Electrosmog on the circuit board
The smaller the components in electronic circuits, the more interference-prone they are. If the components are too densely packed, they can interfere with one another. A near-field scanner can accurately detect weak fields and help to protect bank cards against fraud.
Their miniature size is their strength – and also their weakness. Be it in cell phones, cars or computers, electronic components are getting smaller and smaller and increasingly powerful. The smaller they are, the faster they can switch and the less energy they need for each switching operation. However, as energy requirements shrink, so do signal-to-noise ratios. "Circuits are becoming more and more susceptible with each generation," explains Thomas Mager of the Fraunhofer Research Institution for Electronic Nano Systems ENAS in Paderborn. "Only a few years ago, it still took several volts to destabilize processors. Today, a few hundred millivolts are sometimes enough to disrupt millions of transistors." This means that designers of electronic circuits need to give greater consideration to electromagnetic compatibility. It is no longer just a question of protecting complete electronic packages such as cell phones or MP3 players against external influences, or shielding the environment against their electromagnetic emissions, but is also about how each individual component on the circuit board behaves.
In a collaborative project carried out with Continental and Infineon Technologies, the Fraunhofer ENAS has developed a measuring system that can locate even the weakest electrical and magnetic fields to an accuracy of a few hundredths of a millimeter. Where are there areas of conspicuously high electromagnetic radiation? How do the components influence one another? The near-field scanner can scan not only individual chips and processors but also complete laptops, cell phones or aircraft control units, and can reveal which types of field the test object is radiating.
"We are also working with our French project partner CEA-Leti on a function that applies targeted electromagnetic fields to the test object. In this way, we can test for areas that respond sensitively to external fields," says Mager. This makes the system particularly interesting for developers of smart cards. Fraudsters elicit confidential information from bank cards by bombarding them with pulses of laser light, electrical current or voltage. The resulting field patterns can reveal details about the chip card, such as its PIN number. The near-field scanner provides time- and space-resolved images of the radiated fields of the card, allowing their weak points to be identified and helping card developers to better protect their products against fraud.
Nous avons-nous aussi noté ce genre de problèmes.
Voici votre contact : Jean-Claude Albaret
Bien à vous
According to our observations about corrosion alone associated with wireless technology, the capital injection by the wireless industry into the economy pales as only a fraction of the cost to the economy to fix itself up / maintain status quo within a very short time.
The cost to reinstate transportation infrastructure, building integrity, etc already is in the trillions of dollars for items that are still being financed by way of amortization. Does the wireless industry think that people's money grows on trees?
Here, in a small Canadian town, are two covers freshly installed in mid-2008: one is above a underground conduit that irradiates microwave frequencies and already rusting after 3 months (at only 0.06 microWatt/cm2 on surface) , the other above a sewer relatively without radiation. We have observed hydrants, covers rusting within months what would normally take decades to eat away. Furthermore, the corrosion penetrates deeper than the coat of oxidation. The issue was brought to our attention by a nuclear engineer noting corrosion at edges of nuclear reactors.
You have my sincerest hopes that you will take a moment to comment on this program. Please forward this to anyone you feel appropriate.
Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty. Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
RE: Joint Broadband Technology Opportunities Program Request for Information: Pursuant to Section 6001 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Commerce's NTIA and Agriculture's RUS will hold a series of public meetings about the new broadband programs beginning on March 16, 2009. Through this notice, guidance is provided as to the matters to be discussed at these public meetings and the categories of information with respect to which interested parties may submit comments.
For more information, Please contact:
Broadband Technology Opportunities Program
U.S. Department of Commerce
1401 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20230
Please submit comments by April 13, 2009 - http://www.ntia.doc.gov/broadbandgrants/form.cfm
Wireless Radiation Alert Network
April 6, 2009
Electronic Submission via http://www.ntia.doc.gov/broadbandgrants/form.cfm
Dear Broadband Technologies Opportunities Program,
Broadband is a crucial and enjoyable technology that everyone should have access to. I laud President Obama's Broadband Initiative to bring broadband to underserved rural areas. This is quite clearly a massive undertaking and the technology used to implement this program will have long-term ramifications. It is imperative that the sustainability and the health impacts of this undertaking be thoroughly examined and considered in the choosing of the broadband technology. Sustainability and Health must be given the highest status as part of the Selection Criteria for the program.
For these reasons fiber optics is the most desirable technology to implement. Next generation fiber optics uses less energy and will therefore contribute less CO2 than other systems. In addition to the CO2 emissions from wireless communications the RF radiation, which amplifies in crystalline structures, may be a factor in the rapid melting of Arctic and Antarctic ice and in warming of the ice crystals in our atmosphere.
Fiber optics is also the clear choice for our Homeland Security needs. Fiber optics are not easily hacked into and they cause no RF interference with other communication systems. In addition they are mostly impervious to harm from nuclear radiation and any potential solar electromagnetic interference.
But, the clear reason as to why fiber optics should be used is that it will limit the amount of RF radiation the general population is exposed to. I was injured three years ago from chronic exposure to cellular antennas. I have been researching this issue extensively and I have found there is much scientific evidence, which indicates that there are biological non-thermal effects from exposure to RF radiation. I have also networked with people from all over the world who have had their health impacted by chronic RF radiation exposure. Many of these people, including myself, have had to quit our jobs and move from our homes in our effort to minimize our RF radiation exposure. I can attest from anecdotal evidence from my networking that minimizing RF radiation exposure is the only way to lesson the sensitivity to RF radiation that occurs from chronic exposure. While there is a growing population of people who have realized the source of their deteriorating health is due to RF radiation exposure there are potentially millions of people who are being harmed without realizing the cause. Doctors worldwide are reporting increases in new diseases. These increases have grown along with our growth of wireless communication antennas. Many countries in Europe and elsewhere have taken measures to limit RF radiation exposure. Doctors and scientists have issued warnings, especially for pregnant women and children, to limit exposure.
The U.S. must take steps to limit exposure to RF radiation. Our federal exposure standards are outdated and only take into account thermal effects. The exposure harm is not limited to humans. Animals, birds, plants and even our climate are impacted by the increase of RF radiation due to human wireless communications.
In addition to wireless systems, Broadband over power lines will increase RF radiation exposure unless steps are taken to limit the antenna effect of our current wire lines. The braiding of communication cables and the coupling of telephone wires limit the antenna effect and should be used for any power line broadband use.
With sincere hope,
Please refer to these supporting documents:
1. European Parliament resolution of 2 April 2009 on health concerns associated with electromagnetic fields
2. Pathophysiology xxx (2009) xxx–xxx Public health implications of wireless technologies
Cindy Sage a,!, David O. Carpenter b
a Sage Associates, 1396 Danielson Road, Santa Barbara, CA 93108, USA
b Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany, Rensselaer, NY, USA
Received 18 January 2008; accepted 30 January 2009
3. Petition to Halt Universal Wireless Broadband, A Public Health Hazard
4. Bees, Birds and Mankind Destroying Nature by `Electrosmog´
Effects of Wireless Communication Technologies
A Brochure Series by the Competence Initiative for the Protection of Humanity, Environment and Democracy
5. Power Lines as Antennas From 100 kHz to 50 MHz
Author: Ed Hare, ARRL Laboratory Manager1
Date: July 7, 2003
ARRL, Ed Hare, Laboratory Manager, 225 Main St., Newington, CT 06111, Tel: 860-594-0318, Email: email@example.com , Web: http://www.arrl.org/
6. Fielding a Current Idea: Exploring the Public Health Impact of Electromagnetic Radiation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17572456 (available as a html version here - http://220.127.116.11/search?q=cache:s0ce9PjgIh0J:www.electrosense.nl/nl/download/4+Fielding+a+current+idea:+exploring+the+public+health+impact+of+electromagnetic&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
7. BioInitiative: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF)
Report: available at http://www.bioinitiative.org
8. Expressions of Concern from Scientists in the last years
Physicians, Health Policy Experts & Others
William Rea, MD Founder & Director of the Environmental Health Center, Dallas Past President, American Academy of Environmental Medicine
"Sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation is the emerging health problem of the 21st century. It is imperative health practitioners, governments, schools and parents learn more about it. The human health stakes are significant".
Martin Blank, PhD Associate Professor, Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons; Researcher in Bioelectromagnetics; Author of the BioInitiative Report's section on Stress Proteins.
"Cells in the body react to EMFs as potentially harmful, just like to other environmental toxins, including heavy metals and toxic chemicals. The DNA in living cells recognizes electromagnetic fields at very low levels of exposure; and produces a biochemical stress response. The scientific evidence tells us that our safety standards are inadequate, and that we must protect ourselves from exposure to EMF due to power lines, cell phones and the like, or risk the known consequences. The science is very strong and we should sit up and pay attention."
Olle Johansson, Ph.D. Associate Professor, The Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden; Author of the BioInitiative Report's section on the Immune System.
"It is evident that various biological alterations, including immune system modulation, are present in electrohypersensitive persons. There must be an end to the pervasive nonchalance, indifference and lack of heartfelt respect for the plight of these persons. It is clear something serious has happened and is happening. Every aspect of electrohypersensitive peoples' lives, including the ability to work productively in society, have healthy relations and find safe, permanent housing, is at stake. The basics of life are becoming increasingly inaccessible to a growing percentage of the world's population. I strongly advise all governments to take the issue of electromagnetic health hazards seriously and to take action while there is still time. There is too great a risk that the ever increasing RF-based communications technologies represent a real danger to humans, especially because of their exponential, ongoing and unchecked growth. Governments should act decisively to protect public health by changing the exposure standards to be biologically-based, communicating the results of the independent science on this topic and aggressively researching links with a multitude of associated medical conditions."
David Carpenter, MD Professor, Environmental Health Sciences, and Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, School of Public Health, University of Albany, SUNY Co-Editor, The BioInitiative Report http://www.BioInitiative.org
Electromagnetic fields are packets of energy that does not have any mass, and visible light is what we know best. X-rays are also electromagnetic fields, but they are more energetic than visible light. Our concern is for those electromagnetic fields that are less energetic than visible light, including those that are associated with electricity and those used for communications and in microwave ovens.
The fields associated with electricity are commonly called "extremely low frequency" fields (ELF), while those used in communication and microwave ovens are called "radiofrequency" (RF) fields. Studies of people have shown that both ELF and RF exposures result in an increased risk of cancer, and that this occurs at intensities that are too low to cause tissue heating.
Unfortunately, all of our exposure standards are based on the false assumption that there are no hazardous effects at intensities that do not cause tissue heating. Based on the existing science, many public health experts believe it is possible we will face an epidemic of cancers in the future resulting from uncontrolled use of cell phones and increased population exposure to WiFi and other wireless devices.
Thus it is important that all of us, and especially children, restrict our use of cell phones, limit exposure to background levels of Wi-Fi, and that government and industry discover ways in which to allow use of wireless devices without such elevated risk of serious disease. We need to educate decision-makers that 'business as usual' is unacceptable. The importance of this public health issue can not be underestimated."
Magda Havas, PhD Associate Professor, Environment & Resource Studies, Trent University, Canada. Expert in radiofrequency radiation, electromagnetic fields, dirty electricity and ground current.
"Radio frequency radiation and other forms of electromagnetic pollution are harmful at orders of magnitude well below existing guidelines. Science is one of the tools society uses to decide health policy. In the case of telecommunications equipment, such as cell phones, wireless networks, cell phone antennas, PDAs, and portable phones, the science is being ignored. Current guidelines urgently need to be re-examined by government and reduced to reflect the state of the science. There is an emerging public health crisis at hand and time is of the essence."
Whitney North Seymour, Jr., Esq. Retired Attorney; Former New York State Senator & United States Attorney, Southern District of NY Co-Founder, Natural Resources Defense Council
"Electromagnetic radiation is a very serious human and environmental health issue that needs immediate attention by Congress. The BioInitiative Report is a major milestone in understanding the health risks from wireless technology. Every responsible elected official owes it to his or her constituents to learn and act on its finding and policy recommendations."
B. Blake Levitt Former New York Times journalist and author of Electromagnetic Fields, A Consumer's Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves, and Editor of Cell Towers, Wireless Convenience? Or Environmental Hazard?
Ambient man-made electromagnetic fields (EMFs), across a range of frequencies, are a serious environmental issue. Yet most environmentalists know little about it, perhaps because the subject has been the purview of physicists and engineers for so long that biologists have lost touch with electromagnetism's fundamental inclusion in the biological paradigm. All living cells and indeed whole living beings, no matter what genus or species, are dynamic coherent electrical systems utterly reliant on bioelectricity for life's most basic metabolic processes. It turns out that most living things are fantastically sensitive to vanishingly small EMF exposures. Living cells interpret such exposures as part of our normal cellular activities (think heartbeats, brainwaves, cell division itself, etc.) The problem is, man-made electromagnetic exposures aren't "normal." They are artificial artifacts, with unusual intensities, signaling characteristics, pulsing patterns, and wave forms, that don't exist in nature. And they can misdirect cells in myriad ways. Every aspect of the ecosystem may be affected, including all living species from animals, humans, plants and even microorganisms in water and soil. We are already seeing problems in sentinel species like birds, bats, and bees. Wildlife is known to abandon areas when cell towers are placed. Radiofrequency radiation (RF)—the part of the electromagnetic spectrum used in all-things-wireless today—is a known immune system suppressor, among other things. RF is a form of energetic air pollution and we need to understand it as such. Humans are not the only species being affected. The health of our planet may be in jeopardy from this newest environmental concern—added to all the others. Citizens need to call upon government to fund appropriate research and to get industry influence out of the dialogue. We ignore this at our own peril now."
Eric Braverman, MD Brain researcher, Author of The Edge Effect, and Director of Path Medical in New York City and The PATH Foundation. Expert in the brain's global impact on illness and health.
"There is no question EMFs have a major effect on neurological functioning. They slow our brain waves and affect our long-term mental clarity. We should minimize exposures as much as possible to optimize neurotransmitter levels and prevent deterioration of health".
Abraham R. Liboff, PhD Research Professor Center for Molecular Biology and Biotechnology Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida Co-Editor, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine
"The key point about electromagnetic pollution that the public has to realize is that it is not necessary that the intensity be large for a biological interaction to occur. There is now considerable evidence that extremely weak signals can have physiological consequences. These interactive intensities are about 1000 times smaller than the threshold values formerly estimated by otherwise knowledgeable theoreticians, who, in their vainglorious approach to science, rejected all evidence to the contrary as inconsistent with their magnificent calculations. These faulty estimated thresholds are yet to be corrected by both regulators and the media.
The overall problem with environmental electromagnetism is much deeper, not only of concern at power line frequencies, but also in the radiofrequency range encompassing mobile phones. Here the public's continuing exposure to electromagnetic radiation is largely connected to money. Indeed the tens of billions of dollars in sales one finds in the cell phone industry makes it mandatory to corporate leaders that they deny, in knee-jerk fashion, any indication of hazard.
There may be hope for the future in knowing that weakly intense electromagnetic interactions can be used for good as well as harm. The fact that such fields are biologically effective also implies the likelihood of medical applications, something that is now taking place. As this happens, I think it will make us more aware about how our bodies react to electromagnetism, and it should become even clearer to everyone concerned that there is reason to be very, very careful about ambient electromagnetic fields."
Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD Professor at University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden. World-renowned expert on cell phones, cordless phones, brain tumors, and the safety of wireless radiofrequency and microwave radiation. Co-authored the BioInitiative Report's section on Brain Tumors by Dr. Hardell
"The evidence for risks from prolonged cell phone and cordless phone use is quite strong when you look at people who have used these devices for 10 years or longer, and when they are used mainly on one side of the head. Recent studies that do not report increased risk of brain tumors and acoustic neuromas have not looked at heavy users, use over ten years or longer, and do not look at the part of the brain which would reasonably have exposure to produce a tumor."
Samuel Milham MD, MPH Medical epidemiologist in occupational epidemiology.
First scientist to report increased leukemia and other cancers in electrical workers and to demonstrate that the childhood age peak in leukemia emerged in conjunction with the spread of residential electrification.
"Very recently, new research is suggesting that nearly all the human plagues which emerged in the twentieth century, like common acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children, female breast cancer, malignant melanoma and asthma, can be tied to some facet of our use of electricity. There is an urgent need for governments and individuals to take steps to minimize community and personal EMF exposures."
Libby Kelley, MA Managing Secretariat International Commission For Electromagnetic Safety; Founder, Council on Wireless Technology Impacts; Co-Producer of documentary, "Public Exposure: DNA, Democracy and the Wireless Revolution"; EMF environmental consultant and leading appellant in challenging the FCC Radio Frequency Radiation human exposure guidelines, 1997-2000. (www.icems.eu)
"Radiofrequency radiation human exposure standards for personal wireless communications devices and for environmental exposure to wireless transmitters are set by national governments to guide the use of wireless communications devices and for wireless transmitters. In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Communications Commission set these standards.
The Council on Wireless Technology Impacts considers these exposure standards to be inadequate as they are based on heating effects and do not accommodate the low level, cumulative exposure conditions in which the public now lives. These standards are also designed for acute, short term exposure conditions and do not acknowledge the medical evidence pointing to increased risks and actual harm that results from chronic, intermittent exposure.
Federal and State public heath agencies are not officially addressing what many concerned scientists and medical doctors now see as an emerging public health problem. There are no health surveillance or remedial response systems in place to advise citizens about electromagnetic radiation exposure (EMR).
As wireless technology evolves, ambient background levels increase, creating electrical pollution conditions which are becoming ubiquitous and more invasive. We strongly encourage consumers, manufacturers, utility providers and policymakers to reduce, eliminate and mitigate EMR exposure conditions and to support biologically based standards."
James S. Turner, Esq. Chairman of the Board, Citizens for Health Co-author, Voice of the People: The Transpartisan Imperative in American Life Attorney, Swankin-Turner, Washington, DC
"According to the BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-Based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields—from electrical and electronic appliances, power lines and wireless devices such as cell phones, cordless phones, cellular antennas, towers, and broadcast transmission towers—we live in an invisible fog of EMF which thirty years of science, including over 2,000 peer reviewed studies, shows exposes us to serious health risks such as increased Alzheimer's disease, breast cancer, Lou Gehrig disease, EMF immune system hypersensitivity and disruption of brain function and DNA. The public needs to wake up politicians and public officials to the need for updating the decades old EMF public health standards. This report tells how."
Camilla Rees, MBA CEO, Wide Angle Health, LLC Patient education and advocacy
"The U.S. spends over $2 trillion dollars on health care each year, of which about 78% is from people with chronic illnesses, without adequately exploring and understanding what factors—including EMF/RF—contribute to imbalances in peoples' bodies' in the first place. After reading The BioInitiative Report, it should come as no surprise to policymakers, given the continually increasing levels of EMF/RF exposures in our environment, that close to 50% of Americans now live with a chronic illness. I grieve for people who needlessly suffer these illnesses and hold out the hope that our government leaders will become more cognizant of the role electromagnetic factors are playing in disease, health care costs and the erosion of quality of life and productivity in America."
L. Lloyd Morgan, BS Electronic Engineering Director Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States, Member Bioelectromagnetics Society, Member Brain Tumor Epidemiological Consortium
*"There is every indication that cell phones cause brain tumors, salivary gland tumors and eye cancer. Yet, because the cell phone industry provides a substantial proportion of research funding, this reality is hidden from the general public. The Interphone Study, a 13-country research project, substantially funded by the cell phone industry has consistently shown that use of a cell phone protects the user from risk of a brain tumor! Does anything more need to be said? It is time that fully independent studies be funded by those governmental agencies whose charter is to protect its citizens so that the truth about the very damaging health hazards of microwave radiation becomes clear and well known."
*For identification purposes only: All statements are mine and mine alone and do not represent positions or opinions of the Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States, the Bioelectromagnetics Society or the Brain Tumor Epidemiological Consortia.
Janet Newton President, The EMR Policy Institute www.EMRPolicy.org
"The radiofrequency radiation safety policy in force in the United States fails to protect the public. Currently in the US there are more than 260 million wireless subscribers, the demand that drives the continuing build-out of antenna sites in residential and commercial neighborhoods, including near schools, daycare centers, and senior living centers and in the workplace.
The January 2008 report issued by the National Academy of Sciences committee whose task was to examine the needs and gaps in the research on the biological effects of exposure to these antennas points out that the research studies to date do not adequately represent exposure realities. Specifically, the studies 1) assume a single antenna rather than the typical arrangements of a minimum of four to six antennas per site, thereby underestimating exposure intensities, 2) do not pertain to the commonly used multiple-element base station antennas, thereby not taking into account exposures to multiple frequencies, 3) lack models of several heights for men, women, and children of various ages for use in the characterization of Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) distributions for exposures from cell phones, wireless PCs, and base stations and 4) do not take into consideration absorption effects of exposures from the many different radio frequency emitting devices to which the public is often simultaneously exposed. A federal research strategy to address these very serious inadequacies in the science on which our government is basing health policy is sorely needed now."
Prof. Livio Giuliani, PhD Spokesperson, International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (www.icems.eu) Deputy Director, Italian National Institute for Worker Protection and Safety, East Venice and South Tyrol; Professor, School of Biochemistry of Camerino University, Italy
The Venice Resolution, initiated by the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS) on June 6, 2008, and now signed by nearly 50 peer reviewed scientists worldwide, states in part, "We are compelled to confirm the existence of non-thermal effects of electromagnetic fields on living matter, which seem to occur at every level of investigation from molecular to epidemiological.
Recent epidemiological evidence is stronger than before. We recognize the growing public health problem known as electrohypersensitivity. We strongly advise limited use of cell phones, and other similar devices, by young children and teenagers, and we call upon governments to apply the Precautionary Principle as an interim measure while more biologically relevant exposure standards are developed."
Professor Jacqueline McGlade Executive Director, European Environmental Agency Advisor to European Union countries under the European Commission
"There are many examples of the failure to use the precautionary principle in the past, which have resulted in serious and often irreversible damage to health and environments. Appropriate, precautionary and proportionate actions taken now to avoid plausible and potentially serious threats to health from EMF are likely to be seen as prudent and wise from future perspectives."
Paul J. Rosch, MD Clinical Professor of Medicine and Psychiatry, New York Medical College; Honorary Vice President International Stress Management Association; Diplomate, National Board of Medical Examiners; Full Member, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences; Fellow, The Royal Society of Medicine; Emeritus Member, The Bioelectromagnetics Society
Claims that cell phones pose no health hazards are supported solely by Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) limits safety standards written by the telecommunications industry decades ago based on studies they funded. These have made the erroneous assumption that the only harm that could come from cell phone radiofrequency emissions would be from a thermal or heating action, since such non thermal fields can have no biological effects. The late Dr. Ross Adey disproved this three decades ago by demonstrating that very similar radiofrequency fields with certain carrier and modulation frequencies that had insufficient energy to produce any heating could cause the release of calcium ions from cells. Since then, numerous research reports have confirmed that non thermal fields from cell phones, tower transmitters, power lines, and other man made sources can significantly affect various tissues and physiologic functions.
We are constantly being bathed in an increasing sea of radiation from exposure to the above, as well as electrical appliances, computers, Bluetooth devices, Wi-Fi installations and over 2,000 communications satellites in outer space that shower us with signals to GPS receivers. New WiMax transmitters on cell phone towers that have a range of up to two square miles compared to Wi-Fi's 300 feet will soon turn the core of North America into one huge electromagnetic hot spot. Children are more severely affected because their brains are developing and their skulls are thinner. A two-minute call can alter brain function in a child for an hour, which is why other countries ban their sale or discourage their use under the age of 18. In contrast, this is the segment of the population now being targeted here in a $2 billion U.S. advertising campaign that views "tweens" (children between 8 and 12 years old) as the next big cell phone market. Firefly and Barbie cell phones are also being promoted for 6 to 8-year-olds.
It is not generally appreciated that there is a cumulative effect and that talking on a cell phone for just an hour a day for ten years can add up to 10,000 watts of radiation. That's ten times more than from putting your head in a microwave oven. Pregnant women may also be at increased risk based on a study showing that children born to mothers who used a cell phone just two or three times a day during pregnancy showed a dramatic increase in hyperactivity and other behavioral and emotional problems. And for the 30% of children who had also used a cell phone by age 7, the incidence of behavioral problems was 80% higher!
Whether ontogeny (embryonic development) recapitulates phylogeny is debatable, but it is clear that lower forms of life are also much more sensitive. If you put the positive electrode of a 1.5 volt battery in the Pacific Ocean at San Francisco and the negative one off San Diego, sharks in the in between these cities can detect the few billionths of a volt electrical field. EMF fields have also been implicated in the recent massive but mysterious disappearance of honeybee colonies essential for pollinating over 90 commercial crops.
As Albert Einstein warned, "If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe, then man would only have four years of life left."
Finally, all life on earth evolved under the influence of solar radiation and geomagnetic forces that we have learned to adapt to and in some instances even utilize. The health of all living systems (ranging upward from a cell, tissue, organ or person, to a family, organization or nation) depends on good communication – good communication within, as well as with the external environment.
All communication in the body eventually takes place via very subtle electromagnetic signaling between cells that is now being disrupted by artificial electropollution we have not had time to adapt to. As Alvin Toffler emphasized in Future Shock, too much change in too short a time produces severe stress due to adaptational failure.
The adverse effects of electrosmog may take decades to be appreciated, although some, like carcinogenicity, are already starting to surface. This gigantic experiment on our children and grandchildren could result in massive damage to mind and body with the potential to produce a disaster of unprecedented proportions, unless proper precautions are immediately implemented. At the same time, we must acknowledge that novel electromagnetic therapies have been shown to benefit stress related disorders ranging from anxiety, depression and insomnia, to arthritis, migraine and tension headaches. As demonstrated in Bioelectromagnetic Medicine, they may also be much safer and more effective than drugs, so we need to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater."