Crossed currents

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:24:19 GMT

Despite your assertions, there is still much debate about the role of power lines, emfs and health effects.

The Childhood Cancer Research Group note that of 400 cancer cases per year of childhood leukemia every year 1% may be due to power lines, "but the association may not be causal". There may well be confounding factors, such as the probability that poorer families live closer to undesirable properties near power lines.

This finding has been contradicted by the UK Childhood Cancer Study report, which declared that there was no risk to children living close to power lines. David Grant, scientific director of Leukemia Research, said the study was "difficult to interpret, but is most unlikely to be due to any residual electromagnetic field, or other exposures related to the power line. It cannot be excluded that it is a statistical artefact."

Denis Henshaw hypothesised that this was due to 'Corona ions' - a hugely speculative claim. When he tested this theory, he found no effect. Henshaw also believes that Foot & Mouth Disease is spread by powerlines.

The Bionitiative report is highly speculative and not widely supported at all. The words 'ambulance chasers' springs to mind.

re: Crossed currents

richard ponsonby — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 05:22:15 GMT

Don't you understand, Andy there is No Dispute. EMF harms our health-we're not sure how much but we know it is harmful.

Do you also oppose restrictions on smoking and tobacco?

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 07:06:12 GMT

Richard

The difference is that with harm from tobacco smoking there is plausibilty, masses of evidence and consensus.

With harm from the various EMF emissions around us (WiFi, mobile, power lines) we have implausibility, scant and contradictory evidence and a handful of cranky supporters.

To claim there is 'no dispute' as this article does is just absurd and scaremongering - no doubt leading to better sales of the wddty publication on the issue.

re: Crossed currents

Richard Ponsonby — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:37:13 GMT

Maybe if Pharma comes up with an anti-emf drug, you will believe it.

re: Crossed currents

Richard Ponsonby — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:54:51 GMT

Or a vaccination. You'd like that wouldn't you Andy?

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 20:52:47 GMT

The irony!

It is the quacks who tend to up come with cures for non existent problems. As I said, the jury is still out on whether EMF causes and health problems at all. Only a small group of campaigners and fewer scientists really believe it is a serious problem.

But that does not stop the quacks. We have:

Homeopathic provings of mobile phone radiation

QLink pendants

Various electronic box EMF 'neutralisers' - all fraudulent.

Clarins came up with their ep3 spray

Magnet therapies

Various reiki style therapies.

All deluded or fraudulent.

re: Crossed currents

richard ponsonby — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:50:09 GMT

Its called the precautionary principle. If the same thing had been done with smoking it might have saved countless deaths.

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 00:33:23 GMT

The precautionary principle applies when a scientific consensus cannot be reached. At present the overwhelming consensus is that EMF at domestic levels are safe.

"It is important to emphasize that, although this principle operates in the context of scientific uncertainty, it is considered by its proponents to be applicable only when, on the basis of the best scientific advice available, there is good reason to believe that harmful effects might occur."

At present, there is no plausible reason to presume that harmful effects might occur from EMFs.

re: Crossed currents

Richard Ponsonby — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 01:16:29 GMT

Except for all those people that have been harmed by emf, the electrosensitives, people who have to wear special clothes and sleep in sealed boxes because of the emfs.

The children with brain tumours when children never used to suffer from them.

People with leukemia from power lines.

***'em, right Andy?

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 10:04:51 GMT

Right. Let's nail this article.

This blog post is flawed in so many areas that it would take all weekend to talk about its numerous errors, omissions and misrepresentations. And Richard, you are adding to the misconceptions. Electrosensitivity appears to be a rare condition that has had over 30 studies done on it and the overwhelming consensus from these studies is that whatever causes these symptoms, it is not WiFi, mobiles and EMF. Meanwhile, the quacks exploit a problem that almost certainly has a psychosomatic component by scaring them and flogging them useless junk.

This blog post is just like the Bioinitiative report, spectacularly one sided, flawed and fringe. Lynn McTaggart talks about the NRPB - an organisation that has not existed for several years now. That is fact checking for you.

But let's examine closely this childhood leukemia problem from power lines. And let's pretend the research is conclusive and shows a real effect. (And there are many good reasons to doubt it - but let's put them aside).

As I said above, The Childhood Cancer Research Group note that of 400 cancer cases per year of childhood leukemia every year 1% may be due to power lines. Childhood leukemia is now thankfully not a death sentence and has cure rates, thanks to modern science and pharmaceuticals, in the range of 85%.

So, if EMFs can cause Childhood leukemia, then we would expect 400 x 1% x 15% deaths per year - much less than 1 death per year So, let Richard's precautionary principle kick in. What do you propose to do about it? Massive rehousing projects? Taking down all our power lines and burying them? Any other ideas? It is quite clear that any programme of exposure reduction to children could easily cost billions.

Is this a sensible use of money? Lot's of children die every year. This biggest causes of death for children are injury related - car accidents, falls and so on. In the UK, it is less than a 1000 per year. A billion pounds could be much better to use in preventing such deaths rather than worrying about possible minor and implausible risks from EMF.

This is a moral question. The UK is one of the safest countries in the world for children. Only Sweden is safer for kids (http://tinyurl.com/952eoz). The US is far more dangerous with over double the death rate. Should the effort to save children be focussed there? Or what about the developing world, where millions of children die from lack of prenatal care, malnutrition, diarrhea, malaria, HIV. All these killers have simple health care interventions that save lives - money is often the limiting factor.

But why worry about those deaths when we can fantasise about conspiracies to inflict our children with EMFs and mobiles and wifi? It is much more fun to pretend we hold secret information that the government is suppressing and that you can become part of an elite group of 'health conscious' individuals that can 'look after themselves. All for £4.99 and a subscrition to WDDTY. What jolly japes. What about real inequality injustice and disease in the world? As you say Richard, "***'em", right Richard?

re: Crossed currents

richard o d. — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:28:53 GMT

hello everyone. the main point i would like to make is that we are more than the physical body that we seem to b. we have an energetic electrical system flowing through us that is essential to our health.

this is the acupuncture meridian system and has been known about for at least 5 thousand years. it is now been verified by science and can be seen under specific conditions using the correct scanning equipment. there is no longer any doubth.

the main concern is not what these emf's do to our physical body, its what they do to our electrical systems that realy matters.

ill health starts in our energy system and manifests later in our physical structure.

anything that effects our energy flow in a negative way has a directly negative effect on our health.

its all down to energy, think outside the box,

ask einstein.

re: Crossed currents

MarkJames — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:58:53 GMT

Resveratrol can help you to lead a long and healthy life so says many

doctors. Red wine alone does not supply enough resveratrol to achieve the

full range of benefits because one glass of red wine has only about

1mg of resveratrol and you need about 250mg/day. You need to take

high potency resveratrol supplements to achieve the results documented

in scientific studies.Resveratrol Supplements can also help you control

your weight naturally by increasing energy, reducing cravings, and limiting

your appetite.According to Wikipedia, Consumer Lab, an independent dietary

supplement and over the counter products evaluation organization,

published a report on 13 November 2007 on the popular resveratrol

supplements. The organization reported that there exists a wide range

in quality, dose, and price among the 13 resveratrol products

evaluated. The actual amount of resveratrol contained in the

different brands range from 2.2mg for Revatrol, which claimed to have

400mg of "Red Wine Grape Complex", to 500mg for Biotivia.com Transmax,

which is consistent with the amount claimed on the product's label.

Prices per 100mg of resveratrol ranged from less than $.30 for

products made by Biotivia.com, jarrow, and country life, to a high of

$45.27 for the Revatrol brand.

re: Crossed currents

Rchard Ponsonby — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:08:39 GMT

It would be straight forward, although somewhat costly, to bury transmission lines under ground, by the same token, putting lead shielding on mobile phones would help.

