industrial strength routers in Framingham schools was as high as 34,000µW/m².

http://www.vws.org/documents/Cell-Project-Documents/Austrianstudy-1.pdf

Princeton University Pulls WiFi Safety Assurances

A website has released emails and screenshots detailing how Princeton removed a position statement that their wireless networks “do not present a hazard,” after letter writing campaign by concerned parents.

Parents For Safe Technology Website

PRLog - March 16, 2015 - Princeton University removed its position statement on wireless safety from their website after concerns were raised that Princeton's information was “outdated and inaccurate”.  Starting in early 2014, a parent, Thea Scarato, wrote the radiation safety officer detailing point by point why the Princeton’s  website needed to be updated to accurately reflect the state of science on health risks from wireless radiation. By August of 2014, Princeton had pulled down all information related to wireless radiation.

The website came to the attention of Scarato after she raised concerns about the safety of the WiFi in her children’s elementary school. The Princeton position statement was presented to her as validation that wireless networks were “safe”.

“I decided to write a letter because decisions impacting my children’s health were being made based on Princeton’s outdated information. I would hope Princeton now gives this issue the due diligence it deserves.  Why is Wifi  being rolled out when so many scientists are calling for caution around the world?” stated Scarato of her actions.

In February 2014,  Scarato first wrote a letter to the Director of Environmental Health and Safety at Princeton University asking that Princeton update the information on wireless. The letter critiqued the information on the Princeton website, provided documentation for each point and called the website data “outdated and inaccurate.” Scarato noted that the “New” Study was actually from 2007 and did not include the 2011 International Agency for the Research on Cancer’s Class 2 B Carcinogen classification nor the growing body of research showing neurological, immune and reproductive damage.

She followed up with several letters and phone calls. Other parents wrote including the National Association for Children and Safe Technology. By August 2014, Princeton had removed the wireless information.

The now retracted Princeton Position Statement on Wireless was also used by the National Association for Independent Schools (NAIS) as a reference in their 2014 NAIS Non-Ionizing Radiation: Literature Review. NAIS serves over 1,700 schools. Scarato stated that, "I have heard from parents in other states whose children's schools also referenced the outdated Princeton site to support the WiFi rollout.  Does Princeton realize just how many schools were relying on their site?"

In the final email exchange Princeton staff stated that recent reviews “affirm that RF exposure from WiFi-based devices does not pose a hazard to the general public.”

“How can a Class 2 B possible carcinogen that “needs more research” be called safe by Princeton? How could I, as a mother, just ignore the research showing brain damage at levels thousands of times below our governments regulations ? It might take decades to prove -just like asbestos did, but what about the years my children will have been exposed? We won’t be able to turn back the clock,” stated Scarato adding, "If that is their position, then why doesn't Princeton place this safety assurance on their website and provide us with the up-to-date scientific documentation backing such a stance?"

The changes to the Princeton University website are vieweable on the Parents For Safe Technologywebsite which has posted Before/After screen shots and the email exchanges. The website shares information on wireless to parents so they can take simple "actionable" steps to increase their children's health and well-being.

For more information please see http://www.parentsforsafetechnology.org/princeton-univers...

Contact Parents for Safe Technology at ParentsForSafeTechnology@gmail.com.

Why research into Wifi can be tailored to seem safe. It's all about power density.

Scientists:
Aït-Aïssa S, de Gannes FP, Taxile M, Billaudel B, Hurtier A, Haro E, Ruffié G, Athané A, Veyret B, Lagroye I. 

"In Situ Expression of Heat-Shock Proteins and 3-Nitrotyrosine in Brains of Young Rats Exposed to a WiFi Signal In Utero and In Early Life. Radiat Res. 2013 May 10. [Epub ahead of print]

The bioeffects of exposure to Wireless High-Fidelity (WiFi) signals on the developing nervous systems of young rodents was investigated by assessing the in vivo and in situ expression levels of three stress markers: 3-Nitrotyrosine (3-NT), an oxidative stress marker and two heat-shock proteins (Hsp25 and 10 Hsp70).

These biomarkers were measured in the brains of young rats exposed to a 2450 MHz WiFi signal by immunohistochemistry. Pregnant rats were first exposed or sham exposed to WiFi from day 6 to day 21 of gestation.

In addition three newborns per litter were further exposed up to 5 weeks old. Daily 2-h exposures were performed blind in a reverberation chamber and whole-body specific absorption rate levels were 0, 0.08, 0.4 and 4 W/kg.

3-NT and stress protein expression was assayed in different areas of the hippocampus and cortex. No significant difference was observed among exposed and sham-exposed groups. These results suggest that repeated exposure to WiFi during gestation and early life has no deleterious effects on the brains of young rats."

Without the power density data, it's difficult to ascertain how strong the signal was. It could have been 1W, which would show no effects, most likely. If it was a common wifi power density, like those our children are being exposed to in schools, we'd possibly get a different result.

This is an abstract from a study, and part of many other studies that can be found here:

http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/RFR-11_28-research-summary.pdf

New Studies Show Health Risks from Wireless Tech

New Studies Show Health Risks from Wireless Tech:  

Warnings from the BioInitiative Working Group/University at Albany, Rensselaer, New York /April 16, 2014

The BioInitiative Working Group says evidence for health risk from wireless tech is growing stronger and warrants immediate action.  The Group released a mid-year update covering new science studies from 2012 to 2014.

New studies intensify medical concerns about malignant brain tumors from cell phone use. “There is a consistent pattern of increased risk for glioma (a malignant brain tumor) and acoustic neuroma with use of mobile and cordless phones” says Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD at Orebro University, Sweden, according to studies released in 2012 and 2013. “Epidemiological evidence shows that radiofrequency should be classified as a known human carcinogen. The existing FCC/IEEE and ICNIRP public safety limits are not adequate to protect public health.”

