Saturday, April 10, 2010

Principal Letter / 2nd letter / NZ School / Killer phone mast / FCC Wireless Devices and Health Concerns / Mast turned down / Health Canada

W.E.E.P. News

Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution News

10 April 2010

Letter to the Principal

Subject: FW: Joe left stuff in desk
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 17:16:44 -0500
Principal Griffin,

Thank you for asking the teachers to send me the Sunshine Standards and benchmarks.  I especially appreciate and identify with the Grade 5 Big Ideas in Science curriculum and wonder who at SDHC has reviewed them lately:

"Big Idea 1" :  "Scientific inquiry is a multifaceted activity; the processes of science include the formulation of scientifically investigable questions, construction of investigations into those questions, the collection of the appropriate data, the evaluation of the meaning of those data, and the communication of this evaluation.  Scientific argumentation is a necessary part of scientific inquiry and plays an important part in the generation and validation of scientific knowledge." 

"Big Idea 2":  "Scientific knowledge is based on empirical evidence...Scientific knowledge is durable and robust, but open to strives for objectivity..." 

"Big Idea 9":  Matter [like humans] can undergo a variety of changes.  Matter can be changed either physically or chemically."

"Big Idea 10:":  Energy is involved in all physical processes and is a unifying concept in many areas of science.  Energy exists in many forms and has the ability to do work or cause change." 

"Big Idea 11":  "Waves involve a transfer of energy without a transfer of matter."

"Big Idea 13":  "It takes energy to change the motion of objects [like cells or other waves, as in brain waves].  Some forces act through physical contact, while others act at a distance."

"Big Idea 15":  "Earth is home to a great diversity of living things, but changes in the environment can affect their survival."

I wonder if the people in charge of technology at SDHC are even Smarter Than a Fifth Grader at this point?  My guess is that they would leave the show empty-handed.  Perhaps it's more of a theoretical approach than one in practice--which is more often than not the case as I have observed.  At any rate, I assure you that Joseph and Natalie will be able to fully comprehend these concepts, critically think about them and apply them to the real world and their decision-making from our home schooling approach to Science.

Some of the things you said a couple days ago to justify your use of WiFi at Clark really disappointed me and deepened my convictions that I am doing the right thing by removing my children from your school.  You spoke of the risks you take in traffic getting to school, sitting at traffic lights for 5 cycles, and sun exposure, etc.  I told you there are ways to protect yourself and children from such things, but there is no way to protect them--or you, although the microwave levels in your office are low--from the microwave radiation to which you and your superiors choose to expose them.  I think you really are missing the point.  There are a lot of risks out there, undeniably.  In my opinion, the school should not compound those risks, but seek to minimize them wherever and whenever possible.  The school is supposed to be a sanctuary where the children are protected from harm and can learn and grow in the safest environment we as a society can provide them--it doesn't have to be a proving ground for "cutting edge" technology.  These are young children.  As Dr. Johansson said in a letter I forwarded to you and have reattached, children need "knowledge, support, confirmation, help, understanding, tenderness and love under the guidance of responsible and mature grown-ups in the form of teachers and parents."

You can provide that and so much more without WiFi. The WiFi is of no real benefit to them, I have not heard anyone speak of any benefit it conveys to the children over hard-wired computers.  No one; not one thing. You, yourself, told me WiFi is for the teachers' laptops and use at meetings.    And it doesn't even work.  Mr. Duggan has an access point right outside his door, microwave levels indicative of harm in his class room, and he can not even maintain a WiFi internet connection.  He uses a phone line.  How much will you have to increase the power density to get that system working?  And what will that increase mean to the health of the children and staff?

According to many scientists who are experts in this field, whose work and letters I have provided you, you are only harming the children with this radiation.  This is not good or even benign.  I don't know how you can believe you are doing the right thing for them as you told me two days ago. 

Debbie Rubin


Dear Principal Griffin

I am disappointed to hear that your school uses Wi-Fi in areas where children are trying to learn.  I strongly believe that this is an unsafe practice for the children and for the school staff who will be exposed to microwave radiation for long periods of time.

I challenge you to commence a learning initiative amongst all your pupils and staff to determine 'The health effects of microwave radiation".

I am sure that the combination of so many young minds with those of their teachers will come up with an accurate appraisal of whether Wi Fi technology is safe or not.  I have been researching the adverse health effects of electro magnetic radiation for the last six years.  If you find any reliable scientific evidence which demonstrates the full and complete safety of Wi Fi, please let me know, I may be able to relax in my concern for warning people about the dangers.

A simple 'Google search' of 'the health effects of microwave radiation' should reveal much information to your 'researchers'.  In order to save them time and to point them in the right direction here are some Internet sites that will provide reliable information -

There are also many other fine Internet sites from which to gather information. I hope that the Wi Fi exposure will not harm them too much during this 'educational opportunity' and the results may protect them for many years to come.

Please remember that you have a duty to ensure the safety of your pupils.  Just as you would not allow polluted water in the drinking water fountain, would not allow serious mould issues to go uncorrected, would not allow predators to roam the hallways, would not allow poisons to be sprayed around the school and would not allow exhaust fumes to circulate around the classrooms, you must determine if Wi Fi microwave radiation is hazardous and if it is, you have a duty to take action.

Yours sincerely

Martin Weatherall

Co Director WEEP


Dr. Grahame Blackwell 


commenting on the "very safe levels of electromagnetic radiation" (as defined by a school head) being emitted by a New Zealand school wifi system:

"I'm very  impressed that the head of a primary school is better informed than one of  the world's leading experts [Dr. Neil Cherry, whose paper is attached] on this subject - as he must be if he is able  to give such definitive assurances."

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dr Grahame Blackwell" Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: WiFi at school/ NZ - "very safe levels of electromagnetic radiation".

That's wonderful !! One might even say magical !! Dr Neil Cherry [ a leading RF/MW radiation researcher] was himself a New Zealander, and made at least one invited  presentation to the New Zealand parliament on the subject of health hazards of microwave-based communications. He expressed the clear view, backed by very substantial research, that the ONLY safe level of such  radiation is ZERO. Presumably, then, NZ schools are operating WiFi on emission levels of ZERO - the only level that can be regarded as "very safe" ? That is  indeed magical !!! Note that Dr Cherry himself ultimately died from Motor Neurone Disease,  which he himself was convinced was brought about by his substantial  exposure to such radiation in the course of his research. I'm very  impressed that the head of a primary school is better informed than one of  the world's leading experts on this subject - as he must be if he is able
to give such definitive assurances.
Can we take it that Chris Morris is  so sure of his facts that he will provide a written undertaking to all  parents of kids at his school that he will take personal responsibility  for appropriate compensation payments in the event of this radiation later  being shown to have caused any health disorders? If not, his words are  just worthless hot air.




Story Image

Villagers are blaming a phone mast for a series of cancer deaths and health problems

Friday April 9,2010

By Laura Holland

VILLAGERS are living in fear of a mobile phone mast they blame for a series of cancer deaths and other health ­problems.

Eight people living in Buckler, ­Cornwall, have died since the mast was erected in 2007.

The residents also fear for children and grandchildren who come to visit because of the health risks posed by the 33ft mast, which stands within metres of the 75 homes.

"We are living in a cancer cluster," said Peter Lewis, 68, who set up Buckler ­Village Mast Sanity Group. "More than 50 per cent of the residents said they have had serious health problems since the mast was put up. Then people started dying from cancer. Two more have just been diagnosed and one of those is terminally ill.

"I have severe vertigo, which my doctor can't explain. I don't sleep for more than three hours every night and my wife is the same. If you look down the street at 3am everyone's lights are on because we can't sleep."

June Parsons, who lost her husband Dave, 73, to prostate cancer a year ago believes the mast is to blame. "He did have a few heart problems, but apart from those he was marvellous," said Mrs Parsons, 78, who has suffered unexplained blood clots on her lungs.

Terry Southcombe, 75, has been told he has three months to live after being diagnosed with bladder cancer. "It was fine until that mast went up," he said. "For the sake of younger generations something needs to be done."

Mobile phone firm O2 said it did not recognise any health risks from such masts. "Scientists have failed to come up with anything to suggest that mobile phones or masts present a risk to humans," a spokesman added.

Also -


FCC Wireless Devices and Health Concerns

On November 5, 2009, the FCC released their Consumer Facts on "Wireless Devices and Health Concerns"


In this document, under "Recent Developments" the FCC recommends precaution for the use of cell phones as listed below.  It is clear that the September 2009 Senate Hearings had an influence.  Unfortunately this received no publicity that I am aware of and it should be front page news across the country.

Please forward this to interested parties and congratulations to those who participated at the Senate Hearing on Cell Phones last September.


Wireless Devices and Health Concerns
Consumer Facts

Current Exposure Limits

Since 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has required that all wireless communications devices sold in the United States meet minimum guidelines for safe human exposure to radio frequency (RF) energy. The FCC relies on the expertise of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other federal health, safety and environmental agencies to help determine safe levels for human exposure to RF energy. In adopting its guidelines for RF exposure, the FCC considered opinions from these agencies as well as limits recommended by two non-profit, expert organizations, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP).

The FCC's guidelines specify exposure limits for hand-held wireless devices in terms of the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR). The SAR is a measure of the rate that RF energy is absorbed by the body. For exposure to RF energy from wireless devices, the allowable FCC SAR limit is 1.6 watts per kilogram (W/kg), as averaged over one gram of tissue.

The FCC approves all wireless devices sold in the US. If the FCC determines that exposure from an approved wireless device exceeds its guidelines, it can withdraw its approval. In addition, if the FDA determines that RF exposure from a device is hazardous, it can require the manufacturer of the device to notify users of the health hazard and to repair, replace, or recall the device.

Several US government agencies and international organizations work cooperatively to monitor the health effects of RF exposure. According to the FDA, to date the weight of scientific evidence has not linked exposure to radio frequency energy from mobile devices with any health problems. FDA maintains a Web site on RF issues at

You can find additional useful information and links to some of the other responsible organizations on the FCC's Web site at Finally, the World Health Organization (WHO) has established an International Electromagnetic Fields Project to provide information on health risks, establish research needs, and support efforts to harmonize RF exposure standards. For more information go to

Recent Developments

Recent reports by some health and safety interest groups have suggested that wireless device use can be linked to cancer and other illnesses. These questions have become more pressing as more and younger people are using the devices, and for longer periods of time. No scientific evidence currently establishes a definite link between wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses, but almost all parties debating the risks of using wireless devices agree that more and longer-term studies are needed. After listening to several expert witnesses, a United States Senate committee recently came to this same conclusion.

What You Can Do

Even though no scientific evidence currently establishes a definite link between wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses, some parties recommend taking the precautions listed below. When considering these precautions, remember that your wireless device only emits RF energy when you are using it and that the closer the device is to you, the more energy you will absorb. Also, some parties assert that any potential health risks are probably greater for children than for adults. Finally, some experts think that low frequency magnetic fields rather than RF energy measured by the SAR possibly are responsible for any potential risk associated with wireless devices. The precautions are:

  • Use an earpiece or headset. While wired earpieces may conduct some energy to the head and wireless earpieces also emit a small amount of RF energy, both wired and wireless earpieces remove the greatest source of RF energy from proximity to the head and thus can greatly reduce total exposure to the head. Avoid continually wearing a wireless earpiece when not in use.

  • If possible, keep wireless devices away from your body when they are on, mainly by not attaching them to belts or carrying them in pockets.

  • Use the cell phone speaker to reduce exposure to the head.

  • Consider texting rather than talking, but don't text while you are driving.

  • Buy a wireless device with lower SAR. The FCC does not require manufacturers to disclose the RF exposure from their devices. Many manufacturers, however, voluntarily provide SAR values. You can find links to manufacturer Web sites providing these SAR values on the FCC's Web site at Note that the variation in SAR from one mobile device to the next is relatively small compared to the reduction that can be achieved by using an earpiece or headset.

Other Risks

Some studies have shown that wireless devices might interfere with implanted cardiac pacemakers if used within eight inches of the pacemaker. Pacemaker users may want to avoid placing or using a wireless device this close to their pacemaker.

For More Information

For information about other communications issues, visit the FCC's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Web site at, or contact the FCC's Consumer Center by e-mailing; calling 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322) voice or 1-888-TELL-FCC (1-888-835-5322) TTY; faxing 1-866-418-0232; or writing to:

Federal Communications Commission
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
Consumer Inquiries and Complaints Division
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20554.