Wi-fi in schools should not be permitted, and places where it is installed should have public signage indicating the extreme danger to health.

That would be a start anyway.

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 18:07:26 GMT

Richard - did you get my point?

It would be extremely costly to bury HT power lines. The evidence of harm is not solid. The level of harm (if true) is comparatively tiny compared with other risks. It would be a totally immoral waste of money to do so.

The lead shielding around phones comment shows how little you understand the science of what is going on. Lead is usually used to shield ionising radiation sources. Mobiles do not emit ionising radiation. If you wanted to shield the non-ionising radio waves, you need to create a Faraday cage. Thin foils would suffice. However...

Putting any shielding around mobile phones would render them useless. The radio waves need to get out in order to make them work. Reducing the power would help (if you thought they did you harm - which there is no good evidence that they do). One way of vastly reducing the average power of mobile phone transmission would be to have many, many more mobile towers scattered around so the phones do not have to transmit so far. If you think mobile phone radiation is bad for you, you should campaign to have mobile transmitters sited as close as possible to your home and to your children's schools.

And can anyone justify the statement "Wi-fi in schools should not be permitted, and places where it is installed should have public signage indicating the extreme danger to health."? Where is the evidence that they are an 'extreme danger to health'?

That is just totally absurd scaremongering. There is no good evidence that WiFi is in any way risky. And furthermore, there is no plausible reason to suppose that it is risky.

re: Crossed currents

Richard Ponsonby — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 19:09:53 GMT

When the electricians came tu put a new service out to my garage, they put it underground. Why can't all electrical mains be underground? You don't see sewer and water lines up in the sky, now do you?

I was wondering if you couldn't use an an antennae to collect the electrical radiation from the air and put it back into the mains where it belongs. That might create an oasis of radiation free air next to your dwelling.

There is more and more information coming to light about the dangers of wi-fi;

http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-5060194.html

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 19:37:01 GMT

Let's imagine that for a moment. Sewage systems constructed of 10ft concrete pipes suspended between massive pylons and full of flowing water. Anyone else have any idea why they don't do that?

Richard - physics is obviously not your strong point? Antennae creating 'an oasis of radiation free air'. It's a lovely thought isn't it? Pity it is just nonsense.

And did you read the link you gave to techrepublic? If you did, did you understand it? The article is about wireless network security - nothing about health. Are you out of your depth here a little?

re: Crossed currents

richard ponsonby — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 21:30:11 GMT

Well no, I don't know much about physics. However, with so much information out there on the internet, its easy to find what you need. Although I don't understand a lot of the terms they use or the maths, so I just skim it for the conclusions.

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:03:23 GMT

So, Richard - what do you think of what I have said? Do you now agree that this blog article misrepresents the state of knowledge about EMF harm? That, actually, there is no consensus on harm? That the reports mentioned are ambiguous. That, even if there is a risk, it is very small. And that the cost of removing this tiny risk would be excessive and much better spent on reducing much larger risks?

If not, where am I going wrong? Are you able to be open minded enough about this?

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:24:42 GMT

I think what is also interesting is that Ms McTaggart does not feel it necessary to respond to the criticisms that her blog post has gaping holes in it and thet, undoubtedly, her expensive pamphlet is nothing but scaremongering and nonsense.

re: Crossed currents

richard ponsonby — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:28:20 GMT

If its between you and Lynne McTaggart I'll take her any day. Sorry Andy, I think you mean well.

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:55:26 GMT

Something of a cop out, don't you think? Could you still defend her claims that "There is now no dispute"?

Let's just expose one more daft thing in the blog post. Lynnes says,

"Yet, in a 2007 BioInitiative Report, a team of 14 international scientists, arguing for a public-exposure standard for EMFs, concluded that it is electromagnetic radiation (rather than heat) that causes biological changes."

Now, any heating effects caused by mobiles would be due to absorption of radio frequencies - electromagnetic radiation. Lynne is horribly confused - she thinks the heating effects are different from electromagnetic radiation effects. Next time you put some bread in a toaster, it will toast due to infrared electromagnetic radiation.

Harm from mobile phone is implausible because the power of electromagnetic radiation being emitted by the phonem in the form of radiom waves is tiny. Your toaster is much, much more powerful. Lynne does not understand this, and I guess Richard, you do not too.

re: Crossed currents

richard ponsonby — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 06:13:49 GMT

Andy

What Lynne is saying is that heat is not the only way to damage the cell. Emf can damage the cell by oxidative stress, by inflammatory reactions, allergic reactions,, immune system function etc. This is all from the bioinitiative report Andy, Lynne didn't make it up out of whole cloth.

I suggest you read that report and then tell us what you think.

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:21:10 GMT

Richard,

I am glad you asked about the Bioinitiative Report. It is something I have read a little while ago. Have you?

I am afraid that the report is not worth the paper it is written upon - and this is not just my opinion.

The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) have studeid the report and conclude:

"Overall we think that the BioInitiative Report does not progress science, and would agree with the Health Council of the Netherlands that the BioInitiative Report is “not an objective and balanced reflection of the current state of scientific knowledge” (page 4). As it stands it merely provides a set of views that are not consistent with the consensus of science, and it does not provide an analysis that is rigorous-enough to raise doubts about the scientific consensus."

http://www.acrbr.org.au/FAQ/ACRBR%20Bioinitiative%20Report%2018%20Dec%202008.pdf

In a letter to the The Minister of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment in Holland, the conclusion was,

"In view of the way the BioInitiative report was compiled, the selective use of scientific data and the other shortcomings mentioned above, the Committee concludes that the BioInitiative report is not an objective and balanced reflection of the current state of scientific knowledge. Therefore, the report does not provide any grounds for revising the current views as to the risks of exposure to electromagnetic fields. The BioInitiative report argues that any effect of electromagnetic fields on biological systems should be avoided, thereby ignoring the distinction between effect and damage. The Committee does not agree with this approach, as documented in previous publications"

http://www.gr.nl/pdf.php?ID=1743&p=1

The idea that EMF causes "oxidative stress, by inflammatory reactions, allergic reactions,, immune system function" is not supported by science. Several studies in this area have been withdrawn as they were exposed to be fraudulent. All in all, the idea that "There is now no dispute" can be shown to be utter nonsense.

Will Lynne McTaggart withdraw her claim and her booklet? I doubt it.

re: Crossed currents

Malcolm — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:50:17 GMT

Perhaps many of the alleged dangers of high voltage power lines in particular could be eliminated by the use of DC power transmission. Apart from the reduction of most of the 30% power losses of current AC transmission from central generating stations through capacitative and inductive coupling, static magnetic fields surrounding the lines would be preferable to the present 60cps fields which are suspected of producing induced voltages in people to detrimentally interfere with the body´s normal micro-voltages at the cellular level.

While the effects on humans may still be open to debate the long-term economically beneficial consequences of DC power transmission are not -- at least after the high capital costs of the change-over has been coped with.

re: Crossed currents

Anna — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:29:16 GMT

We know EMf's cause health problems, as my son has suffered from countless headaches since starting his upper school last term. Odd how the only thing that's changed in his environment is the school, and these only happen in term time. A new wireless network was installed just before he started; the headaches started on his first day. I've been in contact with the HPA who deny there's an issue but they're dictated to by the government and the Telcos, who have a massive vested interest in keeping the stastus quo. I've spoken to a teacher who became ill when wi-fi was installe din his classroom, and then once removed as the cause, all ill health stopped, and who hears regularly form young people at his school, complaining of headaches and associated symptoms of EMF exposure. I've also seen the huge amount of evidence available about how EMF's affect the blood, how they affect the cells in our body etc, so I KNOW this is a very real danger. I'm not as sensitive as my son yet I also feel the "fogginess" and "headache" when in a high EMF environment. We don't use DECt phone, Wi-Fi, microwave ovens etc exactly for that reason - because we've known for a long time there are very real health risks associated with this technology. We have special chips on our mobiles but limit their use and our son is not getting a mobile phone even though he's begging for one now :-).

In closing, have a look around at other countries and what their governments are doing to take steps to minimise the exposure of i.e. children to EMF's. What research do they have access to that our government, doesn't? If it was all smoke and mirrors, other governments would not bother I'm sure. No-one has ever proved that there is NO health risk, at all, ever. And the risks have been documented as far back as 1932. But like with smoking (lung cancer) and vaccinations (a variety of linked diseases) there have always been too many vested interests put before the health of the people. We, as parents, will not wait around whilst our son is used as a social experiment to see whether wi-fi damages his health.

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 14:07:11 GMT

Anna. I am a little confused. You say that your son changed school. This must have involved massive changes in his life - I remember my transition to upper school very well. Taking a bus, many more children, new sorts of food, new desks, teachers and lots of new children who I had to make friends with. A stressful time for any kid. But you pick on the WiFi? Why? How do you rule out all the other factors contributing to such a massive change in your son's life? Isn't is a little more plausible that it is quite hard work for a young kid to go through the upheaval of a new school - from being 'top' of your old school to 'bottom' of the new?

And I am afraid, that most people who have looked into the problem would disagree that environmental EMF has health effects. One of the main ways people know is through sham exposures. Ask how people feel when they do not know the level of EMF in a room. There are no correlations between reported symptoms and level of EMF exposure. Some 30 studies have come to similar conclusions. Something else must be causing the problem. Your symptoms are real. Your explanation for them may be wrong.

re: Crossed currents

Tessa — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:36:54 GMT

Thank goodness we have a sensible responder in you, Andy. I hate all this scare mongering and only take notice of properly conducted scientific trials and research.

re: Crossed currents

richard ponsonby — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 05:17:04 GMT

Once again Andy you denigrate the personal experiences of people with real health problems and toe the line of corporate science and Big Pharma.

Interesting how you cherry pick the science you want to believe, trashing anything that shows deleterious effects, just as the tobacco companies did with lung cancer for years and years.

At least some people are sitting up and taking notice, like the French government that is banning mobile use for children.

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 06:20:34 GMT

Richard - what you are saying is a complete distortion of what I have said. I have not denigrated the experience of anyone - I make it quite clear that I believe the experience symptoms to be real - and undoubtedly distressing. What I am doubting is explanations - a very different thing. And I have not cherry picked any science at all. If you read the criticism of the Bioinitiative that I posted, you will see that the report is one big cherry picked propaganda piece. It is not me that cherry picks. My views are based on a much broader view of the science and the evidence. Are yours? Or, like MMR, do you pick your position - and then search for any evidence to support your view?

The French are not banning use for children (your usual distortion) - they are limiting advertising to them.

Mobile phones are safe. If there is a risk from them, it is tiny. The biggest risk from mobile phones comes not from EMF but from unsafe usage - such as when driving. And mobile phones undoubtedly save countless lives through the ability to communicate with emergency services from nearly anywhere. If a few governments feel that any potential tiny unproven risk from phones is greater than the security that mobiles provide for many then I believe they are making a rather daft mistake - a mistake driven by the ambulance chasers who write the drivel such as the Bioiniative report, and those who like to profit from scaring people, like this site.

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 06:42:53 GMT

I think it is also worth wondering why topics such as the health effects of EMR are obsessed about The science is quite clear at the moment: health effects are either non existent, or if there are some, the risks are tiny. Compare this with something much more mundane, like air pollution - which may kill tens of thousands per year and reduce life expectancy drastically in our cities.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7839336.stm

So, why do alt med types obsess about EMF? My personal theory is that there are a few people out there trying to engineer scares. It is easy to pinpoint people with quasi-scientific legal backgrounds who have experience in such matters and are making a noise. They are waiting for legal class actions in the style of tobacco and doing their best to start them. It does not matter to them if they win or lose - they will earn fortunes in 'expert' fees and legal fees.

In the meantime, your common or garden quack profits from selling all sorts of 'antidotes' to the EMF 'problem' from magic 'resonant' pendants, ant-emf boxes, homeopathy remedies, face sprays, useless 'bee-keeper' masks, special but useless paint - and so on. There is money in scaring people.

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 06:49:10 GMT

Look at how WDDTY profits from scaring people:

http://www.wddtyhealthshop.com/products.asp?recnumber=288

These EMF 'BioProtection' devices are simple fraudulent. Full stop. Even if there was a risk, these devices would do nothing. They are preying on the gullible.

re: Crossed currents

richard ponsonby — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 03:21:11 GMT

You don't know, maybe those devices do work, you're not a sufferer, you think sufferers are malingerers. If a an electrosensitive person gets relief from them, then they do work.

Brain tumours are increasing among children especially those who use mobile phones, but like the tobacco companies who always insisted that it couldn't be true because the cause is unknown, you dismiss what is happening before your very eyes.

re: Crossed currents

richard ponsonby — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 05:47:47 GMT

"Children and teenagers are five times more likely to get brain cancer if they use mobile phones, startling new research indicates.

The study, experts say, raises fears that today’s young people may suffer an “epidemic” of the disease in later life. At least nine out of 10 British 16-year-olds have their own handset, as do more than 40 per cent of primary schoolchildren.

Yet investigating dangers to the young has been omitted from a massive £3.1m British investigation of the risks of cancer from using mobile phones, launched this year, even though the official Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research (MTHR) Programme – which is conducting it – admits that the issue is of the “highest priority”.'

"However, society “must not repeat the situation we had with the relationship between smoking and lung cancer where we … waited until every ‘i’ was dotted and ‘t’ was crossed before warnings were issued,” said David Carpenter, director of the Institute of Health and Environment at the University of Albany, in testimony before a subcommittee of the US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform.

“Precaution is warranted even in the absence of absolutely final evidence concerning the magnitude of the risk” — especially for children, said Carpenter.

Ronald Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute — one of the top US cancer research centers — said that most studies “claiming that there is no link between cell phones and brain tumors are outdated, had methodological concerns and did not include sufficient numbers of long-term cell phone users.”"

http://www.emfinterface.com/category/health-risks/

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:33:14 GMT

One thing at a time.

How do I know the ant-EMF boxes are a fraud?

1) They are offered for a condition that has been shown to not be due to EMF but is probably psychosomatic. As such, the boxes can only be at best a placebo.

2) They lack physical plausibility. There is no know scientific method of operation by which they could work.

3) There is no known research that shows they achieve anything beyond what an empty box would do.

4) I took the pleasure of buying one a little while back and took it apart and reverse engineered it. The results are hilarious. One day, one someone influential endorses them, I will blow the whole thing out of the water.

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:03:15 GMT

And as for your quote about childrens brain tumour - you link to a blog without references. Point to a scientific paper and you might be credible.

re: Crossed currents

richard ponsonby — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:14:14 GMT

http://oem.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/64/9/626

http://www.emfinterface.com/2008/06/23/2-billion-may-suffer-from-mobile-cancer-by-2020-study-newindpresscom/#comments

I threw my mobile out. It is simply too risky.

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:38:06 GMT

Thank you Richard. Interesting.

First of all it shows how your quoted article is just wrong. it said "Children and teenagers are five times more likely to get brain cancer if they use mobile phones, startling new research indicates." The review actually did not specifically look at children so this figure is just made up.

From a little research, it looks like this made up figure came from a comment made by one of the researchers - even thought the study did not look at children. It is worth noting that the lead author was also involved with the discredited Bioinitaitive report, so caution in their speculations is warranted.

So, looking at the data, rather than speculation, what did the authors discover? Well, out of 18 studies examined, only 2 showed a statistically significant increase.

Your second reference is just made up nonsense.

Their conclusions about the increased risk of harm came from doing a meta analysis - as the NHS said about the paper "The differences in methods and populations between these studies mean that the validity of the end result is questionable."

The studies were case controlled which means that whatever the results, it cannot prove causality. Given that questionnaires were used to look at phone usage, recall bias from brain tumour sufferers may be very significant.

Brain tumours like these studies are very rare (7 per 100,000 people). Even a doubling of risk (if it is true) means a very tiny number of total cancers may be caused by mobile usage.

Throwing your mobile away is a daft response. There are many greater risks in your life that you undoubtedly do not take such great action upon, such as getting in a car. You may wish to cut down long calls if you really believe this stuff, but complete denial of a phone?

re: Crossed currents

Tiny Hope — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 22:51:13 GMT

Both of you (andy & richard) sound like a couple of children. Richard stop trying to convince someone that does not want to be convinced. Andy has his mind made up and that should be the end of it. Any topic that comes to light will have 2 sides and I have found that most people wil argue a point just for the sake of arguing!

Andy, you need to keep using your cell phone and tell me in a few years how that worked out for you.

Also, Andy consider one thing; mesothelioma and asbestos was argued for years that there was no corelation between it and cancer. However, now we have (in Canada) a large class action lawsuit stating otherwise! I know this because my father in-law died from it and his estate is receiving money for that. So in the years to come maybe you will change your mind about the what EMF and radio frequecncy radiation does and will have an effect on peoples health.

I only state my opinion here and will not comment again on this issue, as I look into things for myself and come to my own conclusions. I don't need some PHD telling me when my critical thinking states otherwise.

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 00:08:43 GMT

Thanks for the constructive input to the debate, Tiny Hope. You appear to believe that I a cannot be convinced of EMF harm. That is not true. What is needed is consistent and balanced evidence. The 'harm' brigade reply on fear and distortion as I have pointed out. No one has been able to defend the Bioinitative report against the criticisms I have made here - because they cannot. And, yet people like Richard are still convinced. No one has countered my arguments about the insignificance of the risks from power lines - because they cannot. And yet, you think my mind is closed?

I have used my phone now for over ten years and I am still alive - just like hundreds of millions of other people. Its a safe technology. Get over it.

re: Crossed currents

richard ponsonby — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 03:53:21 GMT

If you smoked for ten years you would feel fine. And a sample of one is meaningless.

You take your own risks andy but somebody has to think of the children

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 09:04:00 GMT

"If you smoked for ten years you would feel fine."

More top tips from wddty! Why not hand them out to the children! Someone has to think about them.

re: Crossed currents

richard ponsonby — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 16:15:52 GMT

Don't be a moron Andy. Damage from smoking typically isn't severe until the person has been smoking for 25 to 30 years, after that point it is devastating, but not everybody suffers equally. Most people know of a 90 year old uncle who smokes two packs a day for 75 years and is still hale and hearty. Its anecdote and nothing more.

The scary thing is that the true effects of mobile phones and wi-fi aren't likely to show up for another 10 or so years and by that time it will be too late for many people.

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 21:22:56 GMT

Richard - I love the way you lecture me about anecdote. Remember the MMR thread?

What do the NHS say about your 'safe' habit of smoking?

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/2344.aspx?CategoryID=53&SubCategoryID=53

"Smoking is one of the biggest causes of death and illness in the UK. You can become ill through direct or passive smoking. Every year around 114,000 people die from smoking related illnesses.

When you smoke you are exposing yourself and those around you to a dangerous cocktail of nicotine, tobacco, tar, carbon monoxide and poisonous chemicals.

Smoking increases the risk of at least 50 medical conditions including dementia and digestive problems. Some conditions may be fatal, and others can cause irreversible, chronic damage to your health. Some conditions that can be caused by smoking are: smoker's cough,cancers of the lung, mouth, throat, larynx, oesophagus, bladder, kidney, pancreas and stomach, coronary heart disease, stroke, and chronic bronchitis and emphysema (lung conditions). The more you smoke, the greater your risk of becoming ill. Even just one or two cigarettes a day can be enough to cause lung cancer.

In men, smoking can also cause impotence as it limits the blood supply to the penis. It can also affect your fertility, making it difficult for you to have children."

"If you smoke during pregnancy, you put yourself and your unborn baby at risk of health problems. It is best that you don't smoke throughout the entire course of the pregnancy.

The most damage is done if you smoke during the last six months (months 4-9) of your pregnancy . If you quit smoking during the first three months of pregnancy there is less chance that your baby will develop health problems."

What you have with smoking is masses of evidence for harm to millions of people. For EMF, er, very little indeed.

re: Crossed currents

richard ponsonby — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:13:44 GMT

Don't put words in my mouth, Andy, I never claimed that smoking was 'safe'. What I said was that the health effects of smoking don't make themselves readily apparent for a number of years. If you were to examine a 25 year old that had been smoking for ten years, you would notice things like blood pressure and shortness of breath, but nothing that stops the person from living a normal life. The health effects are cumulative but take years for them to get bad enough that people notice. Typically it is somebody in their forties or fifties that lung cancer of emphysema starts to become apparent. If you went back to ten years after smoking started how much evidence would you have had? Doctors used to recommend it.

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 11:23:58 GMT

Richard - is this just your opinion and are you just making stuff up? Or do have facts and figures to show that smoking does not "stop the person from living a normal life".

How about this paper"Dunn, NR et al. Risk of myocardial infarction in young female smokers. Heart 1999; 82: 581-583)"

"The study shows a relationship between the number of cigarettes smoked and risk of heart attack. Women smoking up to 5 cigarettes a day are twice as likely to suffer a heart attack as non-smokers of the same age, while smokers of 20 or more a day are 25 times at greater risk than non-smokers."

As ASH says: "Tragically, more than 100 women aged under 45 are dying every year as a result of their smoking habit. ... There is a common misconception among young people that smoking causes disease only in old people. This research demolishes that myth. It also shows that even light smokers are conning themselves if they think they are not at risk"

By the way, there is no research that shows anything like the dramatic harm that cigarettes do applied to EMFs. All EMF research is skirting around the limits of detectability.

Tobacco use remains the single most important preventable cause of death in the world. EMF does not come anywhere close - because it looks as if there is no risk, or possibly only marginal risk.

Its odd that we do not see WDDTY campaigning tirelessly against the huge killers - especially of the young: tobacco, drink, car accidents etc. Is it because real doctors are actually taking the time to warn us about these real risks?

re: Crossed currents

richard ponsonby — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:44:43 GMT

You're setting up a strawman Andy, Shame on you., Once again my point was not that smoking is harmless but the effects are cumulative and are most readily apparent after 20-30 years of use. I am sure that there are some deaths of under 25 years old due to smoking, but they are few in number and lost in the statistical noise unless you go looking for them.

The fact remains that there isn't a long enough time period to declare that emf, mobiles, wifi etc., are safe. In fact if you take tobacco as an example and start looking for those effects, you will see them, the bio-initiave study is a good example as is the California EMF project.

We have a head start on this problem we need to start taking effective action now. France is banning mobile use for young children, some local authorities in the UK are phasing out wi-fi and mobile use while on official business, but much more needs to be done.

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:30:06 GMT

Richard - it is a bit rich accusing me of setting up a straw man when you brought up the subject of smoking and said, "Damage from smoking typically isn't severe until the person has been smoking for 25 to 30 years, after that point it is devastating". This is not true - and now you have been exposed you wriggle backwards.

And then you claim " but they are few in number and lost in the statistical noise unless you go looking for them". Does this make deaths not real?

Then you say "The fact remains that there isn't a long enough time period to declare that emf, mobiles, wifi etc., are safe"

HT power transmission has been around since 1891. How long is necessary?

So, Richard. One thing you are quite good at is ignoring uncomfortable truths. So, lets stick to the Bioinitiative Report.

Do you agree with the NZ and Dutch governmental reports that stated, ""In view of the way the BioInitiative report was compiled, the selective use of scientific data and the other shortcomings mentioned above, the Committee concludes that the BioInitiative report is not an objective and balanced reflection of the current state of scientific knowledge. Therefore, the report does not provide any grounds for revising the current views as to the risks of exposure to electromagnetic fields."

Do you accept that this was a one-sided report and so not a sound document to draw conclusions from?

re: Crossed currents

richard ponsonby — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:45:49 GMT

The point I keep trying to make is damage from smoking is cumulative and doesn't become apparent for a number of years. The point about deaths of younger people from smoking is you have to go looking for them, In older people its obvious, at least for us now with our present state of medical knowledge.

Apply the same thinking to deaths from emf of whatever source. There isn't a long enough history of exposure to mobile phone radiation or wi-fi to see the obvious. so you have to look for smaller effects. that is what the bioinitiative and the california emf project, do and they have found the evidence.

The NZ and Dutch reports are a whitewash.

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 21:02:32 GMT

Death from smoking 'obvious'? Do you have special insight. It took epidemiologists a long while to prove the link that many doubted. The same epidemiologists show that EMF causes no, or very little effect.

So, Richard: why are the NZ and Ducth reports a whitewash. What specifically have they got wrong? Is it not true that the report is one sided and biased?

re: Crossed currents

richard ponsonby — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 03:56:01 GMT

A fifty year old man who has smoked fifty ciggies a day for 35 years dies from lung cancer that is obvious a death from smoking. A twenty five year old woman who smokes twenty a day and has elevated blood pressure dies prematurely from stroke. That is not quite as obvious is it? Maybe its the tobacco maybe its something else.

The NZ and Dutch reports are a whitewash because they ignored the dangers of emf in favour of the status quo.

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 08:12:09 GMT

It took science to make it 'obvious' richard. We now live in enlightened times when only fools ignore science.

Talking of fools ignoring science. Was it right for the Bioinitiative report not to review and weight the contradictory evidence about EMFs?

re: Crossed currents

gerard — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:50:31 GMT

Andy you are a liar!Which Government organization or power company is paying you for your spin.

l am an EMF/Geopathic Stress consultant and can tell you, and the other interested parties here that there IS statistical evidence world wide to back up the fact that EMF levels above 4Mg will cause childhood leukemia and cancer in adults. In the average household there are numerous appliances which produce EMR Milligaus readings of between 20 and 100Mg, many times the maximum recommended standard.Appliances like washing machines, fridges, TV, s electric blankets and so on.Then take the power lines outside and you have readings that very from10 to 100Mg, again, depending on the time of day, year etc.The cancer cases l see in the houses that l CORRECT with a technology of my own is quite alarming!!!

All of my work is referral from doctors, some naturopaths and other alternative health practitioners.

They all understand and recognize the symptoms of EHS, and thank God for them, they act appropriately to action and investigation and energetic corrections to the homes of their patients.

In every case there is a valid EMF, RF, Wi FI and Geopathic Stress issue in relation to the symptoms of the EHS sufferers.Of which can be corrected so that people can go on living their lives without illness.

For those who are not aware, there is an international body, the International Cancer Research Institute, which is the body that has set down these maximum milligaus guidelines, which is 4Mg and above is now known as a Group 1 Carcinogen .So you say that there is no activity and no evidence.

Shame on you!

Gerard

gbini@optusnet.com.au

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:10:20 GMT

Strong words coming from Gerard - "Liar"? And this is coming from someone who calls them self a "Geopathic Stress consultant" and advertises on the web to clear "paranormal interference" from your home. Marvellous.

From your adverts: "We also offer an accurate map dowsing services to determine your Geopathic Stress or Paranormal problems for those people living outside of the Melbourne area."

I think we can see quite clearly who is making things up and profiting from fear of EMF. The "International Cancer Research Institute"? Really? Do you have a URL for the organisation? Or have you just made it up?

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:15:26 GMT

For those of you interested in Gerard's 'ghostbusting' services, I strongly advise you to look him up on the web. He can offer "Entity and ghost clearing services". Or check out his "Orgone Buddah" that you can place on your "Geopathic grid line, acupressure point, or coffee table". (I am not making this up!)

Thanks for the laugh, Gerard! You have got your advertising now.

re: Crossed currents

Anti-Andy — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:24:14 GMT

Andy you are a disgrace to the human race. There are immense cancer cluster cases available proving electromagnetic harm on people of all ages. It’s a billion dollar industry that will never have the courage to close the Pandora’s box that it has created. It's not your fault Andy, thanks to two faced scientists on payrolls guys like you exist. Electromagnetic danger is here affecting all nature and ecosystems especially close exposures. People, birds, bees, livestock, etc. are all at risk - the facts are on the web.

The BioInitiative report and Cindy Sage should get a medal for their work along with other websites. You need to use the Internet to research up-to-date information and get with the program. A new thinking society is upon us for personal health preservation. For those of us who recognize.

People like you need to hear some industry white-coat tell you or prove to you how they want you to think. You twist things with your stupid antics because you like listening to your own crap. The real health issues still remain. Stay off this site until you muster up some courage to be pro-mankind instead of some selfish, short-sighted, wireless-stock holding moron.

You could at least support precaution. Shame on you!

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 00:53:05 GMT

Welcome Anti-Andy. Interesting to see you start with a personal attack.

Where is your evidence that there are "immense cancer cluster cases"? It is pretty hard to have a discussion when people feel free to just make stuff up.

The only medal the BioInitiative report and Cindy Sage should get is for creating a one-sided, distorted and fringe report and actually have people take it seriously. Does it not worry you that the report shows absolutely zero balance? I do use the internet and I can find plenty of reports that contradict Cindy Sage. Why does she not discuss these?

I would welcome you to give one example of where I have "twisted things with your stupid antics". Just one please. or are you just making stuff up again?

There are lots of things we could be precautionary about. Why do schools not have meteorite shields over them? Meteorite impact is a real and quantifiable risk that no-one disputes. One direct hit could wipe out hundreds. Hundreds of meteorites hit the ground every year. Will no one think of the children?

re: Crossed currents

Jim — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:10:21 GMT

With due respect to all opinions, the current argument brings to mind the plight of Galileo; when threatened by the Inquisition for his belief that the earth rotates and revolves around the sun, he recanted but was heard to comment: "Yet it turns"

re: Crossed currents

richard ponsonby — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:27:29 GMT

Andy, the The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) is funded by a levy on the mobile phone indistry. Do you honestly think they are going to bite the hand that feeds them ?

The Netherlands is the home of western Europe's largest electronics corporation Phillips. Again do you expect them to support findings against one of their largest companies?

Think again Andy, think again.

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:56:09 GMT

Richard - it is perfectly legitimate to question sources of funding when you find weaknesses in argument that are hard to explain in other ways. You have not. You have failed to point out where the reports have not been fully objective.

As for you insinuations - extraordinarily weak. The ACRBR is funded by a tax - therefore they must be wrong??? Note that it is a tax on - not a gift from - the mobile companies. The mobile companies have no say in the matter. And you discount the dutch report as Philips is home there? How does that work? Tenuous in the extreme.

Once again: arethe criticisms in the report valid? Is it fair to criticise the Bioinitaitive report for being completely one sided and hence unreliable? Answer that question before casting ludicrous aspersions.

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:08:29 GMT

I think it is also worth pointing out, since you bring up competing interests, that Cindy Sage, the principle author of the Bioinitiative Report, makes a living from her consultancy SAGE EMF Design: Environmental Consultant. This organisation earns its money from people who are scared of living in 'EMF Fields'. (http://www.sageassociates.net/)

Isn't this report just a blatant and cynical attempt to scare more people into taking up the services of people like Sage? It is one-sided, fringe and full of nonsense science?

Do you still wish to defend it?

re: Crossed currents

richard ponsonby — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 15:50:35 GMT

It would be interesting to know who funds quackometer, Bad Science, Sense About Science, etc. Maybe Martin Walker will do an expose.

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:36:55 GMT

It would not take much of an expose. All these sites openly declare their funding.

Is this the only way you can cope with evidence that contradicts your beliefs? Assume that the evidence has been corrupted by vested interests? What a sad world.

re: Crossed currents

richard ponsonby — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:14:15 GMT

Well they would say that wouldn't they? I wouldn't be susprised if Pharma cash is behind them.

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:53:50 GMT

Are you calling them liars?

re: Crossed currents

richard ponsonby — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 07:15:54 GMT

Of course not.

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 12:01:08 GMT

Well it is not clear at all what you are saying. How can these sites deny 'Pharma Cash' is behind them and yet you suspect that it is?

Anyway, all such wild speculation is a distraction from the vested interests that are right in front of our eyes: the Bioinitaitive report, and wddty sales of dodgy devices.

Indeed, the whole EMF scare thing only benefits people who are prepared to sell questionable products and services on the back of that fear. These are the central problems that you have failed to acknowledge exist yet, Richard, or discussed. Just like you blindness to the evidence that MMR is safe, you are blind the obvious here: Distorted science and vested interests in the alt med business world promote unfounded fear of EMF in order to sell useless products.

Given the quite obvious one-sided and biased presentation of the science in the Bioinitiative report, is it worth continuing this discussion until you address this issue? Why should we take it seriously?

re: Crossed currents

richard ponsonby — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 16:23:33 GMT

Its your old problem of only accepting evidence that supports the status quo.

You say that the bioinitiative report contradicts established evidence, Maybe the established evidence is wrong and the bioinitiatve report is right.

When smoking was first suspected as a cause of lung cancer, the tobacco companies spent lots of money supporting scientists who advocated the status quo.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

re: Crossed currents

Richard — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 19:26:01 GMT

You do not get it. It is not that there is some evidence that EMF may be slightly harmful. It is that the Bioinitiative report failed to mention and discuss that vast body of evidence that it is not. That is deceitful.

Any honest appraisal of the evidence would have to reflect the balance of evidence. Cindy Sage and her team do not. How can you defend that?

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 19:28:17 GMT

I meant, Andy said, obviously.

Answer this question: why does the BIR pretend this evidence does not exist by not weighing it against its own slant?

re: Crossed currents

richard ponsonby — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 22:28:16 GMT

The adverse effects of emf has to be considered a black swan.

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 23:26:59 GMT

Well I would agree with you there. Rare and unexpected things do happen. But you cannot say that because something is considered unlikely that the 'black swan' effect means it will happen. Rare or impossible things are still rare or impossible. Black swans are only 'black swans' after the event.

With EMF is is very unlikely to cause harm. Until we see such evidence to the contrary, we can only still treat this as an unlikely outcome. Before Europeans saw black swans they were thought to be impossible. The black swans, by definition, are exceptions. We are still waiting for the other impossible beasts - unicorns, mermaids, and the loch ness monster. The law of black swans means that of all the unlikely or impossible things we can imagine, one or two will come true. But it is a fool who is certain in advance which will come true.

re: Crossed currents

richard ponsonby — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 05:28:50 GMT

Science said black swans couldn't exist. Same with emf damage. Science says its impossible but it exists. Time to change the science.

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 08:43:47 GMT

Richard - you do talk some rot. Can you substantiate your claim that "Science said black swans couldn't exist". Any reference to a scientific paper saying black swans could not exist? it was 'popular belief' that black swans did not exist - a very different thing.

And yes, the unique aspect of science is that it does change and evolve as new evidence emerges. Unlike quackery, alternative medicine and pressure groups, that stick to dogma after argument and reason has been applied.

So, all you need is for a consistent and convincing set if data to emerge that shows EMF is harmful and science will change. The reason science has not changed is because such data is missing.

re: Crossed currents

Student — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 01:17:53 GMT

Hi, I have always found the subject on EMF interesting. It is undeniable that some EMF found in residential or working areas are also found at a cellular level (Bren, 1995, Polk, 2007, Liboff, 2005, Liboff et al, 2005, BEMMS, 2000, Bierbaum and Peters,1991, Becker and Selden, 1985, Blackman, 1984, Blackman,?). Therefore, it can not be said that EMF have no effect at all. It has some effect but it is not possible to be calculated with high accuracy how serious they are. Science do not fully understand yet the full effect of overexposure to EMF or ELF during long periods of time. However, as Andy pointed, there is evidence that shows no health risks, but then, what to do? prudent avoidance, e.g. use the hands-out mode when talking on the mobile phone, unplugged every appliance after using it, etc.

I find absurd that everybody try to ridiculed Andy. Science is not set in stone, but please, Andy is not lying.

Andy- check the references...

Richard- if you care about your children you should start learning everything related to EMF jargon and how to read the reports. I did not had a clue before but it worth the effort.

Learning always worth the effort. Never accept anything at face value. Develop Critical thinking.

A book worth reading: "Electromagnetic fields" by B. Blake Levitt

Bren (1995)http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel1/51/8966/00395318.pdf?arnumber=395318

BEMMS (2000) www.bioelectromagnetics.org/doc/bems2000-abstracts.pdf

Becker and Seldem (1985) http://www.conspiracyresearch.org/forums/index.php?s=2723ec43dda812a9e20eaae39836a71e&act=attach&type=post&id=313

Blackman (1984) http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112129288/abstract

Blackman (?) www.salzburg.gv.at/Proceedings_(12)_Blackman.pdf

Liboff, A. (2005). http://www.springerlink.com/content/x6k4124615g57814/

Liboff et al (2005) http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112128482/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Polk, (2007) http://www.springerlink.com/content/qhk1q07k5837n966/

re: Crossed currents

Student — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 01:25:49 GMT

Cancer and EMF:

"Teachers’ Cancer Cluster at La Quinta Middle School"

by Sam Milham, MD

Albany Medical College, September 1954-June 1958, M.D. Alpha Omega Alpha.

Intern, U.S. Public Health Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, July 1958-July 1959.

U.S. Public Health Service Residency in Public Health. Assigned to Monroe County Health Department, Rochester, New York, July 1959-August 1960.

Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, September 1960-June 1961, M.P.H.

Senior Resident in Epidemiology. Epidemiology Residency Program, New York State Department of Health, June 1961-1962.

Development Consultant. New York State Department of Health, 1963-1967.

Assistant Professor, Department of Pediatrics, Albany Medical College, July 1964-1967.

Diplomate, American Board of Preventive Medicine, June 1966.

Associate Professor, University of Hawaii School of Public Health and Medical School, 1967-1968.

Travel Fellowship, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 1971.

Section Head, Epidemiology Section, Washington

State Department of Health, 1968-1986.

Travel Fellowship, International Cancer Research Technology Transfer, 1981.

Washington State Public Health Association Annual Award, 1986.

Chronic Disease Epidemiologist, Washington State Department of Health, 1968-1988.

Clinical Associate Professor, University of Washington School of Public Health, 1968--.

Section Head, Chronic Disease Epidemiology Section, Washington State Department of Health, 1988-May 1992.

Adjunct Professor, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, 1989--.

Robert Carl Strom Foundation Humanitarian Award, 1990.

Member of Bioelectromagnetics Society, 1984--.

Self-employed, June 1992.

Elected to Fellowship, Collegium Ramazzini, October 1994.

Ramazzini Award. 1997

100 + peer reviewed scientific publications

and Lloyd Morgan, Director,

Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States (CBTRUS)

Member, Bioelectromagnetics Society (BEMS)

Member, Brain Tumor Epidemiology Consortium (BTEC)

Former Board Member, North American Brain Tumor Coalition (NABTC)

Bachelors of Science, Electronic Engineering, University of California, Berkeley

Electronic Engineer (38 years experience, retired 2002)

Columnist for Powerwatch (http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/index.asp)

Listed author, Long-term use of cellular phones and brain tumours - increased risk associated with use for > 10 years. Occup Environ Med. 2007 Apr 4; [Epub ahead of print]

Introduced the Benign Brain Tumor Registries Amendment Act into Congress (became law in 2002)

Twelve year brain tumor survivor

Twelve year’s research and investigation into the health effects from exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs)

lqms.net/Documents/LQMSCancerv94-18-07.ppt

re: Crossed currents

richard ponsonby — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 01:36:15 GMT

Student

Yes, I am learning a lot from sites like wddty. Unfortunately poor Andy is such a part of the system he pretends to criticize that he doesnt realize it.

More evidence for EMF and leukemia:

Click here for immediate access to the latest key research articles

Case-only study of interactions between DNA repair genes (hMLH1, APEX1, MGMT, XRCC1 and XPD) and low-frequency electromagnetic fields in childhood acute leukemia

A case-only study was conducted in 123 patients with sporadic acute leukemia (AL). The locations of electric transformers and power lines were noted in each area, and their distances from the houses of the study patients were measured. The intensities of magnetic fields (B) were measured in 66 cases. Unconditional logistic regression analysis was performed adjusting for age, gender, parental education and occupation, indoor and outdoor pesticides use, presence of television sets, refrigerators and microwave ovens in children's rooms and the presence of chemical factories or telecommunication transmitters within 500 m of the houses. The results of the gene-environment analyses revealed that an interaction existed between the XRCC1 Ex9 + 16 A allele and the presence of electric transformers and power lines within 100 m (Mean B = 0.14 μTeslas, μT) of the houses (interaction odds ratio, COR = 4.31, 95%CI: 1.54-12.08). The COR for the interaction of XRCC1 Ex9 + 16A and the presence of these installations within 50 m (Mean B = 0.18 μT) of the houses was 4.39 (95%CI: 1.42-13.54). Our results suggest a possible association between electric transformers and power lines and the XRCC1 Ex9 + 16A allele in patients with childhood AL.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a906347140

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 06:55:05 GMT

This is not the highest quality study - and has a fatal flaw. The researchers were doing multiple comparisons and do not correct for this. What this means is that they were looking at multiple risk factors (closeness to power lines, closeness to TV set etc) and multiple genes. If they had started out with one risk factor as a hypothesis, then the results would have been statistically significant. But because they do not, the results are not significant. By chance, if you measure lots of things, some will show a positive effect when there is none. The researchers make no attempt to correct for this or even acknowledge it. So, when one of the risk factors and one gene show a correlation, this is not impressive evidence, but what you would expect by chance. If other researchers were to repeat this, then it might be worth looking at, but as it stands, yet more junk science from the EMF lobby.

Yes - I am part of a system - is is called science - and Richard, if you were too you would have seen this problem quite quickly. Rather, you trumpet weak studies as evidence without any critical thought.

re: Crossed currents

jman — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:08:06 GMT

We are totally self sufficient, No power lines. Just solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro. No EMF as the batteries are buried underground 50 yards from the house.

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:27:22 GMT

No EMF? If you have electricity,you have EMF all around you, no matter how you produce it, I'm afraid. Your mains wiring is pretty good at emitting radio frequencies. Plus, EMF fills the air from radio and television transmissions, plus natural sources from space. Light is EMF. I guess you do not live in the dark. Plus rocks emit natural radioactivity. Humans contain emit infra-red EMF and have significant quantities of P-40 - another natural radioactive emitter. We are surrounded by EMFs of all frequencies, natural and man made. No escape. Nowhere to hide. Except maybe some deep mines.

re: Crossed currents

jman — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:56:48 GMT

not with the magnetic mountain, check it out

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:52:47 GMT

You will have to give me a few more clues.

re: Crossed currents

Harradineq — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 02:06:30 GMT

A terrible energy surrounds us.. Everyone who has died has been invaded by this factor and covered by it. We have EMF machines in every home that create it is using electricity to do so. Most of our food in contaminated by it, and very often we eat food contaminated by it. It is seasonal, and most of us can feel it.

Its called being cold. Next you'll be telling me that's a disease. It must be truly terrifying to be scared of everything.

re: Crossed currents

Student — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 12:10:58 GMT

Harradineq- Hi. Please, do not patronize the situation, it is very serious. Lots of people died of multiple types of cancer and NOBODY knows 100% why.

What you call being scared I call it being aware. Thus, learning how to adapt and become. The fact that science or yourself do not know those factors are at work it does not mean that they do not exist.

EMFs are everywhere and affect everything (biological functions) as much as some harmful chemicals from the synthetic or artificial materials we have at home (paint, varnish, cleaning products, shampoo, etc), or the preservatives,pesticides and additives from the food. Like every pollutant the problem is to determine which may cause harm and which may not, what are short term or long term effects, absorption rates, exposure rates, genetic factors and combination of multiple sources.

re: Crossed currents

Student — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:15:26 GMT

There is definitely something going on!!

Erogul et al (2006). Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation from a Cellular Phone on Human Sperm Motility: An In Vitro Study

Researcher's Conclusions:

These data suggest that EMR emitted by cellular phone influences human

sperm motility. In addition to these acute adverse effects of EMR on sperm motility, long-term EMR exposure may lead to behavioral or structural changes of the male germ cell.

Salama et al (2008). Effects of exposure to a mobile phone on testicular

function and structure in adult rabbit.

Researcher's conclusions:

In conclusion, low intensity pulsed radio frequency emitted by a conventional mobile phone kept in the standby position could affect the testicular function and structure in the adult rabbit.

Fejes et al (2005). Is there a relationship between cell phone use and semen quality?

Researcher's conclusions:

The low and high transmitter groups also differed in the proportion of rapid progressive motile sperm (48.75% vs. 40.62%). We therefore suggest that the prolonged use of cell phones may have negative effects on the sperm motility characteristics.

Belyaev et al (2009). Microwaves From UMTS/GSM Mobile Phones Induce Long-Lasting Inhibition of 53BP1/g-H2AX DNA Repair Foci in Human Lymphocytes.

Researcher's conclusions:

No significant differences in effects between groups of healthy and hypersensitive subjects were observed, except for the effects of UMTS MWs and GSM-915 MHz MWs on the formation of the DNA repair foci, which were different for hypersensitive (P < 0.02[53BP1]//0.01[g-H2AX]) but not for control subjects (P > 0.05). The non-parametric statistics used here did not indicate specificity of the differences revealed between the effects of GSM and UMTS MWs on cells from hypersensitive subjects and more data are needed to study the nature of these differences.

Belyaev et al (2005). 915 MHz microwaves and 50 Hz magnetic field affect chromatin conformation and 53BP1 foci in human lymphocytes from hypersensitive and healthy persons.

Researcher's conclusions:

In conclusion, 50 Hz magnetic field and 915 MHz microwaves under specified conditions of exposure induced comparable responses in lymphocytes from healthy and hypersensitive donors that were similar but not identical to stress response induced by heat shock.

Salford et al (2007). Non-thermal effects of EMF upon the mammalian brain: the Lund experience (19 years study)

Researcher's abstract:

The question is: to what extent are living organisms are created to function in harmony with these organisms affected by these ubiquitous radio frequency fields? Since 1988 our group has studied the effects upon

the mammalian blood-brain barrier (BBB) by non-thermal radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). These have been revealed to cause significantly increased leak-compared to non-exposed animals—in a total series of about two thousand animals. One remarkable observation is the fact that the lowest energy levels give rise to the most pronounced albumin leakage. If mobile communication, even at extremely low energy levels, causes the users’ own albumin to leak out through the BBB, also

other unwanted and toxic molecules in the blood, may leak into the brain tissue and concentrate in and damage the neurons and glial cells of the brain. In later studies we have shown that a 2-h exposure to GSM 915 Hz at non-thermal levels, gives rise to significant neuronal damage, seen 28 and 50 days after the exposure. In our continued research, the non-thermal effects (histology, memory functions) of long-term exposure for 13 months are studied as well as the effects of short term GSM 1,800 MHz upon gene expression. Most of our findings support that living organisms are affected by the non-thermal radio frequency fields. Studies from other laboratories in some cases find effects, while in other cases

effects are not seen. Our conclusion is that all researchers involved in this field have the obligation to intensify this research in order to reduce, or avoid, the possible negative effects of the man made microwaves!

re: Crossed currents

sasha — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:35:29 GMT

Scientific home test:

SCIENTIFIC HOME TEST

Tools needed: two mobile phones and an egg

Step 1: start phone call between both mobiles

Step 2: Place egg in the middle

Step 3: Wait 45 mins

see the results.

P.s I have not tried thIs test as it would cost me too much, but if you have the possibility try it. it might surprise you. then imagine what happens when you spend 45 minutes on the mobile.

P.S.S In our head we have red blood cells, which contain iron; and in a mobile there are magnets.

P.S.S. I personally feel the effects of the mobile phone after a few minutes. I am probably a bit sensitive. we have all got different sensibilities. But don't say nobody warned ya

re: Crossed currents

ANdy — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 18:51:45 GMT

Fantastic sasha - an experiment.

It is shame you have not done it though and have just assumed the results. I suggest we all do it and see.

But first a few points:

1) There is no need for two phones. Mobiles do not transmit to each other, but to base stations. Even if another phone is 2 inches away, they will still be communicating via a base station. Walkie Talkies talk directly to each other, but not mobiles. So one phone will do. The second is superfluous.

2) This need not cost anything. If you are on a contract, most people do not use all their minutes. 45 minutes could be for free. So just get a phone - place an egg next to it - phone your land line and chat to yourself.

3) Best have a control - all good experiments have a control. Place a second eggs a few feet away. The egg should be from the same batch and have been kept in the same conditions.

4) Crack open the eggs and see if there is a difference. Better still, get a second person, who does not know which egg is which to see if they can see a difference - that is blinding.

My prediction - no difference. Let's see, eh?

P.S. Blood is not magnetic. Total myth. The iron in blood cells is not in a magnetic form. Hold a strong fridge magnet next to your skin. Does blood collect around it causing a red blotch? No. Experiments are fun.

P.S.S. The magnets in a mobile are from the tiny vibrating motor and the speaker. Really, really tiny.

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 18:56:39 GMT

For the lazy - you might want to watch this...

Cooking an Egg With 200 mobile phones

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc-ne-nIKUY

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 19:01:44 GMT

For the mildly skeptical, you might be interested to see how the urban myth of mobiles cooking eggs came about...

How to Cook an Egg with Your Cell Phone

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_cook_egg_cell_phones.htm

"Sure enough, the site's Webmaster, one Charles Ivermee of Southampton, U.K., stepped forward to acknowledge authorship of the article and confirm that its content was purely satirical, not factual. "It was 6 years ago," Ivermee told Gelf Magazine, "but I seem to recall that there was a lot of concern about people's brains getting fried and being from a radio/electronics background I found it all rather silly. So I thought I'd add to the silliness." He expressed bewilderment at how seriously people seemed to be taking it. One British exam study site, he said, had republished the information without even attempting to verify it."

It would appear that the exam study site is not the only person guilty of not actually bothering to do the experiment, but just assuming the results.

re: Crossed currents

Brandon — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 21:47:58 GMT

The right question to ask here is whether Andy has any evidence that microwaves or any other electromagnetic fields do NOT cause any harm in the mid or long term to anyone?

re: Crossed currents

richard ponsonby — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:49:57 GMT

Of course Andy has no such evidence and never will.

Andy doesn't understand evidence, he discounts the evidence of thousands of parents who have watched their children regress into autism after vaccination.

He ignores the evidence from the BioInitiative report that emf are causing illness.

He ignores the surge in brain tumour diagnoses that coincide with the use of mobile phones.

The only evidence Andy recognizes is that which fits with his preconceived notions of the status quo.

re: Crossed currents

Andy — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:35:00 GMT

Richard - you simply distort facts for your own agenda. Here are my responses to your daft allegations:

"Of course Andy has no such evidence and never will."

Well, of course, it is not easy to prove a negative. No amount of evidence will ever prove to some people that mobile phones are safe. It is perfectly possible to be rational about the available evidence and understanding of the evidence to conclude that the risk of harm is, at best, very small. There is plenty of evidence out there to discuss this. The Stewart Report is a good a place to start as any.

Andy doesn't understand evidence, he discounts the evidence of thousands of parents who have watched their children regress into autism after vaccination.

"He ignores the evidence from the BioInitiative report that emf are causing illness."

You know this is not true. I dismiss it, like other governments have done, because it is a totally one sided report that ignores any evidence that does not support its extreme stand point. It is just not a credible document, edited by someone with a clear conflict of interest. You fail to acknowledge this simple fact. This makes you dishonest.

"He ignores the surge in brain tumour diagnoses that coincide with the use of mobile phones."

Surge? Evidence please.

"The only evidence Andy recognizes is that which fits with his preconceived notions of the status quo."

In your head.

re: Crossed currents

Jan van Kampveld — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 03:20:38 GMT

Why don't you just read the ICNIRP RF review 16/2009 (at this moment available from the home page <www.icnirp.de>) and check the EMF Handbuch by the Ecolog Institut (<www.ecolog-institut.de> choose Arbeitsbereiche, Technik und Umwelt, EMF und Umwelt, EMF-Handbuch (pdf), pages 24, 31 and 32 of 121). There you find the actual scientific knowledge instead of Youtube videos about cooking an egg.

Very strong indications, that the central nervous system is disturbed by high frequency EMF from 0,01 W/m2, and that cells are stressed from 0,03 W/m2. These values can be found in neighbourhoods and buildings with a lot of antennas around. And indications that cell proliferation increases from 0,001 W/m2 and just weak indications for 'electrohypersensitivity' from 0,002 W/m2.

The ICNIRP RF review shows lots of biological effects of high frequency radiation. All research into neurotransmitters shows effects, all (but two) research into brain electrical activity shows effects (though small). ICNIRP comments that these effects are transient, but our exposure to antennas is not transient ...

It is reasonable to accept that the biological effects have negative consequences now and then. As a matter of fact, there are many observations and anamneses that can not be explained otherwise.

Jan