The BioInitiative reports nervous system effects in 68% of studies on radiofrequency radiation (144 of 211 studies) in 2014.  This has increased from 63% in 2012 (93 of 150 studies) in 2012.   Studies of extremely-low frequency radiation are reported to cause nervous system effects in 90% of the 105 studies available in 2014.     Genetic effects (damage to DNA) from radiofrequency radiation is reported in 65% (74 of 114 studies); and 83% (49 of 59 studies) of extremely-low frequency studies.

Mobile wireless devices like phones and tablets are big sources of unnecessary biological stress to the mind and body that can chip away at resilience over time.  The Report warns against wireless in schools.   Schools should provide internet access without Wi-FI.

“It is essentially an unregulated experiment on childrens’ health and learning.

Microwave from wireless tech disrupts thinking – what could be worse for learning?  Technology can be used more safely with wired devices that do not produce these biologically-disruptive levels of microwave radiation” said Cindy Sage, Co-Editor of the BioInitiative Report.

Federal programs like ConnectED  and E-Rate are calling for wireless classrooms while ignoring the health evidence.  Hyperactivity, concentration problems, anxiety, irritability, disorientation, distracted behavior, sleep disorders, and headaches are reported in clinical studies.

Government reviews on health impacts of wireless radiofrequency radiation from the European Union and Australia continue to be inconclusive largely because they require certainty before issuing warnings.   The FCC review of health impacts from wireless technologies is still underway, but has not affected the federal push for wireless classrooms.

See:                                          www.bioinitiative.org
Contact:                                   info@bioinitiative.org
David O. Carpenter, MD           dcarpenter@albany.edu

Let’s Not be Clueless About Wireless

By Devra Davis 

The following is an open letter to President Obama asking him to consider the full costs of wireless technology — Ed.

Before this nation makes wifi in schools like it is in coffee shops, as the president recently urged, we need to consider what this could do to our children’s brains and bodies.

.

Three years ago the World Health Organization declared cellphone and other wireless radiation to be a possible human carcinogen, the same category as some pesticides, lead and engine exhausts. Since then evidence has mounted that such radiation can profoundly affect human biology, altering brain metabolism, damaging animals exposed during pregnancy and reducing sperm count. Before blanketing our preschools, kindergartens and middle schools with wireless radiation we need a full life-cycle assessment of economic and health costs and benefits of wireless technology.

As you have said in other contexts, “Just because we can do something, does not mean that we should do something.”

The notion that the fast-developing brains of children benefit from digital devices flies in the face of what experts in neurodevelopment understand. Your pledge to put wireless in all schools for children from prekindergarten on does not rest on any proof that such technology is safe or that children actually learn better using such technology.

While our nation excels at many things, our wireless-based Internet connection is inferior to those of a slew of other countries, including Korea, Latvia, Romania, Bulgaria and the Czech Republic — all of which have invested in “fiber to the home” rather than wireless Internet connections. Wireless routers are costlier and less reliable and can be three to 10 times slower than wired systems that can operate at speeds of up to 1 gigabyte a second. As other technologically savvy nations appreciate, there are also important health risks posed by classrooms full of closely held wireless devices.

Growing numbers of experts in telecommunications understand that plans to phase out wired phone lines or have energy systems rely on wireless metering are frankly ill-conceived and uneconomic. A parallel interdependent network of wired fiber-optic cables is faster, safer and more secure against criminal or terrorist attacks or wide swings in weather. It is more difficult to hack into or take down a wired network than a wireless one, especially if the latter has not been properly encrypted. Bravo to Google for recently announcing its expansion of wired services in many major cities.

Studies finding wireless radiation tied to serious biological impacts have moved governments in Israel, Canada, Australia, Korea, India and Finland to advise reducing children’s exposure. Following actions in Turkey, France and other nations, the health minister of Belgium recently banned the sale of cellphones for children ages 7 and younger. What does she know that you don’t?

Ignoring these serious concerns, the mobile phone industry has treated reports of risks of cellphone radiation as inconveniences to be rapidly undermined using science as a form of public relations. When confronted with the possibility that cellphone radiation could damage the brain cells of rats way back in 1994, Motorola wrote a memo to its public relations firm noting the need to “war-game the science.” More recently, in response to the World Health Organization declaration of possible dangers of cellphone radiation, the global manufacturers forum set up a quarter-of-a-billion-dollar fund to produce defensive information, effectively attacking the credibility of the WHO and its scientists and promoting other expert reviews that counter and undermine the WHO.

We are flying blind here, as there are no studies on the safety or efficacy of microwave-based learning for young children, nor are any planned. Despite repeated advice from expert groups, the U.S. has no training or research programs underway in this field and is forced to rely on outdated science and foreign reports. One way to fund such programs would be to impose a $1 fee (split between consumers and industry) on every phone for five years to fund much-needed independent training and research to evaluate and improve the technology.

Until we have better information at hand, you should encourage the growth of fiber-optic and Ethernet cables and order the Federal Communications Commission to drop wireless expansion into schools with young children — relying instead on wired systems and keeping wireless tablets on airplane mode if they have already been purchased. Apple should develop a lightning-to-USB-to-Ethernet adapter and software driver to reduce radiation from already purchased devices.

Years ago the philosopher Immanuel Kant noted that “What man must do, he can do.” But the opposite is not true. A rigorous analysis of the full costs and benefits of wired and wireless infotech is long overdue.

Teton County resident Devra Davis is the president and founder of the Environmental Health Trust. She has a doctorate in science studies and a Master of Public Health in epidemiology.

For Best Practice Guidelines on wireless radiation:

http://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/SchoolsandWirelessFebrurary2015Updatedbriefing.pdf