For this or any other consumer publication in an accessible format (electronic ASCII text, Braille, large print, or audio) please write or call us at the address or phone number below, or send an e-mail to

To receive information on this and other FCC consumer topics through the Commission's electronic subscriber service, visit

This document is for consumer education purposes only and is not intended to affect any proceedings or cases involving this subject matter or related issues.

Federal Communications Commission · Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau · 445 12th St. S.W. · Washington, DC 20554

1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322)  ·  TTY: 1-888-TELL-FCC (1-888-835-5322)  · Fax: 1-866-418-0232  ·


Chorley phone mast turned down

Published Date: 08 April 2010

Controversial plans to install a towering phone mast in a residential area of Astley Village have been turned down.

Mobile phone giants 02 angered residents living close to the site in Chancery Road when they submitted the planning application for the 15m antenna earlier this year.

Campaigners vowed to fight the plans and packed a planning meeting on Tuesday at which councillors unanimously rejected the application.

Coun Mark Perks, who rallied residents to show their opposition to the plans, said: "This result sends out a clear message. Phone masts are not wanted in Astley Village and residents are intent on keeping the area mast-free.

"More than 130 people objected and we are highly delighted with the outcome."

Angry residents said they were worried about the health impacts and said the views from their homes would be blighted by the antenna.

Speaking after the meeting, ecstatic mum-of-three Sarah Glover said: "We are absolutely made up - this is fantastic news.

"There has been a lot of uncertainty in the last few months and we are glad that it is over now.

"Part of me though is just waiting to see where they will want to put it next, but no matter what, we will fight on."


Health Canada Dismisses Cell Phone Dangers

JINI on April-9-10

children_radiation_computers_cell_phonesWell, I received a response from the School Board to my earlier letter about cell phone and wireless computer usage inside my kids' school.

And their position – surprise, surprise – is hey, we just follow what Health Canada says! And Health Canada says there is no possibility of danger from radio frequency microwave radiation. Huh. So here's my response to the School Board Director of Instruction (and Health Canada):

Dear Mr. MacKinnon

Thanks so much for your letter of response. I appreciate you taking the time to look into this issue and then consider how radio frequency microwave radiation may be affecting our children.

As you pointed out, our principal did indeed respond admirably and promptly to my concerns about cell phones in the classrooms. Unfortunately, ongoing, you are relying on children to police themselves – and we all know how reliable that is!

My son informs me that since then, a new boy in class has received a cell phone, which he carries around in his pocket – turned on – so that he can send and receive text messages from his Dad.

Then I started thinking about all the junior high and high school students… do you honestly think they are turning off their cell phones (and remembering to turn them off)? Especially since texting is so big among that age group.

So, I applaud the fact that school policy against having cell phones turned on in the schools already exists. But I request you put some serious thought into the actual enforcement of that policy.

How about requiring students to place their cell phone in a basket on the teacher's desk and then the teacher (or a trusted student) doing a quick check to ensure that each is turned off? How about having random spot checks for cell phones with a seriously stiff penalty (like suspension for 3 days) if a phone is found left on? I'm sure if you put your head together with principals from several schools, you would be able to come up with something reliable and enforceable. I look forward to hearing your ideas on this matter.

Regarding the wireless computers, in your letter you stated that you are basing WiFi school policy solely on evidence and guidelines provided by Health Canada. Well, when you take a look at what's happening in other countries, I would suggest to you that Health Canada is either behind the 8-ball on this issue, or it is unduly industry-influenced. For example:

• Germany warns citizens to avoid Wi-Fi due to health risks – September 2007

• Russian Radiation Protection Agency gives urgent warning to defend children's health from RF/MW – April 2008

• Five public libraries in Paris shut down Wi-Fi due to health concerns – May 2008

• European Parliament votes to bring in stricter radiation limits – September 2008

• City of Herouville St. Clair, France removes Wi-Fi from primary schools due to health risks – April 2009

• Teachers in UK call for immediate dismantling of Wi-Fi in schools due to health risks – April 2009

• Sorbonne University, Paris passes moratorium on Wi-Fi – May 2009

• Los Angeles School District votes unanimously to protect children from ELF and RF/MW – May 2009

• Israeli Minister of Environment gives public warning on radiation emitting devices including Wi-Fi – July 2009

If the Health Canada standards are so accurate and reliable, then why have these other countries banned or warned against WiFi after recognizing that it is indeed a serious health hazard?

Obviously Germany, the UK, Russia and France do not concur with Health Canada's position that, "These concerns appear to arise from some media reports and dubious Internet websites which contain inaccurate, unsubstantiated, controversial or contradictory statements regarding RF-health issues." (quoted from pg 1 of the Email response from Consumer and Clinical Radiation Protection Bureau you sent me, attached to your letter)

Damaging health effects are scientifically shown to occur at levels thousands of times below existing public safety limits. Reputable scientists state that our standards (i.e. the Health Canada standards) are obsolete because they are based solely on thermal effects.

In mice, exposure for approximately 2 hours/day to a mobile phone (0.9GHz GSM modulated mobile phone; 23-36V/m, 0.41-0.98W/Kg whole body exposure) for four days resulted in cognitive deficits in the Morris water maze, a test of spatial learning and memory.  Exposed mice were less able to transfer learned information to the next day, and had deficits in consolidation and/or retrieval of the learned information. "Our results provide a basis for more thorough investigations considering reports on non-thermal effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs)."
- Fragopoulou AF, et al Department of Cell Biology & Biophysics, University of Athens

Whole body exposure with GSM 900Mhz affects spatial memory in mice,
Pathophysiology, 2009 Nov 30

"No scientific evidence has determined that wireless technology is safe . . . This exposure affects our whole body . . . Are we equipped to face this sort of radiation?  Has evolution provided us with a shell that can protect us? And obviously the answer is no, we don't have that kind of protection, so we are left to pray and to hope that it isn't dangerous, but it's an empty hope."
- Professor Olle Johansson, PhD
Royal Institute of Technology
Stockholm, Sweden

If WiFi is so benign, then why do insurance companies refuse to insure cell phone providers?

"Non-Thermal Effects Confirmed, Exposure Limits Challenged, Precaution Demanded…All across Europe, the debate on exposure limits has flared up; insurance companies do not insure cell phone providers because of the incalculable health risks."
- Austrian Insurance Company (AUVA) report confirming health risks associated with wireless technologies – July 21, 2009

I could go on and on, providing you with undeniably hardcore, reliable scientific evidence, but, if the Surrey Board of Education is resolutely refusing to look at any sources of evidence other than Health Canada, then I guess we have nothing further to discuss, or we will just go round in circles.

But if you are honestly concerned about being proactive and cautious with our children's health, then I would encourage you to hold a position of pure inquiry like, "What is the proven public safety record of these technologies?" and then look at ALL reputable, scientific sources in the investigation of this question.

It would be nice (and really time efficient) if we could rely on Health Canada to be proactive, thorough, and rigorous on public health issues. However, remember the cigarette/tobacco issue? Swine flu fiasco? Pesticides on lawns? Health Canada's record hardly inspires public confidence.

I remain hopeful that you will consider a more unbiased investigation of the facts – looking at non industry-influenced sources, non industry-funded studies, and reputable scientists worldwide who are willing to put their professional reputation on the line to speak up about this issue.

And of course, I am available to assist you in any way you would deem helpful.

Jini Patel Thompson

Cc:       Wayne Noye, Secretary Treasurer
John Ormond, Assistant Superintendent
Lois Layton, Principal, White Rock Elementary

Get Involved: You can download this brochure about the risks of Wi-Fi and hand it out to help educate your teachers, other parents, etc.

"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."

- Magda Havas, PhD
Associate Professor, Environment & Resource Studies, Trent University, Canada.
Expert in radiofrequency radiation, electromagnetic fields, dirty electricity and ground current.

"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."

- 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 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."

- Prof. Livio Giuliani, PhD
Spokesperson, International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (
Deputy Director, Italian National Institute for Worker Protection and Safety, East Venice and South Tyrol; Professor, School of Biochemistry of Camerino University, Italy

"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."

- 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

See more quotes from top scientists about electromagnetic research.

Web site    e-mail

To sign up for WEEP News:  (provide name and e-mail address)

W.E.E.P. – The Canadian initiative to stop Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution